Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.comFirm Insights
Important Ruling on the Throw Out Rule
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Date: February 9, 2016
Key Contacts
Back
NJ Tax Court makes important ruling on the Throw Out Rule
Recently, the New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division upheld a previous decision that intangible holding companies are not required to throw out any out-of-state receipts.
According to a Reed Smith report, the Court ruled in Lorillard Licensing Company LLC v Director, Div. of Taxation that the state’s economic nexus law is applicable in determining if a company is subject to state tax in other jurisdictions as part of New Jersey’s “Throw Out Rule.” In what was ruled as a favorable decision for taxpayers, the corporation was required to pay lower state taxes on a subsidiary company as New Jersey could not raise its apportionment percentage.
The background of the Throw Out Rule
The state’s Throw Out Rule was originally part of the 2002 Business Tax Reform Act that called upon companies to calculate receipts into the corporation business tax apportionment formula. In essence, the numerator is receipts from a state and the denominator is receipts from all states. One problem is that not all states have a corporate income tax. The Court states that “The Throw-Out Rule modifies the sales fraction into one that divides New Jersey receipts only by taxed receipts.” If receipts are attributed to states where there is no corporation business tax, then the state tax apportionment percentage increases in New Jersey. Thus, by throwing out receipts from the denominator, the fraction increases the income that is subject to tax by New Jersey.
In a 2011 case, Whirlpool v. Director, the Appellate Court limited the application of the Throw Out Rule to operate constitutionally. In that instance, the receipts that were thrown out were limited to receipts not taxed by another state because the taxpayer did not have the requisite level of contact with that state to permit it to exert taxing jurisdiction.
Lorillard disputed the application of the Throw Out Rule rule by the New Jersey Division of Taxation. The company argued that in the determination of whether receipts are applicable or were required to be discounted from the denominator, the same economic nexus rule in Lanco, Inc. v. Director, Division of Taxation should have been applicable in this case. Lanco imposed tax upon an out-of-state intangible holding company that received a royalty for use of the intangibles in the state, Therefore, since the company would be subject to tax in those other jurisdictions, the receipts would not need to be discarded.
Oppositely, the New Jersey Division of Taxation argued that the tax itself as well as the state’s ability to tax companies, should be the primary determination for the applicability of the Throw Out Rule. Further, the Division of Taxation believed that the licensing agreement did not subject the company to taxation in other jurisdictions.
The court’s decision
The Tax Court ruled in favor of the company after it asserted that it was irrelevant if the corporation filed returns or paid taxes for those receipts in other jurisdictions. The Appellate Division then agreed with the Tax Court that the tax policies of other jurisdictions are not relevant. The only issue is whether another state could assert taxing jurisdiction in a manner that satisfied the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.
The significance of the ruling
The Division of Taxation may take its appeal to the New Jersey Supreme Court. Its argument is that there is a constitutional question or that it has the discretion of the court to pursue an appeal based on the application of the Throw Out Rule. However, from a broader perspective, the decision may only resolve Throw Out issues for the determination of whether intangible holding companies have a nexus in the state because Lanco, Inc. v. Director, Division of Taxation only determined nexus for intangible holding companies with licensing agreements with in-state affiliates. On its face, the ruling does not address the application of the Throw Out Rule to traditionally operating businesses where Whirlpool remains relevant.
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Related Posts
See all
Does Your Homeowners Insurance Provide Adequate Coverage?
