Tax Professional usually responds in minutes
Our tax advisers are all verified
Unlimited follow-up questions
Coca-Cola, one of the world’s largest beverage companies, has been ordered to pay $6 billion in back taxes and interest to the US Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
This decision follows a lengthy legal battle over the company’s transfer pricing practices, a method used by multinationals to allocate profits between different countries.
In this article, we’ll explore what led to this ruling and its broader implications.
Transfer pricing is a system used by companies that operate in multiple countries to determine how much profit each subsidiary earns.
For tax purposes, it’s crucial that these profits are allocated fairly based on market prices, ensuring each country gets its rightful share of tax revenue.
In Coca-Cola’s case, the IRS argued that the company’s transfer pricing practices did not reflect economic reality.
Specifically, Coca-Cola allocated a disproportionate share of its profits to overseas entities in low-tax jurisdictions, rather than to its US headquarters where much of the business value was created.
The dispute dates back to a 2015 audit when the IRS claimed Coca-Cola underpaid its taxes by $3.3 billion from 2007 to 2009.
After years of legal wrangling, the US Tax Court ruled in favour of the IRS. Coca-Cola’s appeal was denied, leaving the company with a massive $6 billion tax bill, including penalties and interest.
The court decision hinged on the IRS’s argument that Coca-Cola had failed to comply with arm’s-length principles.
These principles require that transactions between related entities within a company should be priced as if they were conducted between independent parties.
This case sends a strong signal to other multinational corporations about the importance of adhering to transfer pricing rules.
Governments around the world are increasingly scrutinising profit-shifting arrangements that allow companies to minimise their tax liabilities.
For companies, this ruling highlights the need for robust documentation and compliance strategies to defend their transfer pricing practices. Failure to do so can lead to significant financial and reputational costs.
For Coca-Cola, the financial hit is substantial, but the reputational damage may be even more significant.
As governments and consumers alike demand greater corporate accountability, cases like this reinforce the need for transparency in tax practices.
The Coca-Cola case underscores the growing importance of international tax compliance in a world where public and regulatory scrutiny is on the rise.
It also serves as a reminder that aggressive tax strategies can backfire, leading to costly legal disputes and financial penalties.
If you have any queries about this article on Coca-Cola’s tax case, or tax matters in the United States, then please get in touch.
Alternatively, if you are a tax adviser in the United States and would be interested in sharing your knowledge and becoming a tax native, then there is more information on membership here.
Ireland’s economy has received a significant boost thanks to a back-tax payment of €14 billion from technology giant Apple.
This payment follows a long legal battle initiated by the European Commission, which accused Apple of receiving illegal state aid through favourable tax arrangements in Ireland.
Let’s break down what this means and why it’s important for Ireland and the wider global tax community.
The European Commission began investigating Apple’s tax arrangements in Ireland in 2014.
They concluded in 2016 that Ireland had allowed Apple to pay far less tax than it should have, violating EU state aid rules.
Specifically, the investigation revealed that Apple had paid an effective tax rate of just 0.005% on its European profits in 2014.
The Commission ordered Ireland to recover €13 billion in unpaid taxes plus interest, which brought the total to around €14 billion.
Despite both Ireland and Apple appealing the decision, the money was placed into an escrow account pending legal proceedings.
S&P Global Ratings recently upgraded Ireland’s fiscal outlook to “positive,” citing the recovery of the Apple back-tax payment as a key factor.
This inflow of cash has strengthened Ireland’s public finances, providing more resources to address economic challenges.
However, the Irish government has been hesitant to celebrate too openly. Ireland insists it did not grant Apple special treatment and only recovered the money due to EU pressure.
This cautious stance is linked to Ireland’s desire to maintain its status as a hub for multinational corporations.
This case is a landmark in the global fight against tax avoidance. It highlights how large companies sometimes use complex structures to shift profits and pay less tax.
It has also encouraged more countries to consider stricter regulations, such as the OECD’s global minimum tax, to ensure corporations pay their fair share.
For Ireland, the case underscores the importance of balancing its appeal as a business-friendly nation with its obligations to enforce fair taxation.
The Apple tax case has been a wake-up call for countries and corporations alike.
It demonstrates the power of coordinated international action to challenge unfair tax practices.
While Ireland has benefitted financially, the case also raises important questions about how to attract investment without compromising on tax fairness.
If you have any queries about this article on Ireland’s fiscal outlook or tax matters in Ireland, then please get in touch.
