Minnesota High Court Ruling Will Increase Business Tax Compliance Costs
Decades ago, Congress limited states’ ability to impose tax nexus over businesses with minimal connections to their jurisdiction. However, a recent Minnesota Supreme Court decision underscores that the federal Interstate Income Act of 1959, at least from Minnesota’s tax standpoint, holds little weight. This ruling adds complexity to the already intricate tax landscape for multistate firms, leading to potentially higher compliance costs.
Background of the Ruling
In affirming a tax court decision, the Minnesota High Court ruled that 15 U.S.C. § 381’s immunity from income and franchise tax applies narrowly. Uline, the petitioner, owes franchise tax for the years 2014 and 2015. The statute, also known as Public Law 86-272 or the Federal Interstate Income Act, prevents states from taxing a foreign corporation’s net income generated from interstate commerce if the only business activity within the state is soliciting orders for tangible personal property.
Implications for Uline
Uline argued that it conducted market research strictly related to sales solicitations in Minnesota during the disputed years. The state revenue department disagreed, imposing franchise taxes, which were upheld by the tax court and reaffirmed by the High Court. The court deemed Uline’s market research as non-qualifying for the de minimis exemption due to its intensive nature and broader accessibility within the company. This decision enables Minnesota to levy taxes on out-of-state firms preparing to potentially conduct business within the state.
Impact on Businesses
Businesses must now carefully align their in-state activities directly with sales solicitations to avoid tax liabilities. This shift is likely to impact small-to-midsize manufacturers the most, as they may have limited in-state presence beyond soliciting sales. Whereas larger corporations already engage in broader in-state activities, potentially negating the protections of P.L. 86-272.
Broader Consequences
This ruling could have a dampening effect on business operations. It may lead to higher compliance costs and alter companies’ in-state strategies—potentially limiting certain activities or restructuring operations to minimize tax liabilities. Smaller businesses, lacking the resources of larger firms to navigate complex tax compliance, might face significant challenges.
Future Considerations
The decision sets a precedent that other states might follow, leading to more aggressive tax enforcement and litigation as businesses challenge state tax assessments. This could make the legal landscape for state taxation of out-of-state businesses more complex and contentious. The ruling might also prompt calls for more precise federal legislation to address state taxation of interstate commerce, given current economic realities and the changing nature of business activities.
Conclusion
Minnesota’s ruling, amidst similar actions by other states, highlights the need for updated federal protections. With an evolving economy, it may be time for Congress to revise P.L. 86-272 to better align with modern business practices and limit substantial tax burdens on businesses with minimal state contacts.
Stay Informed on Business Tax Policies Impacting You
Subscribe to receive insights from our trusted experts right in your inbox.
Share This Article
[Twitter]()
[LinkedIn]()
[Facebook]()
[Email]()
