2001 L St. N.W., Ste. 1000
Washington, D.C. 20036



Act 1286 (Limits on deduction for related party interest on intangible-related expenses)


Search for transfer pricing to find transfer pricing sections of the Franchise Tax Board’s Water’s Edge Manual.

Ruling on Application of Profit Split Method to Waters-Edge Taxpayers with Possessions Corporation Affiliates


Explanation of 2003 Law disallowing related-party interest deductions


Code section governing tax treatment of payments to related parties for intangibles and interest expense

Legislation denying deductions for intangible and interest expenses paid to a related party unless shown to be arm’s length


Study by Indiana Legislative Services Agency The Indiana Legislative Services Agency has issued a study that examines transfer pricing issues as they relate to state taxes.
October 1, 2016

Indiana Tax Court Rulings

    Columbia Sportswear: The Indiana Department of State Revenue had adjusted the company's net income because it determined that the intercompany sale of products had distorted the company's Indiana source income. The Tax Court ruled that (i) the Department’s reliance on Indiana Code § 6-3-2-2(l)(4) was improper because that statute permits the Department to use only methods that divide the tax base, not methods that recalculate the tax base; (ii) the Department’s reliance on Indiana Code § 6-3-2-2(m) was also improper because the designated evidence does not show that the Standard Sourcing Rules failed to fairly represent Columbia Sportswear’s Indiana source income; and (iii) even if Columbia Sportswear’s Indiana source income was not fairly reflected under the Standard Sourcing Rules, the Department’s adjustments would still be improper because they were unreasonable. The Tax Court therefore granted summary judgment in favor of Columbia Sportswear and against the Department.
    December 18, 2015
    Rent-a-Center, East, Inc.: The Indiana Tax Court granted summary judgment in favor of Rent-a-Center in a case that involved the payment of intercompany royalties and management fees. The Court found that the company's transfer pricing study established arm’s-length rates for the intercompany transactions and that the royalty and management fee payments were consonant with the transfer pricing study’s rates. Consequently, RAC East’s 2003 separate return fairly reflected its Indiana source income.
    September 10, 2015

High Court rulings on dividends paid to Delaware Holding Companies

  • Kevin Associates, January 2004
  • Gap Apparel, June 2004

Release on Settlement offer for taxes on payments to Delaware Holding Companies

Maryland Court of Appeals decision on Delaware holding companies (note, U.S. Supreme Court declined to review this decision 12/13/03)


Decision By Massachusetts Appellate Tax Board Related to Transfer Pricing
It is uncommon for transfer pricing cases to be raised at the state level. However, states are searching harder for tax revenues to make up for lost revenues resulting from closing/suffering businesses. Transfer pricing could be a new line of attack that state revenue agencies use to increase tax revenue.  This particular case involved International Data Group (“IDG”), which is a company headquartered in Massachusetts with affiliates in other states. IDG charged its affiliates for concentrated services such as accounting and marketing. The charges to its affiliates were deemed to be not enough by the Massachusetts Department of Revenue. However, this ruling by the Massachusetts Appellate Tax Board determined that the prices IDG charged its out-of-state affiliates were at arms-length.
April 17, 2009

Add Back of Interest or Intangible Expense Corporate Exercise
Select Supreme Judicial Court and search for royalties to find court cases involving the deductibility of royalties paid to related trademark holding companies. Especially: The Sherwin-Williams Company v. Commissioner of Revenue, Syms Corp. v. Commissioner of Revenue, and General Mills v Commissioner of Revenue.

New Jersey

Search for related party to find The Special Adoption and concurrent proposal pursuant to the Business Tax Reform Act

State taxation of foreign intangibles holding company

New Mexico

Hearing officer decision on Wal-Mart Royalty case

New York

Sherwin-Williams Company v. Commissioner

H.W. Wilson Company Foreign Sales Corp. not required to be in state tax return because transactions were arm's length.


Disallowance of certain intercompany royalties

South Carolina

New Limits on deductions for payments to related parties
June 9, 2005

Search for Geoffrey to find transfer pricing information, especially Revenue Ruling 98-3, Information letter 94-5, and PLR03-1


June 7, 2004 legislation on Related-Party Intangible Expenses


Utah Court Case – See's Candies
The Utah State Tax Court issued a ruling in favor of the taxpayer, See's Candies, Inc. The Court ruled that the Utah State Tax Commission should have exercised its discretion under regulations accompanying IRC Section 482 to the factual situation in this case. The Court concluded that the transfer price was arm's length, and it allowed 90 percent of the taxpayer's royalty deduction. Press reports indicate that the Utah State Tax Commission has appealed the Court's ruling to the Utah Court of Appeals.
October 7, 2016


Reliving of the Tax Commissioners denying deductions for royalties paid to an Intangible Holding Company

Ruling of the Tax Commissioner denying deductions for interest on loans from an Intangible Holding Company

Virginia Acts of Assembly - 2001 Special Session I (see pages 10 - 12 for Add back Provisions involving Related - Party intangibles expenses and interest)

Click on Rulings of the tax commissioner and choose PD 03-73 for a Ruling on Intercompany license fees and interest

For professional transfer pricing consulting services, contact Economic Consulting Services at 202-466-7720.
Or email jerrie.mirga@economic-consulting.com