Alternatively, if you are a tax adviser in Ireland and would be interested in sharing your knowledge and becoming a tax native, then there is more information on membership here.
In the context of a tax appeal, both the taxpayer and the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) have the right to inspect documents in each other’s possession, control, or power, provided those documents are relevant to the appeal.
However, documents protected by solicitor-client privilege are exempt from disclosure.
This privilege does not generally extend to documents produced by accountants unless specific conditions are met.
Solicitor-client privilege is a fundamental legal principle in Canada that ensures open communication between lawyers and their clients for the purpose of seeking or providing legal advice.
It shields privileged communications from being disclosed, even in litigation, unless the privilege is waived or an exception applies.
This privilege is unique to lawyers and does not automatically apply to other professionals, such as accountants.
However, there are circumstances where an accountant’s communications may be privileged, particularly when they act as an agent to facilitate legal advice.
The recent decision in Coopers Park Real Estate Development Corporation v. The King (2024 TCC 122) highlights the scope and limitations of solicitor-client privilege and offers important lessons on managing privileged documents in tax litigation.
In Coopers Park, the CRA reassessed the taxpayer, alleging that the general anti-avoidance rule applied to certain transactions undertaken in 2004 and 2005 to integrate the taxpayer into another group of companies, the Concord Group.
During discovery, the CRA requested additional information, but the taxpayer’s responses were unsatisfactory or refused.
Consequently, the CRA sought a court order for the production of 19 documents, which the taxpayer opposed, claiming privilege.
The Tax Court of Canada had to evaluate whether these documents were privileged based solely on their content, as the taxpayer did not provide affidavit evidence to substantiate their claims.
The court determined that only two of the 19 documents were protected by solicitor-client privilege:
The court found that portions of the engagement letter describing legal advice on tax matters for the Concord Group were privileged.
This letter outlined the roles of the group’s tax lawyers, accountants, and legal counsel, clarifying that the accountants acted as agents to assist in legal advice.
An email exchange between the Concord Group, accountants, and lawyers preparing a legal agreement was deemed privileged, as it reflected communications in the course of seeking or providing legal advice.
The remaining documents were not privileged. These included:
Engagement letters among lawyers, accountants, and clients must explicitly reference agency relationships to clarify when a non-lawyer is acting as an agent for legal advice.
Where both legal and accounting expertise is required, lawyers should draft key documents to maximize the benefit of solicitor-client privilege.
Documents subject to privilege should be clearly marked and stored separately. Claims of privilege should be substantiated with affidavit evidence to avoid reliance on the court’s interpretation of the document alone.
Even accounting records, if revealing legal strategy, could be privileged. Taxpayers and their advisers must be vigilant in identifying and defending such privilege claims.
The Coopers Park case serves as a critical reminder of the importance of properly identifying and protecting privileged communications in tax litigation.
Solicitor-client privilege is a powerful tool, but its application requires careful documentation, clear agency relationships, and robust supporting evidence.
Taxpayers and advisers should work closely with legal professionals to ensure compliance and mitigate risks during disputes.
If you have any queries about this article on Accountants and Legal Privilege, or tax matters in the Canada, then please get in touch.
Alternatively, if you are a tax adviser in Canada and would be interested in sharing your knowledge and becoming a tax native, then there is more information on membership here.
In Andrew Nunn v HMRC [2024] UKFTT 298 (TC), the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) ruled in favour of the taxpayer.
The case revolved around a property sale agreement between Mr Nunn and a developer, which took place before formal contracts were signed.
This decision could serve as a key reference for taxpayers entering into similar development agreements.
Andrew Nunn purchased a property in Oxfordshire in 1995 for £120,000.
In 2015, he agreed to sell a portion of his garden to a developer, Michael Daly, for £295,000.
The developer planned to build two houses on the land and had already secured planning permission. Although heads of terms were agreed, formal contracts were delayed.
To facilitate construction, Mr Nunn signed a letter in June 2016 that allowed the developer to begin work while the formal contracts were being finalised.
Construction work commenced following this letter, and by September 2016, a formal sale contract was signed.
However, Mr Nunn faced an unexpected challenge when HMRC disallowed his claim for PPR relief, leading to a CGT charge of £72,633.80.
Mr Nunn subsequently appealed to the FTT, arguing that the land had remained part of his **private residence** at the time of disposal, and therefore should be eligible for PPR relief.
The FTT considered several critical issues in the case:
The Tribunal concluded that the relevant date for assessing whether PPR relief applied was 2 June 2016, the date on which Mr Nunn signed the letter permitting the developer to begin construction.