Your home is likely your greatest asset, which is why it is so important to adequately protect it. Homeowners insurance protects you from the financial costs of unforeseen losses, such as theft, fire, and natural disasters, by helping you rebuild and replace possessions that were lost While the definition of “adequate” coverage depends upon a […]
Author: Jesse M. Dimitro
Understanding the Importance of a Non-Contingent Offer
Making a non-contingent offer can dramatically increase your chances of securing a real estate transaction, particularly in competitive markets like New York City. However, buyers should understand that waiving contingencies, including those related to financing, or appraisals, also comes with significant risks. Determining your best strategy requires careful analysis of the property, the market, and […]
Author: Jesse M. Dimitro
Fred D. Zemel Appointed Chair of Strategic Planning at Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC
Business Transactional Attorney Zemel to Spearhead Strategic Initiatives for Continued Growth and Innovation Little Falls, NJ – February 21, 2025 – Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC is pleased to announce that Partner Fred D. Zemel has been named Chair of the firm’s Strategic Planning Committee. In this role, Mr. Zemel will lead the committee in identifying, […]
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Novation Agreement Process: Step-by-Step Guide for Businesses
Big changes sometimes occur during the life cycle of a contract. Cancelling a contract outright can be bad for your reputation and your bottom line. Businesses need to know how to best address a change in circumstances, while also protecting their legal rights. One option is to transfer the “benefits and the burdens” of a […]
Author: Dan Brecher
What Is a Trade Secret? Key Elements and Legal Protections Explained
What is a trade secret and why you you protect them? Technology has made trade secret theft even easier and more prevalent. In fact, businesses lose billions of dollars every year due to trade secret theft committed by employees, competitors, and even foreign governments. But what is a trade secret? And how do you protect […]
Author: Ronald S. Bienstock
What Is Title Insurance? Safeguarding Against Title Defects
If you are considering the purchase of a property, you may wonder — what is title insurance, do I need it, and why do I need it? Even seasoned property owners may question if the added expense and extra paperwork is really necessary, especially considering that people and entities insured by title insurance make fewer […]
Author: Patrick T. Conlon
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!
Explore What Matters Most to You.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Important Ruling on the Throw Out Rule
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
NJ Tax Court makes important ruling on the Throw Out Rule
Recently, the New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division upheld a previous decision that intangible holding companies are not required to throw out any out-of-state receipts.
According to a Reed Smith report, the Court ruled in Lorillard Licensing Company LLC v Director, Div. of Taxation that the state’s economic nexus law is applicable in determining if a company is subject to state tax in other jurisdictions as part of New Jersey’s “Throw Out Rule.” In what was ruled as a favorable decision for taxpayers, the corporation was required to pay lower state taxes on a subsidiary company as New Jersey could not raise its apportionment percentage.
The background of the Throw Out Rule
The state’s Throw Out Rule was originally part of the 2002 Business Tax Reform Act that called upon companies to calculate receipts into the corporation business tax apportionment formula. In essence, the numerator is receipts from a state and the denominator is receipts from all states. One problem is that not all states have a corporate income tax. The Court states that “The Throw-Out Rule modifies the sales fraction into one that divides New Jersey receipts only by taxed receipts.” If receipts are attributed to states where there is no corporation business tax, then the state tax apportionment percentage increases in New Jersey. Thus, by throwing out receipts from the denominator, the fraction increases the income that is subject to tax by New Jersey.
In a 2011 case, Whirlpool v. Director, the Appellate Court limited the application of the Throw Out Rule to operate constitutionally. In that instance, the receipts that were thrown out were limited to receipts not taxed by another state because the taxpayer did not have the requisite level of contact with that state to permit it to exert taxing jurisdiction.
Lorillard disputed the application of the Throw Out Rule rule by the New Jersey Division of Taxation. The company argued that in the determination of whether receipts are applicable or were required to be discounted from the denominator, the same economic nexus rule in Lanco, Inc. v. Director, Division of Taxation should have been applicable in this case. Lanco imposed tax upon an out-of-state intangible holding company that received a royalty for use of the intangibles in the state, Therefore, since the company would be subject to tax in those other jurisdictions, the receipts would not need to be discarded.
Oppositely, the New Jersey Division of Taxation argued that the tax itself as well as the state’s ability to tax companies, should be the primary determination for the applicability of the Throw Out Rule. Further, the Division of Taxation believed that the licensing agreement did not subject the company to taxation in other jurisdictions.
The court’s decision
The Tax Court ruled in favor of the company after it asserted that it was irrelevant if the corporation filed returns or paid taxes for those receipts in other jurisdictions. The Appellate Division then agreed with the Tax Court that the tax policies of other jurisdictions are not relevant. The only issue is whether another state could assert taxing jurisdiction in a manner that satisfied the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.
The significance of the ruling
The Division of Taxation may take its appeal to the New Jersey Supreme Court. Its argument is that there is a constitutional question or that it has the discretion of the court to pursue an appeal based on the application of the Throw Out Rule. However, from a broader perspective, the decision may only resolve Throw Out issues for the determination of whether intangible holding companies have a nexus in the state because Lanco, Inc. v. Director, Division of Taxation only determined nexus for intangible holding companies with licensing agreements with in-state affiliates. On its face, the ruling does not address the application of the Throw Out Rule to traditionally operating businesses where Whirlpool remains relevant.