Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.comFirm Insights
Spring Licensing Group Inc. Subject to Corporate Business Tax
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Date: October 28, 2015
Key Contacts
Back
In a recent decision, the New Jersey Tax Court asserted that Spring Licensing Group Inc., an out-of-state intangible holding company, was subject to the state corporate business tax for royalty income it earned from an in-state affiliate. According to a Bloomberg BNA report, the decision held that the company was subject to New Jersey’s related-party expense disallowance statute, and thus not exempt from filing a CBT return because it earned revenue within state borders.
Spring Licensing Group Inc. v. Director, Division of Taxation
In the case, Spring Licensing Group argued that since it is incorporated in South Carolina and licenses the trademarks it owns to companies in various states, that it was not subject to the CBT. Its argument in this case was that it should not be subject to filing an additional CBT return for the royalty payments it received from its affiliate. The primary point of contention was that the taxes had already been paid on the royalty payments by the affiliate for the intangible property licensed. Therefore, Spring Licensing Group felt that the Division of Taxation imposed double taxation through the requirement of a CBT return.
However, the New Jersey Division of Taxation argued that any collection of royalty income from intangible property within New Jersey borders creates a nexus, thus the company was subject to the CBT. The Division of Taxation felt that due to this nexus created, it was irrelevant whether or not Spring Licensing Group had added back the intangible expenses to the affiliate company. Further, the Division of Taxation argued that since Spring Licensing Group failed to take advantage of available tax exemptions for out-of-state intangible holding companies, it had not properly filed a CBT return.
The court ruled in favor of the Division of Taxation
The court ruled that Spring Licensing Company was required to file a CBT return because it was subject to taxation for the income it generated from licensing intangible property. In turn, the court also held that since tax relief provisions are available in the state of New Jersey, Spring Licensing Group can still apply for these exemptions. The affiliate company is also allowed to apply for a refund to avoid the double taxation of that money for the added back expenses.
The issue of contention for the court was that Spring Licensing Group filed a “zero” in its CBT return for 2002, and requested a refund for estimated expenses in that year. Further, Spring Licensing Group explained that the affiliate company would report income from royalty payments on its New Jersey state tax returns. However, while the affiliate company added back the royalty payments to Spring Licensing Group, it did not seek exemption from one of the statutory regulations on add-back rules. Therefore, the court ruled that as part of the New Jersey state business tax reforms in 2002, the related-party expense disallowance statute required Spring Licensing Group to file a CBT return and add back its expenses for royalty payments it received.
The significance of the decision
The decision, in this case, was a big win for the state of New Jersey Division of Taxation because even though an out-of-state intangible holding company did not create a corporate income tax nexus in New Jersey, it was subject to the corporate business tax return. This was due to the fact that since 2002, New Jersey has required all income from related-party intangible expenses to be taxable, in addition to federal income taxes. It also clarified that the add back did not excuse Spring Licensing Group from filing a CBT return.
The court also cited that income shifting from out-of-state parent and in-state subsidiary companies was a concern for state departments of revenue. Therefore, the decision was made to ensure that state entities file and pay accurate taxes for disallowable expenses paid to related members.
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Related Posts
See all
Does Your Homeowners Insurance Provide Adequate Coverage?