The Tribunal determined that this agreement altered Mr Nunn’s relationship with the land, which was no longer held for his own occupation.
The FTT held that on 2 June 2016, the land still formed part of Mr Nunn’s garden, as it had not yet been physically separated or developed.
The letter allowing construction did not immediately sever the land from his residence, and thus it still qualified for PPR relief.
The Tribunal ruled that for CGT purposes, the land was deemed disposed of on 2 June 2016, when the letter agreement was signed.
This was important as it meant the land was still considered part of Mr Nunn’s private residence on that date.
Since the FTT ruled in favour of Mr Nunn’s claim for PPR relief, the penalty of £20,155.87 imposed by HMRC was set aside.
The case hinged on the interpretation of Section 222 of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 (TCGA), which provides relief from CGT for gains on the disposal of a private residence and its associated grounds.
The Tribunal also referred to Section 28A of the Taxes Management Act 1970 (TMA) in relation to the enquiry and closure notice issued by HMRC.
This ruling is a welcome development for taxpayers who may find themselves in similar circumstances.
The case highlights the importance of the timing of key events, such as when development agreements are made and when works begin on the land.
Importantly, the Tribunal’s decision confirms that land may still qualify for PPR relief even if an agreement is in place for its future sale, as long as it remains part of the taxpayer’s garden at the time of disposal.
The FTT’s decision in favour of Andrew Nunn provides clarity on the application of PPR relief in cases involving property development agreements.
The case illustrates how the status of land at the time of disposal plays a crucial role in determining whether relief is available, and offers valuable guidance for taxpayers entering into similar agreements with developers.
If you have any queries about this article on Main Residence Relief or general tax matters in the UK, then please get in touch.
Alternatively, if you are a tax adviser in the UK and would be interested in sharing your knowledge and becoming a tax native, then there is more information on membership here.
The India–Mauritius Double Tax Avoidance Agreement (DTAA), signed in 1983, has long been a pivotal treaty for investors due to its favourable tax terms.
For years, investors, particularly in the private equity and venture capital space, have utilised this treaty to minimise tax liabilities in India.
However, the treaty has also sparked numerous litigations and controversies, primarily concerning capital gains tax exemptions for investments made through Mauritius.
In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court (HC) addressed a dispute concerning the application of the DTAA benefits to a Mauritius-based company, Tiger Global International.
This case clarified critical issues, including the significance of the Tax Residency Certificate (TRC), the Limitation of Benefits (LoB) clause, and the applicability of the grandfathering provision in the treaty.
The court’s decision has brought much-needed relief and certainty to taxpayers navigating the complexities of international taxation.
The case centres on Tiger Global International (the Assessee), a company incorporated in Mauritius for the purpose of making investments on behalf of Tiger Global Management LLC (TGM LLC), a Delaware-based investment manager.
The Assessee held a Category 1 Global Business License and a Tax Residency Certificate (TRC) from the Mauritius tax authorities.
Between October 2011 and April 2015, Tiger Global acquired shares in Flipkart Singapore and later transferred its holdings to Fit Holdings SARL, a Luxembourg-based entity.
The company sought clarity from India’s Income Tax Department (ITD) regarding the applicability of capital gains tax on these transactions under the DTAA.
However, the Advance Authority Ruling (AAR) ruled against the Assessee, stating that Tiger Global’s Mauritius-based structure lacked commercial substance and was merely a vehicle for *tax avoidance.
The Assessee argued that its investments were eligible for the **capital gains tax exemption** under Article 13(3A) of the DTAA.
This provision exempts Mauritian residents from Indian capital gains tax for shares acquired before April 1, 2017, and transferred thereafter.
The Assessee also relied on a Tax Residency Certificate (TRC) from the Mauritius authorities as proof of its eligibility for DTAA benefits, citing CBDT Circular No. 789, which upholds the TRC as sufficient evidence of residency.
The Assessee further contended that the Limitation of Benefits (LoB) clause, which restricts treaty benefits for entities with little economic substance, did not apply to the transactions in question because the shares were acquired prior to 2017.
They also argued that the AAR erred in questioning the motives behind the company’s establishment in Mauritius, as the purpose of incorporation should not disqualify it from treaty benefits.
The ITD took a starkly different position, arguing that the Mauritius-based entities were created solely to avoid capital gains tax in India.
