International Tax Review is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2023

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

Multistate US tax issues for inbound companies: Part I


Foreign companies with activity in the US are often surprised that such activity may trigger both federal and state-level tax implications. Even more surprising is that state tax exposure may vary substantially, potentially resulting in significant state tax liabilities when little to no US federal tax obligations exist.

Foreign companies may not be used to dealing with tax authorities within a country that have such broad taxing powers. For example, states are not restricted in their taxing powers by federal limitations such as engaging in a trade or business, having a permanent establishment (PE), or treaty restrictions. States are also not bound by uniform tax laws; each state may implement unique tax rules, making compliance difficult for foreign companies.

There are several aspects of state taxation that are critical for owners of non-US companies to understand, including a state's power to tax, income apportionment, state filing methodologies, tax starting point issues, treatment of foreign source income, transfer pricing adjustment considerations, registration requirements, and indirect taxes.

Activities that could subject a foreign entity to state tax

A state's power to impose a tax is derived from the US Constitution and may be limited by: (1) the Commerce Clause of the Constitution; (2) the Due Process Clause of the Constitution; (3) federal statutes, such as Public Law (P.L.) 86-272; and (4) state law, such as "doing business" statutes. US treaties generally do not apply to state taxation, unless specifically mentioned in the treaty or if a state voluntarily follows treaty provisions. A foreign entity should understand the various state theories that may apply to its activities that could subject it to state taxation.

A state may generally impose its tax on an entity to the extent a nexus, or taxable connection, exists between the entity and the state. Having a physical presence in a state will typically create such a nexus. While US federal taxation generally requires a threshold level of activity of being "engaged in a trade or business" or having a PE, a physical presence in a state is generally all that is needed for nexus to exist for state taxation purposes. Having employees or property in a state may be enough of a presence in a state to establish nexus. Thus, a foreign company may not have a PE, but it may have nexus and be subject to that state's taxes.

In addition to creating nexus through its physical presence within a state (for example, property or payroll), states may assert that a foreign corporation may have nexus through the in-state activities of an agent or affiliate. Additionally, some states have applied "economic nexus" or "factor presence" principles. Economic nexus could exist between a state and a company based on the presence of intangible property in a state. For example, the license of trademarks to a company in a state could create nexus for an out-of-state licensor on the basis that the intangibles are "present" in the state. A "factor presence" standard establishes nexus based on a certain level of sales activity into a state even in the absence of physical presence in the state. States such as California, Ohio, and Washington have enacted factor presence standards for certain taxes. California's factor presence statute, for example, provides that an entity is doing business with the state if the entity has more than $500,000 of California sales.

While economic nexus and factor presence concepts may be constitutionally suspect, until successfully challenged, they remain methods a state may use to bring foreign entities within its taxing jurisdiction.

One provision that may protect inbound companies is P.L. 86-272, under which a state is prohibited from imposing an income tax if the only business activity in the state is the solicitation of sales of tangible personal property, provided the orders are approved and shipped or delivered from outside the state. As the definition suggests, the protection only applies to income tax and the sale of tangible personal property. Service activities and other non-tangible property sales are not protected.

With broad nexus considerations, state nexus concepts appear to have a greater reach than US federal tax provisions when it comes to taxing non-US entities; however, there is one US federal tax requirement that does not apply to state taxation. A non-US entity that is neither engaged in a trade or business within the US, nor has a PE, may still be subject to withholding tax on US sourced income that is "fixed or determinable annual or periodical income" such as interest, dividends, or royalties. From a multistate tax perspective, the receipt of interest or dividends by themselves will generally not create nexus. The receipt of royalties will also generally not create nexus, unless such royalties are derived from in-state intangible property that is deemed to create presence in a state that has adopted an economic nexus rule.

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.

Thsi is the first in a series of articles looking at multistate US tax issues facing inbound companies. Look out for Part II next week.

more across site & bottom lb ros

More from across our site

The General Court reverses its position taken four years ago, while the UN discusses tax policy in New York.
Discussion on amount B under the first part of the OECD's two-pronged approach to international tax reform is far from over, if the latest consultation is anything go by.
Pillar two might be top of mind for many multinational companies, but the huge variations between countries’ readiness means getting ahead of the game now, argues Russell Gammon, chief solutions officer at Tax Systems.
ITR’s latest quarterly PDF is going live today, leading on the looming battle between the UN and the OECD for dominance in global tax policy.
Company tax changes are central to the German government’s plan to revive the economy, but sources say they miss the mark. Ralph Cunningham reports.
The winners of the ITR Americas Tax Awards have been announced for 2023!
There is a ‘huge demand’ for tax services in the Middle East, says new Clyde & Co partner Rachel Fox in an interview with ITR.
The ECB warns the tax could leave banks with weaker capital levels, while the UAE publishes guidance on its new corporate tax regime.
Caroline Setliffe and Ben Shem-Tov of Eversheds Sutherland give an overview of the US transfer pricing penalty regime and UK diverted profits tax considerations for multinational companies.
The result follows what EY said was one of the most successful years in the firm’s history.