Your home is likely your greatest asset, which is why it is so important to adequately protect it. Homeowners insurance protects you from the financial costs of unforeseen losses, such as theft, fire, and natural disasters, by helping you rebuild and replace possessions that were lost While the definition of “adequate” coverage depends upon a […]
Author: Jesse M. Dimitro
Understanding the Importance of a Non-Contingent Offer
Making a non-contingent offer can dramatically increase your chances of securing a real estate transaction, particularly in competitive markets like New York City. However, buyers should understand that waiving contingencies, including those related to financing, or appraisals, also comes with significant risks. Determining your best strategy requires careful analysis of the property, the market, and […]
Author: Jesse M. Dimitro
Fred D. Zemel Appointed Chair of Strategic Planning at Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC
Business Transactional Attorney Zemel to Spearhead Strategic Initiatives for Continued Growth and Innovation Little Falls, NJ – February 21, 2025 – Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC is pleased to announce that Partner Fred D. Zemel has been named Chair of the firm’s Strategic Planning Committee. In this role, Mr. Zemel will lead the committee in identifying, […]
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Novation Agreement Process: Step-by-Step Guide for Businesses
Big changes sometimes occur during the life cycle of a contract. Cancelling a contract outright can be bad for your reputation and your bottom line. Businesses need to know how to best address a change in circumstances, while also protecting their legal rights. One option is to transfer the “benefits and the burdens” of a […]
Author: Dan Brecher
What Is a Trade Secret? Key Elements and Legal Protections Explained
What is a trade secret and why you you protect them? Technology has made trade secret theft even easier and more prevalent. In fact, businesses lose billions of dollars every year due to trade secret theft committed by employees, competitors, and even foreign governments. But what is a trade secret? And how do you protect […]
Author: Ronald S. Bienstock
What Is Title Insurance? Safeguarding Against Title Defects
If you are considering the purchase of a property, you may wonder — what is title insurance, do I need it, and why do I need it? Even seasoned property owners may question if the added expense and extra paperwork is really necessary, especially considering that people and entities insured by title insurance make fewer […]
Author: Patrick T. Conlon
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!
Explore What Matters Most to You.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Spring Licensing Group Inc. Subject to Corporate Business Tax
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
In a recent decision, the New Jersey Tax Court asserted that Spring Licensing Group Inc., an out-of-state intangible holding company, was subject to the state corporate business tax for royalty income it earned from an in-state affiliate. According to a Bloomberg BNA report, the decision held that the company was subject to New Jersey’s related-party expense disallowance statute, and thus not exempt from filing a CBT return because it earned revenue within state borders.
Spring Licensing Group Inc. v. Director, Division of Taxation
In the case, Spring Licensing Group argued that since it is incorporated in South Carolina and licenses the trademarks it owns to companies in various states, that it was not subject to the CBT. Its argument in this case was that it should not be subject to filing an additional CBT return for the royalty payments it received from its affiliate. The primary point of contention was that the taxes had already been paid on the royalty payments by the affiliate for the intangible property licensed. Therefore, Spring Licensing Group felt that the Division of Taxation imposed double taxation through the requirement of a CBT return.
However, the New Jersey Division of Taxation argued that any collection of royalty income from intangible property within New Jersey borders creates a nexus, thus the company was subject to the CBT. The Division of Taxation felt that due to this nexus created, it was irrelevant whether or not Spring Licensing Group had added back the intangible expenses to the affiliate company. Further, the Division of Taxation argued that since Spring Licensing Group failed to take advantage of available tax exemptions for out-of-state intangible holding companies, it had not properly filed a CBT return.
The court ruled in favor of the Division of Taxation
The court ruled that Spring Licensing Company was required to file a CBT return because it was subject to taxation for the income it generated from licensing intangible property. In turn, the court also held that since tax relief provisions are available in the state of New Jersey, Spring Licensing Group can still apply for these exemptions. The affiliate company is also allowed to apply for a refund to avoid the double taxation of that money for the added back expenses.
The issue of contention for the court was that Spring Licensing Group filed a “zero” in its CBT return for 2002, and requested a refund for estimated expenses in that year. Further, Spring Licensing Group explained that the affiliate company would report income from royalty payments on its New Jersey state tax returns. However, while the affiliate company added back the royalty payments to Spring Licensing Group, it did not seek exemption from one of the statutory regulations on add-back rules. Therefore, the court ruled that as part of the New Jersey state business tax reforms in 2002, the related-party expense disallowance statute required Spring Licensing Group to file a CBT return and add back its expenses for royalty payments it received.
The significance of the decision
The decision, in this case, was a big win for the state of New Jersey Division of Taxation because even though an out-of-state intangible holding company did not create a corporate income tax nexus in New Jersey, it was subject to the corporate business tax return. This was due to the fact that since 2002, New Jersey has required all income from related-party intangible expenses to be taxable, in addition to federal income taxes. It also clarified that the add back did not excuse Spring Licensing Group from filing a CBT return.
The court also cited that income shifting from out-of-state parent and in-state subsidiary companies was a concern for state departments of revenue. Therefore, the decision was made to ensure that state entities file and pay accurate taxes for disallowable expenses paid to related members.