The ITD asserted that TGM LLC, the US-based investment manager, exercised ultimate control and decision-making over the Mauritius entities, rendering the Mauritian companies mere intermediaries in a tax avoidance scheme.
The ITD relied on the Vodafone case, which allows the piercing of the corporate veil when an entity’s structure lacks commercial substance.
The ITD supported the AAR’s conclusion that Tiger Global International did not possess independent management and was ineligible for the DTAA benefits due to its tax avoidance motives.
The Delhi HC ruled in favour of the Assessee, providing a well-reasoned judgment that clarified the application of the India-Mauritius DTAA.
The court categorically held that TGM LLC was merely an investment manager and not the parent company of the Assessee.
The court observed that Tiger Global International was a significant entity with considerable economic activity, managing investments for more than 500 investors across 30 jurisdictions.
Regarding beneficial ownership, the court found no evidence to suggest that the Assessee was obligated to transfer revenues to TGM LLC or that it was merely acting on behalf of the US-based company.
Furthermore, the court upheld the Assessee’s Tax Residency Certificate (TRC) as conclusive proof of its eligibility for DTAA benefits, in line with earlier rulings.
Crucially, the court reaffirmed that grandfathering provisions under Article 13(3) of the DTAA would protect investments made before April 1, 2017, from the LoB clause.
This provision, the court held, was clear and unambiguous, ensuring that the General Anti-Avoidance Rules (GAAR) could not override treaty benefits.
The ruling of the Delhi High Court is a major victory for international investors who rely on the India-Mauritius DTAA for tax certainty.
The judgment clarifies that corporate structures established in tax-friendly jurisdictions should not automatically be viewed as vehicles for tax avoidance, and that the Tax Residency Certificate (TRC) holds substantial weight in determining eligibility for treaty benefits.
The decision imposes a high burden of proof on tax authorities to establish tax evasion or fraud, ensuring that only in cases of sham transactions will treaty benefits be denied.
This landmark ruling provides investors with the much-needed confidence to structure their investments in line with international treaties, reinforcing India’s position as a tax- and investment-friendly jurisdiction.
If you have any queries about this article, or Indian tax matters in general, then please get in touch.
When companies earn profits in foreign countries, they often face the possibility of being taxed twice: once in the foreign country and again in their home country.
To mitigate this, tax systems around the world, including in the United States, allow for foreign tax credits (FTCs).
FTCs enable companies to offset the tax paid to foreign governments against their domestic tax liability.
However, claiming FTCs isn’t always straightforward, and a recent US Tax Court ruling has provided much-needed clarity on how companies should approach this complex area of tax law.
The US Tax Court recently ruled on a significant case (Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Commissioner), involving Section 245A of the Internal Revenue Code, which deals with dividends received from foreign subsidiaries.
The case hinged on how companies should calculate their foreign-source income, which is critical for determining how much of a foreign tax credit they can claim.
In this particular case, a US-based multinational argued that certain types of income should not be included in the calculation of foreign-source income, allowing them to claim a larger foreign tax credit.
However, the court ruled that all types of income, including those that may seem unrelated, must be factored into the calculation.
The case also highlighted the importance of proper documentation and compliance when claiming FTCs, as even small errors in reporting foreign-source income can lead to significant tax penalties.
For multinational companies, this ruling has far-reaching implications.
The court’s decision makes it clear that companies cannot cherry-pick which types of income to include when calculating their foreign tax credits.
Instead, they must take a holistic approach, ensuring that all forms of foreign income are properly accounted for.
Moreover, the ruling underscores the importance of compliance.
Companies that fail to accurately report their foreign income or that miscalculate their foreign tax credits risk being audited by the IRS and could face significant penalties.
In light of this ruling, multinational companies should take immediate steps to review their foreign tax credit calculations.
This may involve working closely with tax advisers to ensure that all foreign income is properly accounted for and that the company is complying with the latest IRS guidelines.
Companies may also want to invest in better tax reporting systems, especially those with operations in multiple countries.
Having the right technology in place can help streamline the tax compliance process and reduce the risk of errors.
The US Tax Court’s ruling serves as a reminder that claiming foreign tax credits is a complex process that requires careful attention to detail.
Companies must ensure that they are following all applicable tax laws and regulations to avoid costly mistakes.
By staying informed and working with experienced tax advisers, multinationals can minimise their tax liabilities while remaining compliant with the law.
If you have any queries about this article on US Tax Court Clarifies Rules on Foreign Tax Credits, or US tax matters in general, then please get in touch.
