Wash. Admin. Code § 458-20-19402
Example 1. Assume a parent purchases apportionable tax preparation services for their child. The child is the customer for the purpose of determining where the benefit is received.
Example 2. Assume Taxpayer A is subject to a business activity tax in State X of Mexico (e.g., Taxpayer pays tax to State X), but nowhere else in Mexico. Also, assume that Taxpayer A is not subject to any national business activity tax in Mexico and does not meet the substantial nexus thresholds described in WAC 458-20-19401 for Mexico as a whole. In this case, Taxpayer is "taxable in another state," namely the Mexican state of State X, but not taxable in any other portion or any other state of Mexico.
Example 3. Assume Taxpayer B is not subject to any business activity taxes in Mexico, but satisfies the substantial nexus thresholds described in WAC 458-20-19401 for Mexico as a whole. Taxpayer B is "taxable in another state," namely the foreign country of Mexico.
This formula is:
(Taxable income) = (Apportionable income) x (Receipts factor)
See Part 4 of this rule for a discussion of the receipts factor.
Example 4. Engineering Co. negotiates with Phone Manufacturer 1 and Phone Manufacturer 2 to provide design services for both manufacturers' upcoming lines of cell phones. Engineering Co. must use the same attribution method for its apportionable receipts from Phone Manufacturer 1 and Phone Manufacturer 2 for design services, because Engineering Co. is providing the same service to both customers.
Engineering Co. separately charges Phone Manufacturer 1 to solicit sales of Phone Manufacturer 1's phones on a commissioned sales basis. Engineering Co. would separately determine the attribution methods for its apportionable receipts from design services and commissioned sales for Phone Manufacturer 1, even if both services are taxable under the same B&O tax classification, because the design services and commissioned sales are separate services.
Example 5. Assume Law Firm has thousands of charges to clients, and that Law Firm can show it is not commercially reasonable for Law Firm to track each charge to each client to determine where the benefit related to each service is received. Assume the scope of Law Firm's practice is such that it is reasonable to assume that the benefits of Law Firm's services are received at the location of the customer as reflected by the customer's billing address. Under these circumstances, Law Firm can use the billing addresses of each client as a reasonable method of proportionally attributing the benefit of its services.
Example 6. Same facts as Example 5 except, Law Firm has a client that represents a significant portion of its revenue from legal services (five percent for purposes of this example). Law Firm has records substantiating that the billing address of this client is unrelated to any of the services provided. In this case, using the billing address of this client would not fairly relate to where the customer received the benefit of the services. Using the billing address for this client to determine where the benefit is received would not fairly represent, or distort, the apportionment of Law Firm's receipts. Therefore, Law Firm would need to evaluate the specific services provided to that client to determine where the benefits of those services are received. Similarly, use of billing address would not be a reasonable method of proportionally attributing the benefit of Law Firm's services for any other clients representing five percent or more of Law Firm's revenue from legal services. Law Firm would need to evaluate the specific services provided to these clients to determine where the benefits are received. However, Law Firm may use billing addresses to attribute the income received from other clients representing less than five percent of Law Firm's legal service revenue if appropriate.
Example 7. Assume Taxpayer R attributes an apportionable receipt based on its customer's billing address, using subsection (301)(d) of this rule, and the billing address is a P.O. Box located in another state. Taxpayer R also knows that mail delivered to this P.O. Box is automatically forwarded to the customer's actual location. In this case, use of the billing address is not allowed because it would not fairly apportion, or would distort the apportionment of, Taxpayer R's receipts.
A customer's related business activities will generally occur either in the customer's market or at the customer's business location(s).
Example 8. Architect drafts plans for a building to be built in Washington. Architect's services relate to real property, which is located in Washington, therefore the customer receives the benefit of that service in Washington at the location of the real property. Architect's receipts for this service are solely attributed to Washington because the customer receives the entire benefit in Washington.
