Advanced Tax Topics
Advanced Tax Topics TAX 5015
University of Central Florida
Popular in Course
Popular in Taxation
This 3 page Class Notes was uploaded by Bridie Bradtke on Thursday October 22, 2015. The Class Notes belongs to TAX 5015 at University of Central Florida taught by Charles Kelliher in Fall. Since its upload, it has received 44 views. For similar materials see /class/227554/tax-5015-university-of-central-florida in Taxation at University of Central Florida.
Reviews for Advanced Tax Topics
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!
Date Created: 10/22/15
CCH EXP Multistate Charts 600 83O States Utilizing Mhltistate AllocationApportionment Provisions In the chart below the states listed as having adopted the Uniform Division of Income for Tax Purposes Act UDTTPA and the Multistate Tax Compact MTC regulations include not only those that have formally adopted them but also those that have enacted statutory or regulatory provisions that substantially duplicate them The UDTTPA is a model act adopted by the Commissioners on Uniform State Laws and the American Bar Association to promote uniformity in the application of allocation and apportionment rules across the states UDTTPA divides income into business income which is apportioned among states by means of a three factor formula and non business income which is allocated to a specific state according to the type of income and the type of property giving rise to the income The MTC regulations are model regulations adopted by the Multistate Tax Compact that interpret the UDTTPA provisions States that do not impose a corporate income tax are not included in this chart State Adoption of UDITPA Adoption of MTC Regs Alabama Yes Substantially all Alaska Yes Substantially all Arizona Yes Substantially all Arkansas Yes with Adopted the modifications businessnon business income regs California Yes with Substantially all modifications Colorado Yes for corporations Yes for corporations electing to apportion electing to apportion income by using the MTC income by using the MTC apportionment schedule apportionment schedule as opposed to the method as opposed to the method prescribed by the Colo prescribed by the Colo income tax act income tax act Connecticut No None Delaware No but similar None statute District of No but substantially None but generally Columbia similar provisions consistent provisions Florida No but many similar None provisions Georgia No but many similar None but several provisions similar provisions Hawaii Yes with some Substantially all modifications Idaho Yes All except airlines reg Illinois No None Indiana No but many similar None but generally provisions consistent provisions Iowa No but statute Only business contains some similar rentsroyalty income reg provisions Kansas Yes with some Most modifications Kentucky Yes with many None but many similar variations provisions Louisiana No but similar None statutory provisions Maine Yes with Abbreviated version modifications eg use of double weighted sales factor Maryland No but similar None apportionment factor rules Massachusetts No None Michigan No but similar None apportionment provisions Minnesota No None but generally consistent provisions Mississippi No but many similar None provisions Missouri Yes but option to Substantially all apply state39s one factor formula or separate accounting Montana Yes except provisions Substantially all dealing with exemptions for financia organizations and public utilities Nebraska No but several None but some similar similar provisions provisions New Hampshire No but several similar provisions None but similar factor provisions New Jersey No None New Mexico Yes None but generally consistent provisions New York No None but several comparable NY regs North Carolina No but substantially similar provisions None North Dakota Yes except provisions dealing with financial organizations public utilities broadcasting and some transportation Substantially all Ohio No but many similar None provisions Oklahoma No but many similar None provisions Oregon Yes with modified Substantially all sales factor Pennsylvania Yes with some None but generally exceptions consistent allocation and apportionment provisions Rhode Island No but some similar provisions None South Carolina No Generally consistent provisions no UDITPA option Tennessee Yes Yes substantially similar version Texas No None Utah Yes with some Most modifications Vermont No but some similar None provisions Virginia No None West Virginia No None Wisconsin No but many similar provisions Some includin businessnonbusiness income regs
Are you sure you want to buy this material for
You're already Subscribed!
Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'