Transfer pricing refers to the pricing of goods, services, or intellectual property exchanged between different parts of a multinational company.
For example, if a subsidiary in Italy sells products to a subsidiary in Germany, transfer pricing rules determine the price at which these transactions take place.
These rules ensure that companies don’t manipulate internal prices to shift profits to low-tax countries and minimise their tax bills.
In August 2024, the Italian Supreme Court made a landmark decision regarding transfer pricing that is expected to have significant implications, not only for Italy but also for how other countries enforce their transfer pricing rules.
The case involved a multinational company with subsidiaries in Italy and other European countries.
The company was accused of setting artificially high prices for goods transferred between its Italian subsidiary and subsidiaries in lower-tax jurisdictions.
The Italian tax authorities argued that these inflated prices reduced the profits reported in Italy, allowing the company to pay less tax.
The key issue in the case was whether the company’s transfer pricing arrangements complied with the arm’s length principle, a fundamental rule in transfer pricing law.
This principle states that transactions between different parts of a company should be priced as if they were between independent companies.
The Italian Supreme Court ruled in favour of the tax authorities, finding that the company had violated the arm’s length principle.
The court emphasised that tax authorities should scrutinise transfer pricing arrangements to ensure that companies are not artificially shifting profits out of the country.
The ruling is seen as a victory for tax authorities and a warning to companies that Italy is prepared to take a tougher stance on transfer pricing enforcement.
For companies operating in Italy and beyond, this ruling has important implications:
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has been working on transfer pricing guidelines for years, as part of its Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) initiative.
This initiative aims to prevent companies from using tax loopholes to shift profits to low-tax jurisdictions.
Italy’s ruling is in line with the OECD’s efforts to ensure that transfer pricing is applied consistently across different jurisdictions.
As more countries adopt these guidelines, companies will need to pay closer attention to how they price transactions between subsidiaries.
This ruling is a clear signal that transfer pricing enforcement is becoming more robust.
Companies with operations in Italy—or any other country with strict transfer pricing rules—should review their pricing policies to ensure compliance.
Working closely with tax advisers is essential to avoid costly penalties and ensure that transactions are priced in accordance with the arm’s length principle.
If you have any further queries on this article on Italy’s transfer pricing decision, or tax matters in Italy more generally, then please get in touch.
In June 2024, the Swiss Federal Court issued its second ruling on the tax treatment of French non-trading property companies, also known as Sociétés Civiles Immobilières (SCIs).
This decision, building on a previous ruling from December 2022, challenges the longstanding tax advantages many Swiss residents have enjoyed when using SCIs to acquire and manage property in France.
The rulings bring significant implications for Swiss residents who hold or plan to hold French property through these entities.
For years, SCIs have been a favored method for Swiss residents, especially in French-speaking cantons, to invest in French real estate.
These entities offered flexibility in property management and, until recently, a relatively favorable tax treatment in Switzerland, despite variations between cantons.
However, the Federal Court’s recent rulings have raised concerns over their continued tax efficiency.
The first of the two pivotal rulings, issued in December 2022 (2C_365/2021), addressed the treatment of SCIs concerning wealth tax.
The Swiss Federal Court determined that SCIs should be treated as fiscally opaque from a Swiss tax perspective, regardless of their tax status in France.
Moreover, the court ruled that the double taxation agreement (CDI CH-FR) between Switzerland and France does not prevent Switzerland from taxing SCI shares if France does not impose taxes on them.
This decision created uncertainty and raised concerns about whether these principles would apply to other tax areas, such as income tax.
On 5 June 2024, the Federal Court issued a second decision (9C_409/2024) that extended these principles to income tax.
The court emphasized that Swiss authorities must first evaluate the SCI under Swiss tax law and then consider whether the CDI CH-FR allows Switzerland to impose taxes.
The court reaffirmed that SCIs are fiscally opaque from a Swiss standpoint and, in the absence of taxation in France, Switzerland could exercise its taxation rights both on wealth and income tax.
While the second ruling resolved some uncertainties, it introduced new challenges for Swiss residents.
One significant issue stems from the differing treatment of SCIs in Switzerland and France.
In Switzerland, SCIs are seen as opaque, meaning their income is subject to taxation.
In France, however, SCIs are treated as translucent, meaning certain incomes, such as those from personal use of real estate, are not taxed.
This disparity could lead to situations where Swiss residents face taxation in Switzerland for benefits not taxed in France.