Example 9. Franchisor hires Taxpayer, an architect, to create a design of a standardized building that will be used at four locations in Washington and two locations in Oregon. Taxpayer's services relate to real property at those six locations, therefore the customer receives the benefit of the service at the four Washington locations and the two Oregon locations. Taxpayer will attribute 2/3 (4 of 6 sites) of the receipts for this service to Washington and 1/3 (2 of 6 sites) of the receipts to Oregon.
Example 10. Assume the same facts as Example 9 except Franchisor will use the same design in all 50 states for all its franchisee's locations. Taxpayer and Franchisor do not know at the time the service is provided (and cannot reasonably estimate) how many franchise locations will exist in each state. If there is no reasonable means of proportionally attributing receipts at the time the services are performed, and it is clear that no state will have a majority of the franchise locations, the apportionable receipts must be attributed following the steps in subsection (301) (c) through (g) of this rule.
Example 11. Real estate broker located in Florida receives a commission for arranging the sale of real property located in Washington. The real estate broker's service is related to the real property, therefore the customer receives the benefit in Washington, where the real property is located, and the commission income is attributed to Washington.
Example 12. Taxpayer, a commissioned salesperson, sells tangible personal property (100 widgets) for Distributor to XYZ Company for delivery to Spokane. Taxpayer's service is engaging in Distributor's product sales. Distributor receives the benefit of Taxpayer's service in its market, which in this case is Spokane, the location where XYZ Company receives the widgets. Taxpayer will attribute the commission income from this sale to Washington.
Example 13. Same facts as in Example 12, but 50 of the widgets are to be delivered to Spokane, 25 to Idaho, and 25 to Oregon. In this case, Distributor receives the benefit of Taxpayer's services in all three states. Taxpayer will attribute the receipts (commission income) from this sale 50% to Washington, 25% to Idaho, and 25% to Oregon, the locations where XYZ receives the widgets. It is assumed that the commission income is not proportionally different from percentage of widgets delivered into each state.
Example 14. Debt Collector provides debt collection services to ABC. Debt Collector's service is obtaining and facilitating amounts owed to ABC from the sale of ABC's products. ABC receives the benefit of Debt Collector's service in ABC's market. It is reasonable to assume that ABC's market is where the debtors are located in various states. If Debt Collector is able to attribute specific receipts to a specific debtor, then the receipt is attributed to where the debtor is located.
Example 15. Same facts as Example 14, except Debt Collector is paid a lump sum amount and is unable to attribute specific benefits with specific debtors. In this case, a reasonable method of proportionally attributing benefits/receipts should be employed. Depending on Debt Collector's specific facts and circumstances, a reasonable method of proportionally attributing benefits/receipts could be: Relative number of debtors in each state; relative debt actually collected from debtors in each state; the relative amount of debt owed by debtors in each state; or another method that fairly apportions, and does not distort the apportionment of, Debt Collector's receipts.
Example 16. Call Center provides "customer service" services to Retailer who has customers in all 50 states. Call Center handles inquiries from Retailer's customers on how to install and use Retailer's products, and troubleshoots customer issues related to the products sold. Call Center also informs Retailer's customers about package deals and other discounts on Retailer's new lines of products. Call Center's services are promoting Retailer's products by incentivizing customers to make additional purchases, and establishing or maintaining Retailer's market by supporting existing customers. Retailer receives the benefit of Call Center's services in its market, which in this case is all 50 states. Call Center has offices in Iowa and Alabama that answer questions about Retailer's products. Call Center records Retailer's customers' calls by area code. Call Center may attribute receipts received from Retailer based on the number of calls from area codes assigned to each state. This would be a reasonable method of proportionally attributing receipts notwithstanding the fact that mobile phone numbers and related area codes may not exactly reflect the physical location of the customer in all cases.
