280-RICR-20-25-10
C. “Captive REIT” means, as further defined in R.I. Gen. Laws § 44-11-1(a), a corporation, trust or association:
MM. “Tax haven” means a jurisdiction that, during the tax year in question has no, or nominal effective tax on the relevant income and;
C. "Combined return” is not, in and of itself, a tax return; it is, in fact, a computational schedule or schedules – as required by Rhode Island General Laws and regulations – which are to be attached to a taxpayer member’s tax return and which report the income and apportionment information of all entities of the taxpayer member’s combined group, as well as any supporting information required by the Tax Administrator. The combined return shall include, for each taxable year, the following:
D. The following example shows how related entities might be affected by combined reporting. For purposes of apportionment calculations in this example, the denominators reflect worldwide sales for corporations that are included in the combined group.
1. Example: The example below compares combined reporting to separate-entity reporting for three related entities – Echo Corp., Foxtrot Corp., and Golf Corp. – that are U.S. companies, part of a combined group engaged in a unitary business, and have common ownership.
a. Echo Corp. is a Rhode Island retailer. Foxtrot Corp. is a Rhode Island retailer. Golf Corp. is a Missouri retailer with no Rhode Island nexus and, therefore, no Rhode Island filing requirement but for combined reporting. Most sales are in the U.S., but some are to customers in foreign jurisdictions.
| Apportionment: | Echo Corp(Separate) | Foxtrot Corp(Separate) | Golf Corp(Separate) | Combined Return |
| Sales Factor | ||||
| In-State Sales | $400 | $7,700 | $0 | $8,100 |
| Everywhere Sales | $600 | $15,000 | $50,000 | $65,625 |
| Sales Percentage | 64.0000% | 51.3333% | 0.0000% | 12.3429% |
| Taxable Income Total | $75 | $900 | $7,500 | $8,475 |
| In-State Taxable Income | $48 | $462 | $0 | $1046 |
| Total Taxable Income to Rhode Island | $510 | $1046 |
A. “Combined group” means a group of two or more entities treated as C corporations for federal income tax purposes in which more than 50 percent (50%) of the voting stock of each member corporation is directly or indirectly owned by a common owner or owners, either corporate or non-corporate, or by one or more of the member corporations, and that are engaged in a unitary business. Common ownership is determined without regard to the location, residence, or domicile of the owner(s).
F. In some cases, a taxpayer may make an election to treat, as its combined group for Rhode Island corporate income tax purposes, all of the members of its federal consolidated group. For an explanation of the election and the related requirements and limitations, please see § 10.9 of this Part.
H. Included corporations.
1. All of the income and apportionment factors must be included for the taxpayer members of a combined group. The list of members to be included in a combined group includes, but is not limited to, the following:
2. The following members that are not described above are included in the combined group only to the extent of any U.S. source income and factors:
I. Excluded corporations. Members of a combined group shall exclude as a member and disregard the income and apportionment factor of any corporation not incorporated in the United States (a “non-U.S. corporation”) if its sales factor for total receipts outside the United States is eighty percent (80%) or more.
1. Example: Bristol Biz Corp., Kent Biz Corp., Newport Biz Corp., Providence Biz Corp., and Washington Biz Corp. are all C corporations under common ownership engaged in a unitary business and subject to Rhode Island combined reporting. Bristol, Kent, and Newport are all non-U.S. corporations; Providence and Washington are both U.S. corporations.
| Combined Reporting Group | ||
| Entity: | Sales Factor for Receipts in U.S. | Part of Combined Group |
| Bristol Biz Corp. | 10% | No |
| Kent Biz Corp. | 10% | No |
| Newport Biz Corp. | 25% | Yes |
| Providence Biz Corp. | 100% | Yes |
| Washington Biz Corp. | 100% | Yes |
N. In summary:
1. The following entities are not subject to combined reporting:
O. Fifty percent test
1. The fifty percent (50%) ownership test is satisfied in the following circumstances:
a. A parent corporation and one or more corporations or chains of corporations which are connected through voting stock ownership with the parent, whether such ownership is direct or indirect, but only if –
P. Except as otherwise provided, voting stock is “owned” when title to the stock is directly held or if the voting stock is indirectly owned.
