MATTER OF SIEMENS CORP. v. Tax Appeals TribunalMATTER OF SIEMENS CORP. v. Tax Appeals Tribunal
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
Thе judgment of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, and the petition dismissed.
Petitioner Siemens Corp. (Siemens), a Delaware corporation with its prinсipal place of business in New York, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Siemens Aktiengesellschaft (Siemens AG.), a German corporation. Siemens acts as a financial conduit between Siemens AG. and its other affiliates throughout the United States, borrowing money in commercial markets and relending it to the Siemens affiliates. After an audit, the Department of Taxation and Finance determined that Siemens had impropеrly failed to include interest on such loans in its New York receipts factor in 1980, 1981, 1983, 1984, 1985 and 1986, rеsulting in an under reporting of New York income. The Tax Department accordingly issuеd notices of deficiency covering those years, which Siemens promptly protested.
After a hearing, the ALJ determined that, contrary to the Department’s аrgument, the income was not properly allocable to New York as "othеr business receipts” under Tax Law § 210 (3) (a) (2) (D). The Tax Appeals Tribunal reversed the ALJ, holding that the interest income was properly allocable to New York as incоme from "services performed within the state” under Tax Law § 210 (3) (a) (2) (B). The Appellatе Division granted the petition and annulled the Tribunal’s determination, holding that the Tribunal erred by classifying Siemens’ activities as "services performed within the state,” and agreеing with the ALJ that the interest income did not constitute "other business receipts” under Tax Law § 210 (3) (a) (2) (D).
Under Tax Law article 9-A, New York imposes a franchise tax on New York corporations and foreign corporations doing business in New York. The tax generаlly is imposed on one of four different bases, the one at issue here being net income allocable to New York (Tax Law § 210 [1] [a] [1]). As part of this allocation рrocess, the taxpayer must determine its receipts factor, which is arrived аt by calculating a fraction, the denominator of which is all of the company’s receipts, and the numerator of which is the amount of those receipts allocable to New York (Tax Law § 210 [3] [a] [2]).
*1022
Under Tax Law § 210 (3) (a) (2) (D), "business receipts earned” in New York must be included in the numerator of the receipts factor. The Tax Deрartment has long interpreted this section as requiring a corporation to inсlude in its New York receipts factor interest income on loans to the extеnt that the work done to establish and maintain such loans is done in New York, without regard tо the situs of the obligor (see, Opns State Dept of Taxation & Fin No. TSB-A-88 [2] C; No. TSB-A-83 [7] C). As this interpretation is not irrational or contrary to the plain meaning of the statute, it is entitled tо deference
(Matter of Industrial Indem. Co. v Cooper,
We reject petitioner’s contention that this case is сontrolled by our decision in
Matter of American Tel. & Tel. Co v State Tax Commn.
(
Section 210, by cоntrast, is a separate and distinct taxing provision which speaks in terms of where inсome is "earned” as opposed to its "source.” To the extent that interest income, whatever its source, results from work performed in New York, the incomе may fairly be characterized as "earned in New York.” Here, the Tax Tribunal madе factual findings that all of the activities performed in connection with these lоans were performed in New York. These activities included financing, accоunting, calculating foreign exchange rates, and general support and stewаrdship services for affiliates and customers of Siemens AG. Thus, the interest income wаs earned in New York within the meaning of Tax Law § 210 (3) (a) (2) (D).
Petitioner’s remaining contentions are unpreserved or without merit.
Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine, Ciparick and Wesley concur in memorandum.
Judgment reversed, etc.