Example 17. Taxpayer provides internet advertising services to national retail chains, regional businesses, businesses with a single location, and businesses that operate solely over the internet. Taxpayer's services are promoting customers' products. Generally, each customer receives the benefit of Taxpayer's advertising services in each customer's market. Taxpayer determines, based on its books and records, where each customer receives the benefit in its market. If Taxpayer cannot obtain this information, it would then use a reasonable method of proportionally attributing the benefit of its service to the customer's market. Depending on what products or services Taxpayer's customers are providing, the use of relative internet connections in the customer's market based on Federal Communications Commission (FCC) data may be a reasonable method of proportionally attributing the benefit of Taxpayer's services to customers' markets.
Example 18. Oregon Newspaper sells newspaper advertising to Merlin's Potion Shop. Merlin's only makes over-the-counter sales from its single location in Vancouver, Washington. Oregon Newspaper is promoting Merlin's Potion Shop's products. Merlin's Potion Shop receives the benefit of Oregon Newspaper's advertising services in its market in Washington, where it makes sales to its customers. In this case Oregon Newspaper will report 100% of its receipts from Merlin's to Washington.
Example 19. Recording Company provides content development services for its customer, Licensing Company. Recording Company's content development services consist of recording and developing a live television program, and selling this program to Licensing Company. Before Recording Company records and develops the program, Licensing Company has already sold the broadcasting rights for this program to third-party broadcasters. Licensing Company does not conduct any further development of its own on the television program. Recording Company's service is completing Licensing Company's sales. Licensing Company receives the benefit of Recording Company's service in Licensing Company's market. In this case Licensing Company's market is where the broadcasters use Licensing Company's rights to the television program.
Example 20. Marketer A contracts with Seller to conduct a "marketing campaign" service for Seller. Marketer A's marketing campaign consists of researching population groups most likely to purchase Seller's products, developing targeted promotional materials, and distributing those materials to the identified population groups via mail and social media. Marketer A subcontracts with Marketer B, for Marketer B to conduct the marketing campaign service.
Marketer A's services are promoting Seller's products. Seller receives the benefit of Marketer A's services in Seller's market, where Seller sells the products being promoted by Marketer A's campaign.
Marketer B's services are completing Marketer A's product sales. By conducting the marketing campaign for Marketer A, Marketer B is fulfilling Marketer A's contractual obligations to Seller. Marketer A receives the benefit of Marketer B's services in Marketer A's market. In this case, Marketer A's market is the same as Seller's market, where Seller receives the benefit of Marketer A's service.
Marketer B will attribute its receipts from Marketer A to Seller's market using information supplied by Marketer A about Seller's market. If Marketer A and Marketer B are affiliated, the presumption is that Marketer A should be able to provide to Marketer B the information about Seller's market.
Example 21. Investment Manager contracts with a mutual fund company to manage a fund. Investment Manager receives a fee from the mutual fund company for managing the fund based on the value of the assets in the fund on particular days. Responsibilities in managing the fund consist of: Helping the fund execute business strategies through daily management of the fund, overseeing the buying and selling of fund holdings, and investor servicing. Investment Manager determines what assets the fund will buy with investors' money. The fund manager is responsible for making sure the portfolio is earning the expected return, which is a significant consideration when investors decide which fund to invest their money in. The mutual fund discloses to investors in the fund's prospectus statement who the Investment Manager is and the management fees paid. Investment Manager knows or should know the identity of the investors in the fund and their mailing addresses. Investment Manager's service is establishing or maintaining the mutual fund company's market. In this case, it is reasonable to assume that the mutual fund company's market is where the investors are located. Investment Manager will attribute its receipts from managing the fund to those investor locations.
Example 22. Staffing Co. contracts with ISP Inc., an internet service provider, to provide supplemental marketing staff at ISP's sole office in State A. The supplemental marketing staff make calls to current and prospective customers of ISP, offering additional or enhanced services such as faster internet speed, ad blocking, and video conferencing. ISP sells internet services in States A, B, and C. The activities of Staffing Co.'s supplemental marketing staff are promoting ISP's products. ISP receives the benefit of Staffing Co.'s service in ISP's market, which in this case is States A, B, and C.