1. An individual indirectly owns voting stock that is owned by any of the following:
S. The following example illustrates certain principles outlined in this § 10.7 of this Part:
U. The following provides further information for interpreting the flow chart above.
3. For purposes of this § 10.7 of this Part, the term “federal income tax treaty” means a comprehensive income tax treaty between the United States and a foreign jurisdiction, other than a foreign jurisdiction which is defined as a tax haven; provided, however, that if the Tax Administrator determines that a combined group member non-U.S. corporation is organized in a tax haven that has a federal income tax treaty with the United States, its income subject to a federal income tax treaty, and any expenses or apportionment factor attributable to such income, shall not be included in the combined group net income or combined return if:
4. The term “tax haven" means a jurisdiction that, during the tax year in question, has no or nominal effective tax on the relevant income and:
D. Interdependence of functions test
3. Any of the following circumstances indicates that an interdependence of functions exists:
a. Same Line of Business. The principal activities of the entities are in the same general line of business. Examples of the same line of business are manufacturing, wholesaling, and retailing of tangible personal property; transportation or finance.
E. Three unities test
1. This test adopts the state law test for unity followed in Butler Brothers.
b. Unity of operations and unity of use. These unities exist if each entity that is to be included in the unitary business benefits or receives goods, services, support, guidance, or direction arising from the actions of common staff resources or common executive resources, personnel, third-party providers, or operations under the direction of such common resources. The tests are overlapping and the indicators of each test also indicate the existence of interdependence of functions. The existence or non-existence of the following factors will assist in the determination of whether unity of operations and use exist with respect to a combined group. The existence or non-existence of any one factor, by itself, is normally not determinative of whether there is a unity of operations and use. Factors that may be considered include, but are not limited to:
F. Holding Companies. The test for a unitary business established by this § 10.8 of this Part applies in determining whether a holding company is included or excluded from a unitary business. If a holding company is organizationally between two unitary entities, such holding company does not negate unity of ownership.
H. Newly formed entities
1. When a corporation forms another corporation, a presumption exists in favor of finding unity between the two corporations as of the date of formation. Any party may rebut such presumption by proving that the entities are not unitary or became unitary at a later date. For purposes of this § 10.8 of this Part, a newly formed entity includes – but is not limited to – the following:
I. Newly acquired entities
1. When an entity acquires another entity so that the acquired entity is a member of a commonly controlled group for the first time, it shall be presumed that the acquiring and acquired entities are engaged in a unitary business for the purchaser’s taxable year that includes the acquisition. If the purchaser is already a combined group member, the taxable year that includes the acquisition is the taxable year of the combined group.
J. Examples: The following examples illustrate some of the principles set forth in this § 10.8 of this Part:
B. For purposes of this § 10.9 of this Part, an affiliated group is one or more chains of includible corporations connected through stock ownership with a common parent corporation – as further defined in IRC, 26 U.S.C. §§ 1504 (a) and (b). The common parent must be an includible corporation and the following requirements must be met:
3. For this purpose, the term “stock” generally does not include any stock that:
D. Affiliated groups that make the federal consolidated election are nevertheless not allowed to carryback NOLs. Also, affiliated groups that make the federal consolidated election must follow the same tracing provisions as combined groups. (See § 10.13 of this Part.)
1 To avoid double taxation, an affiliated group that makes the federal consolidated election for purposes of Rhode Island combined reporting shall exclude from the group for Rhode Island purposes those C corporations which are taxed under R.I. Gen. Laws Chapter 44-13 (“Public Service Corporation Tax”), Chapter 44-13.1 (“Taxation of Railroad Corporations”), Chapter 44-14 (“Taxation of Banks”), Chapter 44-17 (“Taxation of Insurance Companies”), or Chapter 27-43 (“Captive Insurance Companies”) – or which would be taxed under said chapters if they had Rhode Island nexus.
