Court Listens to Dental Argument in Nj Partnership Nexus Situation: Tough Questions for Division of Taxation

Court Listens to Dental Argument in Nj Partnership Nexus Situation: Tough Questions for Division of Taxation

Court Listens to Dental Argument in Nj Partnership Nexus Situation: Tough Questions for Division of Taxation

The 2009 week, a Nj appellate court heard dental argument in BIS LP, Corporation. v. Director, Div. of Taxation, the lead situation addressing the problem of whether a company limited partner is taxed on its distributive share of earnings from the partnership conducting business in Nj. A legal court appeared skeptical from the Division of Taxation’s arguments, suggesting the Division have a hard time prevailing only at that level. Meanwhile, the Division includes a new voluntary disclosure initiative for partnerships and partners that runs from March 15, 2014 through May 15, 2014.


The citizen, BIS LP, Corporation. (“BIS”), held a 99 % limited partnership curiosity about a restricted partnership which was headquartered in Nj. BIS would be a Delaware corporation without any offices, property, or employees in Nj. Its only earnings was its distributive share in the partnership, that it shared some corporate officials. BIS contended it had become non-unitary using the partnership which its curiosity about their bond didn’t create tax nexus with Nj.

Accordingly, BIS requested reimbursement from the Nj corporation business tax “withheld” on its account through the in 2009, the Nj Tax Court ruled in support of BIS.2 Then, this year, the Appellate Division from the Nj Superior Court (the intermediate court of appeals) affirmed, but remanded the situation to the Tax Court to find out whether BIS or even the partnership is deserving of the refund.3 On remand, the Tax Court ruled that BIS (the partner) was titled towards the refund.4 (We examined these decisions at length inside a previous article and teleseminar. To gain access to that content, please click the link.)

The Division appealed the Tax Court’s decision to the appeals court, which held dental argument on Tuesday before a 2-judge panel.

Hard Time for Division during Dental Argument

The Division contended that neither their bond nor the partner was titled towards the refund. The Division contended when a company partner does not have nexus with Nj, it can’t obtain the refund because it isn’t a “taxpayer” underneath the statute. The Division further contended the partnership couldn’t obtain the refund since the partnership never filed reimbursement claim and the like claims would certainly be time barred. The Division’s position, therefore, was that Nj “should reach keep your money.”

A legal court made an appearance unmoved through the Division’s reasoning. A legal court had formerly ruled the partner was without nexus and noticed that the problem on remand was restricted to if the refund ought to be purchased compensated towards the partnership or even the partner. In a number of difficult questions, a legal court requested if the Division was attempting to re-litigate problems that a legal court had already made the decision. Particularly, a legal court recommended the Division’s position had “morphed” into if the Condition needed to pay reimbursement whatsoever and requested whether it was past the scope from the issue prior to the court.

According to dental argument, it appears the Division have a hard time convincing the appeals court to turn back Tax Court’s decision that the corporate limited partner is titled to some refund of tax withheld on its account with a non-unitary partnership.

When the appeals court affirms, expect the Division to attract the Nj Top Court. At this level, the Division will probably create a two-pronged argument: (1) the lower courts must have figured that BIS and also the partnership were unitary and, consequently, that BIS had nexus with Nj and (2) the statute imposes an organization-level tax on partnerships which the Condition still will get to help keep any tax compensated-the portion compensated with respect to limited partners without Nj tax nexus. So far, the Division hasn’t centered on the 2nd argument. This can be because of constitutional issues with the positioning: under this interpretation, the statute imposes an organization-level tax only on partnerships without having-of-condition partners and therefore discriminates against interstate commerce.5

Next Steps for Taxpayers

If your partnership conducting business in Nj has compensated Nj corporation business tax with respect to any nonresident partners, refund claims could be filed to obtain that tax back. To prevent time limit problems, both partner and also the partnership might need to file claims. A partner with relatively weak non-unitary details might be able to prevail under New Jersey’s citizen-friendly situation law-whether or not the partner takes a unitary position in other states. (Remember, BIS’s only asset was its curiosity about the limited partnership, and BIS owned 99 % from the limited partnership still, these were held to become non-unitary.) But taxpayers must evaluate potential risks and exposures before filing any claim. In a few instances, the Division will grant the partner reimbursement however measure the partnership a corresponding amount plus interest and penalties. If BIS ultimately wins the situation, the Division could have a hard time sustaining these assessments. Still, it’s an issue that needs consideration.

The Division has additionally announced a brand new voluntary disclosure initiative for partners and partnerships which have not formerly filed tax statements. Even though the Division hasn’t particularly indicated what it really is going to do following the initiative ends on May 15, it wouldn’t come as a surprise when the initiative is adopted with a restored audit focus. Therefore, regardless of the Division’s struggles within the BIS situation, the VDA initiative is one thing that partners and partnerships should a minimum of consider.

If you are looking at a lot of the BIS situation or New Jersey’s new voluntary disclosure initiative, please contact among the authors of the alert, or even the Reed Cruz attorney that you normally work. For additional info on Reed Smith’s Nj tax practice, visit world wide

1. A partnership conducting business in Nj is needed to remit corporation business tax with respect to any non-resident corporate partners the tax compensated is credited towards the non-resident partners according to each partner’s share from the partnership’s apportioned internet earnings. See N.J.S.A. 54:10A-15.11.

2. 25 N.J. Tax 88 (Tax Ct. 2009).

3. 26 N.J. Tax 489 (Application. Div. 2011).

4. 27 N.J. Tax 58, 67 (Tax Ct. 2012).

5. The Christie Administration’s newest suggested condition budget mentions a legislative fix to revise the statute and be sure that Nj collects tax on partnership earnings. FY 2015 Budget Summary at 31, offered at http://world wide



Related Posts
Leave a reply