Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 09 DECEMBER 2010

California’s Current Sales Factor Landscape

Morrison Foerster
Morrison Foerster
Contributor
Morrison Foerster

Morrison Foerster

With approximately 1,000 lawyers in 19 offices, Morrison & Foerster is a preeminent global law firm...

View firm profile
Explore more from Morrison Foerster

On November 2, 2010, by a margin of nearly 1.5 million votes, California voters rejected Proposition 24. In doing so, the voters decided to maintain three business tax provisions scheduled to take effect in 2011: (1) the single sales factor apportionment election; (2) net operating loss carrybacks; and (3) shared tax credits for "unitary" businesses.

United StatesTax
Timothy Gustafson
Timothy Gustafson
Carley Roberts
Carley Roberts
Author LinkedIn connections

INTRODUCTION

On November 2, 2010, by a margin of nearly 1.5 million votes, California voters rejected Proposition 24.1 In doing so, the voters decided to maintain three business tax provisions scheduled to take effect in 2011: (1) the single sales factor apportionment election; (2) net operating loss carrybacks; and (3) shared tax credits for "unitary" businesses. This Proposition, also known as the Repeal Corporate Tax Loopholes Act, sought to eliminate these provisions enacted in the fiscal year 2008 and fiscal year 2009 budgets to prevent the loss of general fund revenue. Indeed, the California Franchise Tax Board ("FTB") had projected the single sales factor apportionment election would cost California nearly $2 billion cumulatively by 2013.2 Accordingly, after back-to-back budget measures3 and now the failed Proposition, the dust has settled – for now – for corporate taxpayers who make sales of other than tangible personal property (i.e., intangibles and

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from