94-023

Response January 18, 1995

 

 

Request

October 5, 1994

 

Mr. Val Oveson, Chairman

Utah State Tax Commission

210 North 1950 West

Salt Lake City, UT 84134

 

Dear Chairman Oveson:

 

We are writing on behalf of our client, hereinafter referred to as P, to request an advisory opinion regarding the filing of a combined tax return with exempt subsidiary S. This matter has been discuses with XXXXX in advance of our submitting this request. We have included below the factual background and a complete description of the filing position.

 

BACKGROUND

 

P, a Utah corporation domiciled in Utah, owns approximately 80% of S. Other than a de minimus amount of cash, P’s only asset is its investment in S.

 

S, a Utah Corporation domiciled in Utah, is an insurance corporation that is exempt from Utah Franchise and Income Tax under Utah Tax Code (UTC) 56-7-102(1)(b) as a corporation paying Utah taxes on total premiums received under Title 59, Chapter 9.

 

S is contemplating the payment of a dividend to P and its minority shareholders. In turn, P plans to distribute such dividend proceeds out to P’s shareholder. The dividend income will be P’s only income. We request that P and S be allowed to file a combined Franchise and Income Tax return under UTC 59-7-404. The combined return would exclude the intercompany dividend under UTC 59-7-404(2) and eliminate income from S under UTC and Income Tax. Alternatively, we request that you invoke UTC 59-7-117 to exclude the dividend income on P’s separately filed income tax return to keep P from suffering a double tax detriment.

 

SUPPORT FOR FAVORABLE RULING

 

Without receiving a favorable ruling, the dividend income from S will be subject to three levels of Utah tax. First, the income of S will be taxed under the premium tax statutes. Next, the dividend income will be taxed at P’s level, and finally the shareholders of P will be taxed on the balance of the dividend being passed out of P. If S were a regular corporation subject to the Franchise and income tax a combined return would be filed eliminating the intercompany dividend. By allowing P and S to file a combined return eliminating the dividend and insurance company income you will be placing P on a level playing field with holding companies of regular corporations. The state will still receive taxes on the corporate income through the premium tax and receive the second layer of taxes from”’s shareholders as the dividends are passed out of P.

 

Under pre-1994 Utah tax law P would have qualified as a holding company exempt from Utah Franchise and income tax under old UTC 59-7-105(c). It is our understanding that the reason this rule was omitted from the new law was that few requests for holding company exemptions were filed with the state. Rather, holding company’s simply filed combined or consolidated tax returns to eliminate the dividend income. In the mainstream corporate setting the elimination for the holding company exemption was a non event. In changing the Utah Statute, we do not believe that the legislature intended to single out insurance companies and subject them to triple taxation.

 

SUMMARY

 

In summary were request that the Tax Commission favorable rule that P and S be allowed to file a combined return eliminating both the intercompany dividend income and Title 59 Chapter 9 income, or alternatively, allow P to make an adjustment on its separate Utah return to eliminate the double tax detriment that would exist if the dividend income were taxed at P’s level. Should you be inclined to rule unfavorably on this matter, were request the opportunity to meet with you and more fully explain the position of the taxpayer. Your cooperation in this matter will be very much appreciated.

 

Very truly yours,

XXXXX

 

 

January 18, 1995

 

Re: Advisory Opinion on the taxation of a dividend paid by an insurance company to its parent holding company for purposes of the Utah corporation franchise tax for the year XXXXX.

 

Dear XXXXX:

 

You requested an advisory opinion as to the taxation of a dividend paid by an insurance company which is subject to XXXXX tax, to its parent, a holding company domiciled in Utah. You specifically requested a ruling that either (1) the entity be permitted to file a combined report including the parent and subsidiary corporations but excluding the income of the insurance company as well as the dividends; or (2) that the dividend income be excluded from taxation through invocation of U.C.A. 59-7-117 to avoid a double tax detriment.

 

Our research indicates as follows:

 

We have analyzed both of the above alternatives in context with the Utah statutes and have determined that neither of these alternatives are permitted under the Utah statute.

 

With regard to the first alternative, there are no provisions in the Utah statutes which would permit a corporation which has been ruled exempt to be included in a combined report for relief when a taxpayer would receive a double benefit or suffer detriment by being required to report the same income more than one time. However, the taxpayer in this instance is the parent holding company as a separate corporation. This company is not being required to pay double tax on its income. Taxation is a dividend paid form one corporation to another does not create a tax detriment. Dividend income is clearly included in the taxable base under Part I of Title 59 Chapter 7 and there is no provision in the statute which would exclude or exempt it from taxation.

 

Based on the above rationale, it is our determination that the parent holding corporation is not entitled to exclude the dividends received form the subsidiary insurance company in its determination of income for Utah corporation franchise tax purposes for the calendar year XXXXX.

 

It should be noted that this matter has been brought before the corporate tax task force and a recommendation has come out of that process and is being recommended to the XXXXX legislature that should address this problem on a prospective basis from XXXXX forward.

 

This opinion is based upon the facts presented in your letter. Obviously, if there are deviations form these facts, this opinion may be negated.

 

If you do not agree with this determination, you may appeal to the Tax Commission for a formal hearing. The results of that hearing would constitute a declaratory judgement and be appealable to the Utah Supreme Court. A Notice of Appeal Rights and a copy of the Utah Taxpayer Bill of Rights are attached.

 

Respectfully,

 

Alice Shearer

Commissioner