Media Coverage
Source: State Tax Notes
Media Coverage
02.18.13
Jeffrey Vesely, who is head of Pillsbury’s state and local tax practice and is based in San Francisco, was quoted in an article on what constitutes as reasonable alternative apportionment under Section 18 of the Uniform Division of Income for Tax Purposes Act.
Noting the increased interest in alternative apportionment from both taxpayers and state taxing authorities, Vesely commented that the use of alternative apportionment is becoming much more prevalent, perhaps because of the trend toward a more heavily weighted sales factor. But in many ways, he said, the analysis turns on a long-standing state tax question: Is this fair apportionment? That is, does the alternative apportionment formula fairly represent the extent of a taxpayer's business activity in the state? Is it reasonable?
Vesely added that when proving the need for or arguing against alternative apportionment, practitioners "are always looking closely at how a taxpayer's income and factors match up." That does not require reinventing the wheel, he argued, but it does require a real understanding of how a taxpayer does business.