a. Example: Assume that all of the entities in the following table are C corporations and comprise a combined group engaged in a unitary business. The group elects to file a federal consolidated return and includes, in that federal consolidated return, all of the entities in the table. For purposes of Rhode Island combined reporting, a group typically must include all of the entities included in its federal consolidated return. However, in this example, the number of entities included for Rhode Island purposes is modified: Only A Corp. and B Corp. will be included. C Corp. and D Corp. will not be included because if they were located in Rhode Island they would be taxed under R.I. Gen. Laws Chapter 44-14 (“Taxation of Banks”) Chapter 44-17 (“Taxation of Insurance Companies”), or Chapter 27-43 (“Captive Insurance Companies”). E Corp. is not included because it is taxed under R.I. Gen. Laws Chapter 44-14. F Corp. is not included because it is taxed under R.I. Gen. Laws Chapter 44-17.
| Entities to be Counted for Rhode Island Combined Reporting Purposes | ||
| Entity Name: | Description: | In Rhode Island Combined Return? |
| A Corporation | Rhode Island Manufacturer | Yes |
| B Corporation | Massachusetts Retailer | Yes |
| C Corporation | Connecticut Bank | No |
| D Corporation | Pennsylvania Insurer | No |
| E Corporation | Rhode Island Bank | No |
| F Corporation | Rhode Island Insurer | No |
E. Should the affiliated group make this election, the election shall be binding for purposes of Rhode Island combined reporting for five consecutive tax years beginning with the first tax year to which the election applies.
H. The affiliated group making the election shall file, for the year concurrent with the filing of its Rhode Island combined return, a copy of the following:
B. For tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2015, all entities that are treated as C corporations for federal income tax purposes shall apportion net income to this state by means of a single factor representing total receipts – gross receipts – from sales and other applicable sources during the taxable year which are attributable to the entity’s activities or transactions.
E. To summarize, a combined group subject to Rhode Island mandatory unitary combined reporting shall use the Finnigan method, single sales factor apportionment, and market-based sourcing in its calculations.
F. Finnigan Method
G. Example: The following example illustrates the application of the Finnigan method for apportioning the combined income of a combined group.
| Name of Entity | Rhode Island Receipts | Everywhere Receipts | Nexus With Rhode Island |
| Hotel Corporation | 50 | 100 | Yes |
| India Corporation | 100 | 200 | Yes |
| Juliet Corporation | 100 | 200 | No |
| Factor Total: | 250 | 500 | |
| Finnigan apportionment includes all Rhode Island factor attributes whether entities do or do not have nexus with Rhode Island. |
H. No apportionment
B. Determination of taxable income or loss of the group using a group report.
C. Components of income subject to tax in this state.
D. Determination of taxpayer’s share of the taxable income of a combined group apportionable to this state.
1. The taxpayer member’s share of the taxable income apportionable to Rhode Island of each combined group of which it is a member shall be the product of:
E. Pass-through entities.
F. FAS 109 Deduction
G. Taxable year of the combined group
1. The group’s taxable year is determined as follows:
H. Members with different accounting periods
1. If the taxable year of a member differs from the taxable year of the group, the designated agent shall elect to determine the portion of that member’s income to be included in one of the following ways:
I. Example: The following example illustrates certain principles outlined in this regulation, including the determination of a combined group, the determination of a unitary business, the calculation of a combined group’s income, and apportionment. (The example assumes ownership of a fictitious entity, Al’s Bakery, which is located in Providence, Rhode Island.)
1. Al’s Bakery is owned and operated as a sole proprietorship.
2. Al’s Bakery is treated as a pass-through entity for federal tax purposes – an S corporation, limited liability company (LLC), or partnership.
3. Al’s Bakery is a C Corporation, a stand-alone operation with no affiliates.
4. Al’s Bakery is a C corporation which makes baked goods and has nexus in Rhode Island but in no other state. Betty’s Distribution, of New Haven, Connecticut, a C corporation, distributes baked goods in Rhode Island and Connecticut, and has no nexus in Rhode Island but does have nexus in Connecticut. Catrina LLC, of Providence, is a pass-through entity which owns the real estate on which Al’s Bakery is located and passes through income to Al’s Bakery. Al’s Bakery and Betty’s Distribution have common ownership and share management and other services.
