Multistate US tax issues for inbound companies: Part II - multistate apportionment

International Tax Review is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Garden, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Multistate US tax issues for inbound companies: Part II - multistate apportionment

us2.jpg

Non-US entities may be familiar with the US federal tax concept of effectively connected income. That is, being taxed on income that is derived from a US business; however, for multistate tax purposes, a percentage of the entire net income of an entity (or group of entities, as discussed below) may be subject to tax by a state. That percentage generally relates to the proportionate level of activity the entity has with the state as compared with its activity outside the state.

Activity may be measured by the relative in-state sales, property, payroll, or any combination of the three. Some states give greater weight to sales activity than property and payroll. A current trend among states is a move to a single-sales weighted apportionment factor. A single-sales factor results in states increasing their taxable reach among out-of-state taxpayers because the absence of in-state property and payroll does not serve to dilute the apportionment percentage assigned to the state as it would for a state that incorporates a property or payroll factor.

Complexities arise as states do not uniformly apportion income. For example, the assignment of service income to a particular state may be treated in various ways. Some states source service income to the location where the provider incurs the greater cost in performing the service. Other states employ a marketplace approach, sourcing to where the customer receives the benefit of the service.

Sales of tangible personal property are generally sourced to the state of destination. One exception applies to the extent a state has a throwback rule. Under throwback, sales are sourced to the state of origin if the taxpayer does not have nexus with the destination state or country.

The potential combination of a state asserting nexus based merely on a company having a certain threshold level of sales in a state, along with a single-sales factor apportionment regime and US treaties not binding the state, could result in substantial state income tax liability for an inbound company.

Joel Walters, based in Washington, DC, is PwC's US Inbound Tax leader. Maureen Pechacek, based in Minneapolis, and Todd Roberts, based in Denver, are partners in the firm's State and Local Tax practice. The authors give special thanks to Michael Santoro.

This is the second in a series of articles looking at multistate US tax issues facing inbound companies. Part I looked at instances and activities that could subject a foreign entity to state tax. Look out for Part III next week.

more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

Hany Elnaggar examines how the OECD’s global minimum tax is reshaping PE concepts across the GCC, shifting the focus from formal presence to substantive economic activity
The combination between Ashurst and Perkins Coie, which will create a $2.8 bn law firm, is expected to close in Q3
The ‘highly regarded’ Stephanie Pantelidaki, who has big four experience, will be based in the firm’s London office
A co-operative working relationship with the UK tax agency has helped 'unblock entrenched positions' to the benefit of clients, Kara Heggs tells ITR
New hires from rivals are reportedly being axed from the firm, following a steep decline in profits
Following Richard Houston’s switch to the newly formed Deloitte EMEA, Graves has the opportunity to bring Deloitte’s tax practice up to speed with its rivals
Firms announced tax hires and promotions across Europe and the US, while fresh figures from Ireland showed corporation tax receipts edging down in the first quarter
The country has overseen better audit procedures and demonstrated commitment to acting as a 'regional leader' on international tax matters, the OECD said
Barrister Setu Kamal and policy guru Dan Neidle have clashed over the former’s legal action against Google, described as ‘bonkers’ by Neidle
Authors from Khaitan & Co evaluate the recent CBDT notification, whereby legacy investments made by investors continue to be exempt from the applicability of GAAR
Gift this article