Example 23. Management Co. provides customer support services to Customer A. Customer A's only physical location is its office in State Z. Customer A makes sales throughout the United States. Per the contract between Management Co. and Customer A, customer support services provided by Management Co. consist of operating a call center to handle Customer A's calls and emails related to services and sales. Management Co.'s customer support services are establishing and maintaining Customer A's market. Customer A receives the benefit of Management Co.'s service in Customer A's market throughout the United States.
Example 24. Same facts as Example 22, except Staffing Co. provides supplemental human resources staff to support business operations at ISP Inc.'s office in State A. Some of the supplemental staff work remotely, while others work at ISP's office. The supplemental human resources staff's work consists of recruiting and on boarding employees, facilitating communications between employees and management, managing employee benefits, and handling internal disciplinary actions. ISP receives the benefit of Staffing Co.'s service at ISP's business location(s). ISP's only office location is in State A. In this case the staffing service does not require ISP to be physically present, but relates to a specific, known business location, ISP's office in State A. ISP receives the benefit of Staffing Co.'s service in State A.
Example 25. Same facts as Example 23, except Management Co. also provides network support services to Customer A. Per the contract between Management Co. and Customer A, network support services provided by Management Co. consist of providing administrative, technical, and engineering support staff to develop, implement, and maintain all internal software elements for Customer A. Customer A's internal software allows Customer A's employees to perform their job duties, and includes operating systems, recordkeeping, filesharing, data and antivirus protection, and timekeeping software. Customer A receives the benefit of Management Co.'s service at Customer A's business location(s). In this case the network support services do not require Management Co. to be physically present, but relate to a specific, known business location, Customer A's physical location in State Z. Customer A receives the benefit of Management Co.'s network support services in State Z.
Example 26. Big Manufacturing hires an engineer to design a tool that will only be used in a factory located in Brewster, Washington. Big Manufacturing receives the benefit of the engineer's services at its business location. In this case the design service does not require Big Manufacturing to be physically present, but relates to a specific, known business location, the single location in Washington where Big Manufacturing intends to use the tool. One hundred percent of engineer's receipts from this service must be attributed to Washington.
Example 27. The same facts as in Example 26, except Big Manufacturing will use the tool equally in factories located in Brewster and in Kapa'a, Hawai'i. Big Manufacturing receives the benefit of the service at its business locations equally in two states. As a result, a reasonable method of proportionally attributing receipts would be to attribute 1/2 of the receipts to each state.
Example 28. Training Company provides training to Customer's employees on how to operate a specific piece of equipment used solely in Washington. Customer receives the benefit of the service at its business location(s). In this case the training service does not require the customer to be physically present, but relates to a specific, known business location in Washington, where employees use the equipment. Training Company will attribute 100% of its receipts received from Customer to its business location in Washington.
Example 29. Training Company provides manufacturing process improvement training to Customer's employees who are all located in State A. The training is provided from State B. Customer receives the benefit of Training Company's service at Customer's business location(s). In this case the training service does not require Customer's employees to be physically present, but it relates to the specific, known business location at Customer's office in State A, where the employees improve the manufacturing process. Training Company must attribute the apportionable receipts to State A where Customer solely receives the benefit of Training Company's service.
Example 30. Same facts as Example 29, except the training is provided for employees from several states and Training Company knows where each employee is assigned to work. Training Company's services relate to Customer's specific, known business locations where the employees are assigned to work in those several states, which is presumed to be where the employees use the training. Attributing receipts from the training based on where the employees are assigned to work is a reasonable method of proportionally attributing the receipts income.
Example 31. Training Company provides sales strategy training to Retailer's sales employees who are all located at Retailer's office in State A but make sales to Retailer's customers in all 50 states. The training is provided from State B via a combination of in-person and virtual attendance. Retailer receives the benefit of Training Company's service at Retailer's business location(s). In this case the training service does not require Retailer's employees to be physically present, but it relates to the specific, known business location at Retailer's office in State A, where Retailer's employees are assigned to work. This location is presumed to be where Retailer's sales employees use their improved skill sets from the training. Retailer receives the benefit of Training Company's service at Retailer's business location in State A.