B. To compute the minimum tax, the combined group must determine the number of its members that have nexus in Rhode Island and multiply that number by the amount of the minimum tax as listed in R.I. Gen. Laws § 44-11-2(e). The sum must be compared to the actual tax due for the entire combined group. The combined group shall pay whichever amount is higher.
C. The following examples illustrate the application of this § 10.12 of this Part. The examples are for tax year 2015, when Rhode Island’s mandatory unitary combined reporting regime took effect, and assume that the minimum tax is $500 and the corporate income tax rate is seven percent (7%).
1. Example: Bryant Corp., Bentley Corp., Brandeis Corp., and Babson Corp. are all C corporations that together comprise a combined group which is engaged in a unitary business and is subject to Rhode Island combined reporting. Each has a current-year net operating loss.
| Application of Corporate Minimum Tax | |||
| Name | Rhode Island Nexus | NOL | Minimum Tax |
| Bryant Corporation | Yes | ($5,000) | $500 |
| Bentley Corporation | Yes | ($10,000) | $500 |
| Brandeis Corporation | Yes | ($15,000) | $500 |
| Babson Corporation | No | ($20,000) | N/A |
| Tax Total: | $1,500 |
2. Example: Bryant Corp., Bentley Corp., Brandeis Corp., and Babson Corp. are all C corporations that together comprise a combined group which is engaged in a unitary business and is subject to Rhode Island combined reporting.
| Application of Corporate Minimum Tax | |||
| Name | Rhode Island Nexus | Rhode Island Apportioned Income | Minimum Tax |
| Bryant Corporation | Yes | $10,000 | $500 |
| Bentley Corporation | Yes | $5,000 | $500 |
| Brandeis Corporation | Yes | $0 | $500 |
| Babson Corporation | No | $5,000 | N/A |
| Totals: | $20,000 | $1,500 | |
| Total Tax: | $1,400 | $1,500 | |
| Note: Because minimum tax of $1,500 is greater than tax of $1,400 determined under standard formula, group pays $1,500 in minimum tax. |
3. Example: Bryant Corp., Bentley Corp., Brandeis Corp., Babson Corp., and Tuck Corp. are all C corporations that together comprise a combined group which is engaged in a unitary business and is subject to Rhode Island combined reporting.
| Application of Corporate Minimum Tax | |||
| Name | Rhode Island Nexus | Rhode Island Apportioned Income | Minimum Tax |
| Bryant Corporation | Yes | $10,000 | $500 |
| Bentley Corporation | Yes | $5,000 | $500 |
| Brandeis Corporation | Yes | $0 | $500 |
| Babson Corporation | No | $0 | N/A |
| Tuck Corporation | No | $3,000 | N/A |
| Totals: | $23,000 | $1,500 | |
| Total Tax: | $1,610 | $1,500 | |
| Note: Group pays $1,610 in tax, as determined under standard formula, because it is higher than minimum tax of $1,500. |
A. For purposes of this regulation, a tracing protocol shall apply to net operating losses (NOLs).
4. NOLs created in tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2015, shall receive the same treatment by Rhode Island for purposes of combined reporting and the Rhode Island corporate tax as they do under IRC, 26 U.S.C. § 172, except that:
B. Departing member of combined group.
C. Examples: The following examples serve to illustrate some of the principles contained in § 10.13 of this Part.
5. Furthermore, the allowable loss that the combined group’s Rhode Island member generated through Tax Year 2015 is limited by the amount of income of the Rhode Island member for tax year 2015.
| Net Operating Loss-Tax Year 2015 | ||||
| November Corp | Oscar Corp | Papa Corp | Combined Group | |
| Federal Taxable Income | $100,000 | $100,000 | $100,000 | $300,000 |
| NOL Carryover (Form TY 2014) | ($200,000) | ($50,000) | $0 | |
| NOL Carryover Allowable | ($100,000) | $0 | $0 | ($100,000) |
| Adjusted Taxable Income | $0 | $100,000 | $100,000 | $200,000 |
6. In Tax Year 2016, assume that November, Oscar and Papa are C corporations that each has $50,000 in federal taxable income.
