Should states embrace GILTI? has been saved
Perspectives
Should states embrace GILTI?
Proceed with caution, hazards ahead
In this edition of Board Briefs, board members of State Tax Notes were asked to weigh in on whether states should embrace GILTI. Valerie C. Dickerson, a Tax partner and leader of Deloitte’s Washington National Tax-Multistate practice, provides her insight on state tax matters. This article was originally published in State Tax Notes, Board Briefs, March 18, 2019.
Proceed with caution, hazards ahead
While the tax department trend continues of “doing more with less,” the sheer increased administrative burden of post-tax reform state filing compliance leaves many “doing less with more”—less time on analysis and planning, and more time on compliance with increased complexity, if not increased volume. While a number of states (and localities notably, the city of Philadelphia) have prioritized issuing timely guidance, even
Conformity isn’t just a matter of opting in or opting out. Important state tax policy decisions are at stake. State tax policymakers have the opportunity to reflect on the federal and state taxing regimes and the carefully considered means by which their state has previously dealt with arguably the same issues. For example, both GILTI inclusion and the states’ related-party intangible expense
In any event, whether a state conforms to the GILTI regime, taxpayers need guidance. For example, worldwide combined reporting taxpayers need guidance on the treatment of
Companies facing inadequate factor representation as compared to the amount of GILTI inclusion may consider computing taxable income and filing on a worldwide basis even in waterʹs-edge combined reporting states to alleviate the increased tax burden. However, states could potentially stem that tide by confirming a dividend-received-deduction (DRD) approach or by adopting additional apportionment factor provisions that deal with
States adopting or considering adopting the GILTI provisions face the responsibility to ensure that
Regardless of whether a state conforms to the GILTI regime, the battle for certainty will continue. Absent pertinent state tax guidance, a mix of both practicality and experimentation seem likely to prevail with years of resolution to come.
1 States are constitutionally required in any apportionment formula to use factors that “actually reflect a reasonable sense of how income is generated.” See Container Corp. of America v. Franchise Tax Board, 463 U.S.159, 169 (1983).