Example 32. Manufacturer hires Law Firm to defend Manufacturer in a class action product liability lawsuit involving Manufacturer's Widgets. Manufacturer's principal place of business is in Washington. Manufacturer receives the benefit of Law Firm's service at Manufacturer's business location(s). In this case, Law Firm's service does not require Manufacturer to be physically present, and does not relate to a specific, known business location(s). Manufacturer's business location is its principal place of business or commercial domicile in Washington, where Manufacturer receives the benefit of Law Firm's services.
Example 33. Game Publisher hires Developer to perform software development services in connection with a new computer game that Game Publisher will release in the following year. Under the contract between Game Publisher and Developer, Developer's primary duty is to deliver a "beta" version of the computer game that Game Publisher will use for further development. Developer performs all of its software development activities at its office in Seattle. After Developer delivers a beta version of the game, Game Publisher will perform additional development on the game at its locations in California. Game Publisher receives the benefit of Developer's service at Game Publisher's business location(s). In this case Developer's service does not require Game Publisher to be physically present, but relates to the specific, known business locations in California where Game Publisher performs additional development. Developer will attribute 100% of its receipts from Game Publisher to California where Game Publisher receives the benefit of the service.
Example 34. Game Publisher received consumer complaints about its game console overheating and contracts with QA Company to determine the cause of and a possible solution to the problem. Under the contract, QA Company will receive compensation for providing testing services specific to the game console. Game Publisher will use QA Company's findings and recommendation to determine how to repair the video game console at its manufacturing location in California. Game Publisher receives the benefit of QA Company's service at Game Publisher's business location(s). In this case QA Company's service does not require Game Publisher to be physically present, but relates to the specific, known business location(s) in California where Game Publisher will perform additional development to resolve the issue. QA Company will attribute 100% of its receipts from Game Publisher to California where Game Publisher receives the benefit of the service.
Example 35. Company A provides human resources services to Racko, Inc. which has three offices that use those services in Washington, Oregon, and Idaho. Racko sells widgets and has customers for its widgets in all 50 states. Racko receives the benefit of Company A's services at Racko's business locations. In this case Company A's services do not require Racko's employees to be physically present, but relate to the specific, known business locations of Racko's offices in Washington, Oregon, and Idaho. Assuming that each office is approximately the same size and uses the services to approximately the same extent, then attributing 1/3 of the receipts to each of the states in which Racko has locations using the services is a reasonable method of proportionally attributing Company A's receipts from Racko.
Example 36. Director serves on the board of directors for DEF, Inc. Director's services relate to the general management of DEF. DEF is Director's customer and receives the benefit of Director's services at DEF's business location(s). In this case Director's services do not require any employees of DEF to be physically present, and do not relate to any specific, known business location. DEF's business location is its principal place of business or commercial domicile. Director must attribute the receipts earned from Director's services to DEF to DEF's principal place of business or commercial domicile.
Example 37. Insurance Company hires Law Firm to provide insurance defense services. Law Firm's insurance defense services involve representing one of Insurance Company's policyholders to minimize liability in a third-party lawsuit claiming damages against that policyholder. Insurance Company receives the benefit of Law Firm's service at Insurance Company's business location(s). In this case, Law Firm's service does not require Insurance Company to be physically present. However, Law Firm's service relates to a specific, known business location(s) that can be tied to its representation of the specific policyholder. Law Firm knows or should know the jurisdiction where the third party files its lawsuit against the policyholder, or where settlement occurs. This jurisdiction is the business location where Law Firm represents the policyholder and minimizes Insurance Company's liability. Insurance Company receives the benefit of Law Firm's service at this jurisdiction where the third party files its lawsuit, or where settlement occurs.