a. Of November’s $100,000 NOL carryover, only $50,000 can be used to offset its income; the remainder of the NOL is carried to future years and applied to the extent allowable by statute. Oscar’s $50,000 NOL still cannot be used for Rhode Island purposes because the loss was incurred in a year prior to Oscar’s being required to file with Rhode Island.
| Net Operating Loss-Tax Year 2016 | ||||
| November Corp | Oscar Corp | Papa Corp | Combined Group | |
| Federal Taxable Income | $50,000 | $50,000 | $50,000 | $150,000 |
| NOL Carryover | ($100,000) | ($50,000) | $0 | |
| NOL Carryover Allowable | ($50,000) | $0 | $0 | $50,000 |
| Adjusted Taxable Income | $0 | $50,000 | $50,000 | $100,000 |
7. Example
b. As a result, the combined group shows a net operating loss of $500 million for Tax Year 2015. As the example illustrates, Rhode Island law allows a combined group, for purposes of Rhode Island combined reporting, to use current year losses from the combined group’s members – even from members that would not otherwise have a Rhode Island filing requirement if it were not for combined reporting.
| Net Operating Loss-Tax Year 2015 | |||||
| Quebec Corp. | Romeo Corp. | Sierra Corp. | Tango Corp. | Combined Group | |
| Federal Taxable Income | $100 | $100 | $100 | ($800) | ($500) |
c. In Tax Year 2016 (please see table below), the four member corporations of the combined group each has $100 million in federal taxable income, for a total of $400 million. But because the combined group had a $500 million net operating loss carryover from Tax Year 2015, the first year in which mandatory unitary combined reporting applied in Rhode Island, the group’s Tax Year 2016 federal taxable income of $400 million is offset for Rhode Island tax purposes, and the group carries forward the remaining $100 million NOL.
| Net Operating Loss-Tax Year 2016 | |||||
| Quebec Corp. | Romeo Corp. | Sierra Corp. | Tango Corp. | Combined Group | |
| Federal Taxable Income | $100 | $100 | $100 | $100 | $400 |
| Allowable NOL: | ($400) | ||||
| Adjusted Taxable Income: | $0 |
8. Example
a. Uniform Corp., Victor Corp., and Whiskey Corp. are C corporations that have common ownership, are engaged in a unitary business, and are a combined group. In Tax Year 2015, Uniform and Victor Corporations have a combined federal taxable income of $200 million, which is offset by Whiskey Corp.’s current year net operating loss of $400 million. Consequently, the combined group has a $200 million net loss for 2015. The combined group carries forward a $200 million NOL – because the NOL was generated in a year in which combined reporting was mandatory.
| Net Operating Loss-Tax Year 2015 | ||||
| Uniform Corp. | Victor Corp. | Whiskey Corp. | Combined group | |
| Federal Taxable Income | $100 | $100 | ($400) | ($200) current year net loss |
b. In Tax Year 2016, each corporation posts federal taxable income of $100 million. The group deducts its $200 million NOL carryover, generated in 2015, from its Tax Year 2016 federal taxable income of $300 million. That leaves $100 million in adjusted taxable income for 2016.
| Net Operating Loss-Tax Year 2016 | ||||
| Uniform Corp. | Victor Corp. | Whiskey Corp. | Combined group | |
| Federal Taxable Income | $100 | $100 | $100 | $300 |
| NOL carryover from 2015: | ($200) | |||
| NOL carryover allowable deduction: | ($200) | |||
| Combined group’s adjusted taxable income: | $100 |
9. Example
a. January Corp. and February Corp. are Rhode Island C corporations under common ownership engaged in a unitary business and are subject to Rhode Island combined reporting for tax year 2015 and 2016. Due to a reorganization, the corporations are no longer part of a combined group under common ownership for 2017; they file as separate entities in Rhode Island for 2017. As the following table shows, only February Corp. may use the NOL carryforward for 2017 because February Corp. generated the loss in the first place.
