The court allowed an alternative method under California Revenue and Taxation Code § 25137. The court found that the standard three-factor UDITPA formula is a reasonable alternative under that section. The court also found that Smithfield qualified as an agricultural business under Revenue and Taxation Code § 25128, which also qualified it for three-factor treatment. But the holding with greater impact was the court’s finding that, as a matter of alternative apportionment, Smithfield was entitled to add a property and payroll factor to its formula.
We are hosting a webinar on March 10 to discuss the impact of this decision on California taxpayers, to discuss who should claim refunds or petition for alternative apportionment, and to discuss, more broadly, how this decision will affect other similar cases pending in states such as Pennsylvania and New Jersey.
Reed Smith is committed to providing reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities. Contact Luke Rogers, the event planner, to request disability accommodation.
