Nexus News
Other than a certain area, the taxpayer never utilized the Licenses to provide telecommunication services in the covered areas.8 In 2013, the taxpayer sold its Licenses-excluding the carved-out area-that resulted in a substantial capital gain.9 The taxpayer reported the gain as nonbusiness income al...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of State Taxation 2022-12, Vol.41 (1), p.15-17 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Other than a certain area, the taxpayer never utilized the Licenses to provide telecommunication services in the covered areas.8 In 2013, the taxpayer sold its Licenses-excluding the carved-out area-that resulted in a substantial capital gain.9 The taxpayer reported the gain as nonbusiness income allocated entirely outside of Vermont, specifically New York.10 On audit, the Department disagreed with this treatment and assessed corporate income tax, interest, and an automatic underpayment penalty against the taxpayer.11 The Department concluded that the Licenses were neither located nor had a situs in New York.12 The Department determined that, because the taxpayer never engaged in activities related to the Licenses in New York, the Licenses did not acquire a situs there.13 The Department further concluded that the taxpayer's commercial domicile was in Vermont.14 A state trial court affirmed the Department's decision and the taxpayer subsequently appealed to the Vermont Supreme Court.15 Statutory Analysis There was no dispute that the gain from the sale of the Licenses qualified as nonbusiness income.16 The Vermont regulation provided that nonbusiness income is allocated to the state where the income-producing assets are "located" or have "situs. "18 On appeal, the taxpayer first argued that the Licenses were located in New York, rather than Vermont, because the Licenses provided the taxpayer a right to broadcast only in specific locations in New York.19 The taxpayer further argued that, even if the Licenses were not located in New York, the taxpayer was commercially domiciled in Connecticut, thus the gain should not be allocated to Vermont.20 The court first rejected the taxpayer's position that the Licenses-intangible assets-were located or had a situs determined that the terms "location" and "situs" were not intended to mean the same thing and that the term "situs" was a term of art referring to where an intangible asset is constitutionally subject to taxation.22 Although intangible assets can obtain a business situs regardless of business use, the right associated with the intangible must be fixed in a particular place and laws of that place must have provided protection and benefits.23 In the instant case, the FCC Licenses granted the taxpayer rights to broadcast in New York, but the rights were never used there.24 In addition, the rights under the Licenses were created by the FCC and were never subject to the protection of New York or benefits provided |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0744-6713 |