| Split up (dollars in thousands) | |||
| 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | |
| January Corp. | $100 | $50 | $50(Filing as Separate Entity) |
| February Corp. | ($500) | $50 | $50 ($300)($250)(Filing as Separate Entity) |
| Tentative Totals: | ($400) | $100 ($400) ($300) | |
| Note: Carry $400 NOL to 2016. | Note: Apply $400 NOL from 2015 to TY2016, leaving $300 NOL to carry to 2017. | Note: January has $50 in income for 2017 and files as separate entity. $300 NOL from 2016 applies only to February, reducing February’s income to $0; remaining NOL of $250 carries forward to 2018 for February only. |
10. Example
b. As the following table shows, only $100 of the NOL carryforward can be used in 2017, against the income of April Corp. and May Corp.; the NOL carryforward cannot be applied in 2017 against June Corp. in 2017 because June Corp. is new to the group that year – and June’s income cannot be offset by a loss to which it was not a party.
| New member of group (dollars in thousands) | ||||
| 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | ||
| March Corp. | $100 | $50 | n/a | |
| April Corp. | ($500) | $50 | $50 | |
| May Corp. | $100 | $50 | $50 | |
| June Corp. | n/a | n/a | $50 | |
| Total: | ($300) | $100 ($300) ($150) | $100 ($150) ($50) | $50 |
| Note: For 2015, $500 NOL wipes out group’s income, leaving $300 NOL carryforward to 2016. For 2016, the group’s $150 income is wiped out by the $300 NOL carryforward; carry forward $150 NOL to 2017. For 2017, June Corp. joins group; June’s income cannot be offset by a loss to which it was not a party. Thus, the $150 NOL carried to 2017 wipes out April’s and May’s income only, leaving the group with $50 in income from June; the remaining $50 NOL is carried forward to 2018 – and can apply only to April’s and May’s income that year. |
11. Example
a. July Corp. and August Corp. are Rhode Island C corporations under common ownership engaged in a unitary business and are subject to Rhode Island combined reporting for tax year 2015 and 2016. For 2017, September Corp. (a C corporation under common ownership) joins the group. As the following table shows, September Corp. has $60 in income for 2017, but only July Corp. and August Corp. get to use the NOL carryforward from 2016 – in other words, the group gets to use only $20 of the NOL; the remaining $80 NOL is carried forward.
| New member of group (dollars in thousands) | ||||
| 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | ||
| July Corp. | ($100) | $50 | $10 | |
| August Corp. | ($100) | $50 | $10 | |
| September Corp. | N/A | N/A | $60 | |
| Total: | ($200) | $100 ($200) ($100) | $20 ($100) ($80) | $60 |
| Note: For 2015, July and August each has current-year $100 NOL, which carries to 2016. For 2016, the NOL carryforward wipes out income, leaving $100 NOL for 2017. In 2017, $100 NOL carryforward can be used against income of July and August only; it cannot be applied against September’s income because September is new to group that year. Thus, in effect, only $20 of the NOL can be used in 2017, leaving group with September Corp.’s $60 in income for that year. Remaining $80 NOL is carried forward to 2018, when it can be applied only to income of July and August. |
12. Example
b. Thus, the $100 NOL carried forward to 2017 can apply only to Anne Corp. (because it generated the loss in the first place), reducing its income to zero and resulting in a $50 NOL carryover only for Anne Corp. for 2018. In other words, the NOL tracks with Anne Corp. only; the newly formed entity Doris Corp. cannot use the NOL.
| Combinations (dollars in thousands) | |||
| 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | |
| Anne Corp. | ($200) | $50 | $50 Anne Becomes a Stand-Alone Corp. |
| Betty Corp. | $0 | $50 | Betty & Clara Merge to Form D |
| Clara Corp. | N/A | N/A | Betty & Clara Merge to Form D |
| Doris Corp. | N/A | N/A | |
| Total: | ($200) | $100 ($200) ($100) | $50 Anne Income ($100) Anne NOL ($50) Tracks with Anne |
D. Jobs Development Act.
E. Life Sciences Rate Reduction
3. For tax year 2015, the corporate income tax rate is seven percent (7.0%), and the amount of the life sciences rate reduction cannot exceed four (4) percentage points. Thus, the eligible corporation’s tax rate cannot be less than three percent (3.0%).
