The BATSA shines a brighter light on the question of nexus.
Physical presence: For BATSA purposes, physical presence in a state is defined as being physically present in the state, or assigning one or more employees to be in the state, for more than 21 days during the tax year.
IFA continues to push for BATSA
to be included as part of comprehensive tax reform next year.
To be sure, a Supreme Court decision in Lanco, congressional enactment of BATSA, or some other system-wide approach to the intangible holding companies problem would all be important developments for the field of state corporate income taxation.
What we really need is not for the Supreme Court to grant cert in Lanco or, worse yet, for Congress to enact BATSA.
Last year, the United States Senate introduced an identical version of the BATSA
legislation, led by the efforts of Senators Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Mike Crapo (R-ID).
Passage of BATSA would greatly reduce the financial and administrative burden associated with tax compliance for my business.
5 percent in 2011 and create more than 194,000 new jobs, without economic certainty and pro-growth policies from Washington such as the BATSA, franchise businesses will struggle to achieve their full growth potential.
BATSA would prevent unlawful impediments to the free flow of commerce among the states by clarifying that no state may impose a business activity tax on any entity that lacks a physical presence in the taxing jurisdiction.
Under BATSA, physical presence for tax nexus purposes is established if one or more employees are assigned to a state or the out-of-state company owns or leases tangible or real property in the state.
Most importantly, BATSA codifies the physical presence standard.
Opponents claim that BATSA includes so many exceptions to the physical presence standard that large, multi-state companies will utilize the legislation to ensure they pay minimum state tax nationwide.