For instance, personal use of real estate held by an SCI in France, which is not subject to income tax there, could be taxed in Switzerland as an unrecognized rental benefit.
Since France does not impose income tax on such personal use, Switzerland is not obliged to prevent double taxation under the CDI CH-FR, leaving Swiss residents potentially liable for these taxes.
Given the Federal Court’s rulings, holding French real estate through an SCI could become increasingly inefficient for Swiss residents, especially in cases where properties are used for personal purposes.
The possibility of Swiss taxation on benefits not recognized by French tax authorities complicates the tax planning strategy for individuals using SCIs.
Swiss residents who own French property through SCIs should reconsider their approach to property management and ownership.
These rulings suggest that the traditional advantages of SCIs could be significantly diminished, prompting a re-evaluation of whether SCIs remain the best structure for cross-border real estate holdings.
In the short term, property owners will need to assess how these rulings affect their tax filings and ensure compliance with both Swiss and French tax authorities.
In conclusion, the Swiss Federal Court’s decisions from December 2022 and June 2024 mark a turning point for the use of SCIs by Swiss residents.
The evolving tax landscape will require careful navigation, and individuals should seek professional advice to avoid unexpected tax liabilities.
If you have any queries on this article on SCIs for French Property, or other Swiss tax matters, then please get in touch.
A recent ruling by the Travis County District Court determined that the Texas franchise tax, as applied to American Airlines, Inc. (“American”), is preempted by the federal Anti-Head Tax Act (AHTA).
The court dismissed the Texas Comptroller‘s arguments that the franchise tax was not a gross receipts tax and that it did not apply to revenues from air commerce or transportation.
This ruling opens the door for further federal preemption challenges against the Texas franchise tax.
American Airlines, a major airline based in Fort Worth, Texas, operates a vast fleet of around 1,000 aircraft, serving destinations across North America, the Caribbean, Latin America, Europe, and the Asia-Pacific region.
The case revolved around American’s franchise tax obligations for the 2015 reporting year, covering fiscal year 2014.
The Texas franchise tax is calculated based on the taxable margin of entities conducting business within the state.
A company’s taxable margin is either 70% of its total revenue or its total revenue minus specific deductions (e.g., $1 million, cost of goods sold, or compensation). This margin is then apportioned to Texas using a gross receipts factor, and the tax is calculated based on the applicable rate.
For the 2015 report, American chose to calculate its taxable margin by applying the 70% of total revenue option, excluding revenues from passenger ticket sales, baggage fees, and freight transportation.
American argued that these transportation-related revenues were not subject to the Texas franchise tax due to federal preemption under the AHTA, which prohibits states from taxing gross receipts derived from air commerce or transportation.
From 2009 to 2014, the Texas Comptroller agreed with American’s interpretation and excluded such transportation revenues from the franchise tax base.
However, the Comptroller later sought clarification from the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), which affirmed that the AHTA preempts state taxes on revenues from air transportation.
Despite this, the Comptroller encouraged American to pay its 2015 franchise tax under protest and pursue legal action to resolve the dispute. American complied, paid the tax under protest, and subsequently filed a lawsuit to challenge the Comptroller’s authority.
The court ruled in favour of American, concluding that the Texas franchise tax, as applied to the airline’s transportation receipts, is indeed a gross receipts tax preempted by the AHTA.
The court referenced similar rulings from other jurisdictions, including a U.S. Supreme Court decision, Aloha Airlines, Inc. v. Director of Taxation of Hawaii.
Consequently, American was entitled to exclude its transportation receipts from its franchise tax calculations for 2015, and the court ordered the Comptroller to issue a refund.
This ruling marks a significant victory for American Airlines and other air carriers operating in Texas, affirming that the AHTA overrides the application of the Texas franchise tax to revenues from air transportation.
The decision underscores the necessity for the Texas Comptroller to have a valid legal basis before altering its tax positions on similar matters.
Other businesses in Texas should consider whether federal laws, like the AHTA, could preempt the imposition of the franchise tax on their gross receipts.
The court’s ruling in favour of American Airlines marks a significant precedent, affirming that the Texas franchise tax cannot be applied to revenues derived from air commerce or transportation due to federal preemption under the Anti-Head Tax Act (AHTA).
This decision not only secures a victory for American Airlines but also serves as a crucial reference point for other businesses in Texas that may be subject to similar federal protections against state-imposed taxes.
If you have any queries about this article on Texas Franchise Tax Preempted by Federal Law, or US tax matters in general, then please get in touch.