| Corporate Income Tax Rate Reduction | ||
| Tax Year 2014 | Tax Year 2015 | |
| Corporate income tax rate: | 9.00% | 7.00% |
| Maximum rate reduction | (6.00%) | (4.00%) |
| Tax rate cannot be less than: | 3.00% | 3.00% |
| Applies to Jobs Development Act rate reduction under R.I. Gen. Laws Chapter 42-64.5 and life sciences rate reduction (The I-195 Redevelopment Act of 2011) under R.I. Gen. Laws Chapter 42-64.14. |
F. Departing member of combined group.
G. Tax credit recapture.
1. In the event that a taxpayer generates a credit for a tax year beginning on or after January 1, 2015, and then subsequently disposes of the associated property, or where the property otherwise ceases to be in qualified use within the meaning of the applicable credit statute, recapture of the credit shall be determined pursuant to applicable Rhode Island statutes and regulations based upon the total credit previously taken by the taxpayer and its combined group members.
a. Example:
(2) Recapture of the investment tax credit is required where property on which a credit has been taken is disposed of or ceases to be in qualified use prior to the end of its useful life, except:
(4) The formula for recapture computation is expressed as follows:
| Recapture = |
| Tax credit taken on property ceasing to qualify, times: |
| (useful life of property in months - qualified use in months) / (useful life of property in months) |
| In this example, XYZ Corp. is treated as a C corporation for federal income tax purposes and is part of a combined group whose members are engaged in a unitary business and which is subject to Rhode Island combined reporting. |
| XYZ Corp., a calendar-year corporation, acquires a five-story building, including structural components, (each story of equal square footage) on January 1, 2015. The building’s basis is $100,000. The building has a 20-year life. XYZ Corp. rents out or leases out one floor. XYZ Corp. uses the remaining four floors: three of them for production, one for administration and distribution. Thus, of the five stories in the building, four are for qualified use; one is not. |
| Investment Tax Credit = 4% x ($100,000 - $20,000) = $3,200. |
| On January 1, 2016, XYZ Corp. rents out a floor that it had previously been using in administration and distribution. Thus, one of the four floors it had been using has fallen out of qualified use – and recapture is required. Recapture (expressed as “R” below) is computed as follows: |
| R = ($3,200 x 1/4) x (240 months – 12 months) |
| 240 months |
| R = $800 x 95% R = $760 |
b. Example:
| The facts and circumstances are the same as above, except that XYZ Corp. on January 1, 2016, rents out two floors that it had previously used in production. XYZ Corp. is therefore renting out three floors and using the remaining two floors: one for production, one for administration and distribution. |
| Because the entire building is not used more than fifty percent (50%) in production, there is a recapture of the entire remaining investment credit, computed as follows: R = ($3,200 x 4/4) x (240 months – 12 months) |
| 240 months |
| R = $3,200 x 95% R = $3,040 |
| In both examples, because the credit was generated on or after January 1, 2015, by a member of the combined group (in this case, XYZ Corp.), recapture is the responsibility of the entire group. |
B. Notwithstanding any other provisions of R.I. Gen. Laws § 44-26-2.1, any taxpayer required to file a combined return in accordance with R.I. Gen. Laws § 44-11-4.1 et seq. in a tax year beginning on or after January 1, 2015, shall compute estimated payments for that tax year as follows:
C. The designated agent is required to act on behalf of the combined group in its own name in all matters relating to the combined return. This includes performing the following duties:
D. In general, no person other than the designated agent shall have authority to act for or represent itself or the combined group regarding the duties listed in § 10.19 of this Part. A combined group member, or an entity which the taxpayer asserts is a combined group member, may assume any of the duties of designated agent under any of the following conditions:
B. The Division of Taxation is required by statute to establish an independent appeals process – for tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2015 – to attempt to resolve disputes between the Tax Administrator and the taxpayer with respect to the method of apportionment applied regarding the corporate income tax under R.I. Gen. Laws Chapter 44-11, including combined reporting. The Division of Taxation intends to address the requirement in the following manner:
A. Following are the basic steps in computing tax for purposes of Rhode Island’s combined reporting regime:
A. The following examples serve to illustrate the impact of mandatory unitary combined reporting, which is effective for tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2015.
1. Example:
d. (K Corp.’s current-year net loss is shared with J Corp., wiping out J Corp.’s $400,000 of net income for the year; the remaining $100,000 of K Corp. NOL is carried forward.)
| K Corp | J Corp | Combined Group | |
| Net income (loss) for 2015 | $400,000 | ($500,000) | ($100,000) |
| Rhode Island Tax Due | $1,000 | ||
| Note: Because the combined group has a net loss, it must pay the $500 annual corporate minimum tax for tax year 2015, multiplied by the number of group members with Rhode Island nexus. |
2. Example:
e. (In a separate step, the group determines the number of members that have Rhode Island nexus, and multiplies that sum by $500. In this example, only one member has Rhode Island nexus, so the minimum tax is $500. However, the group must pay the higher of the tax due under the standard formula or the tax due under the minimum tax. In this example, the $7,000 in tax due under the standard formula is higher.)
| L Corp. and M Corp. | Combined group |
| Combined group’s net income | $200,000 |
| Group’s net income apportioned to Rhode Island | 100,000 |
| Rhode Island tax (applied at rate of 7%) | 7,000 |
| Total Rhode Island tax due | 7,000 |
3. Example:
4. Example:
5. Example:
6. Example:
7. Example:
8. Example:
H. Tax Year 2014
3. As a result, Victor Corp.’s Rhode Island corporate income tax liability for tax year 2014 was the minimum required, $500. (Please see table below.)
| Tax Year 2014 | Victor Corp(Separate) | Whiskey Corp(Separate) | X-Ray Corp(Separate) | Combined Return |
| Federal taxable income | $100,000 | $1,000,000 | $180,000,000 | n/a |
| - deductions | (110,000) | (750,000) | (90,000,000) | n/a |
| + additions | 5,000 | 50,000 | 10,000,000 | n/a |
| Adjusted taxable income | (5,000) | 300,000 | 100,000,000 | n/a |
| Rhode Island tax | 500 | 0 | 0 | n/a |
I. Tax Year 2015
4. However, Victor Corp. created a current-year net loss for tax year 2015, which is allowed to be shared with other members of the combined group. (Please see table below.)
| Tax Year 2015 | Victor Corp | Whiskey Corp | X-Ray Corp | Combined Return |
| Federal taxable income | $100,000 | $1,000,000 | $180,000,000 | $181,100,000 |
| - deductions | (110,000) | (750,000) | (90,000,000) | (90,860,000) |
| + additions | 5,000 | 50,000 | 10,000,000 | 10,055,000 |
| Adjusted taxable income | (5,000) | 300,000 | 100,000,000 | 100,295,000 |
7. The apportionment formula includes a numerator and a denominator:
b. For purposes of the denominator, all gross receipts – including, in this example, all overseas sales of all taxable members of the group – are included. (Please see table below.)
| Apportionment: | Victor Corp. | Whiskey Corp. | X-ray Corp. | Combined |
| Rhode Island receipts | $5,000,000 | $10,000,000 | $0 | $15,000,000 |
| Everywhere receipts | 10,000,000 | 100,000,000 | 200,000,000 | 310,000,000 |
| Apportionment ratio | 0.500000 | 0.100000 | 0.000000 | 0.04838710 |
e. The result is the combined group’s apportioned Rhode Island taxable income. The income (after any applicable adjustments) is then subject to Rhode Island’s corporate income tax rate. (For tax year 2015, the Rhode Island corporate income tax rate is seven percent (7%), down from nine percent (9%) for tax year 2014.) In this example, the combined group’s Rhode Island apportioned taxable income of $4,852,984 is multiplied by the tax rate of seven percent (7%) for tax year 2015 to arrive at the tentative Rhode Island corporate income tax of $339,709. (Please see table below.) Any allowable credits, subject to Rhode Island combined reporting rules, would then be applied to arrive at Rhode Island tax.
| Tax computation for tax year 2015: | Combined group |
| Federal taxable income | $181,100,000 |
| - deductions | (90,860,000) |
| + additions | 10,055,000 |
| Adjusted taxable income | 100,295,000 |
| x apportionment factor | 0.04838710 |
| Apportioned taxable income | 4,852,984 |
| x tax rate | 0.07 |
| Tentative Rhode Island tax | 339,709 |