Example 38. A Washington resident travels to California for a medical procedure. Because the Washington resident must be physically present in California, the Washington resident receives the benefit of the service in California. The service provider must attribute its income from the procedure to California.
Example 39. Washington accountant prepares a Nevada couple's Arizona and Oregon state income tax returns as well as their federal income tax return. The benefit of the accountant's service associated with the state income tax returns is attributed to Arizona and Oregon because these returns relate to specific locations (states). The benefit associated with the federal income tax return is attributed to the couple's residence. The fees for the state tax returns are attributed to Arizona and Oregon, respectively, and the fee for the federal income tax return is attributed to Nevada.
Example 40. Tour Operator provides cruises through Washington's San Juan Islands for four days and Victoria, British Columbia for one day. Tour Operator's customers receive the benefit of Tour Operator's services where the tour occurs. Tour Operator may use a reasonable method of proportionally attributing the benefit to determine that its customers receive 80% of the benefit in Washington and 20% outside of Washington. Tour Operator must attribute 80% of apportionable receipts to Washington and 20% to British Columbia.
Example 41. A Washington couple hires a Washington attorney to prepare a last will and testament for Daughter who lives in California. Daughter is a third-party beneficiary and receives the benefit of the attorney's services in California because that is where Daughter lives. Washington Attorney must attribute the fee to California.
Example 42. A Washington couple hires a California accountant to prepare their joint federal income tax return. Because the couple does not have to be physically present for the accountant to perform services and services are not related to a specific location, the Washington couple receives the benefit of the accountant's services at their residence in Washington. California accountant must attribute its fee for this service to Washington.
Example 43. An Arizona resident retains a Washington stockbroker to handle its investments. The stockbroker receives orders from the client and executes trades of securities on the New York Stock Exchange. Because (a) the Arizona resident is not investing as part of a business; (b) the activity does not relate to real property; (c) the client does not need to be physically present for the stockbroker to perform its services; and (d) the services are not related to a specific location, the client receives the benefit of the services at client's place of residence. Washington stockbroker must attribute the fee to Arizona.
Example 44. The marketing office of ZYX LLC has information that can easily be used to determine a reasonable proportional attribution of receipts from providing marketing services to customers, but does not provide this information to the accounting office preparing the tax returns. ZYX must use the information maintained by the marketing office to attribute its receipts.
Example 45. CBA, Inc. is entitled to receive information from an affiliate or unrelated third party which it could use to determine where the customer receives the benefit of CBA's services, but chooses not to obtain that information. CBA must use the information maintained by the affiliate or unrelated third party to attribute its apportionable receipts.
Example 46. Same facts as Example 45, except that the information is raw data that must be formatted and otherwise processed at a cost that exceeds a reasonable estimate of the possible difference in the amount of tax CBA would owe if it used another attribution method authorized in subsection (301) (c) through (g) of this rule. In this case, it is not commercially reasonable for CBA to use this data to determine where to attribute its income.
Example 47. NOP, Inc. has $400,000 of receipts attributed to Washington and $1,000,000 of worldwide receipts. Assuming that there is no throw-out income, NOP's receipts factor is 40% (400,000/1,000,000).
Example 48. During 2019, XYZ Corp. performs all services in Washington and has apportionable receipts attributed using the criteria listed in subsections (301) through (305) of this rule or WAC 458-20-19403 as follows: Washington $500,000; Idaho $50,000; Oregon $100,000; and California $300,000. XYZ is subject to Oregon and Idaho corporate income tax, but does not owe any California business activities taxes. XYZ does not have any throw-out income because Oregon and Idaho impose a business activities tax on its activities and it is deemed to be taxable in California because it satisfies the minimum nexus standards for 2019 explained in WAC 458-20-19401. XYZ's receipts factor is: 500,000/950,000 or 52.63%. See current minimum nexus standard for periods beginning January 1, 2020.
Example 49. Same facts as Example 48 except Idaho does not impose any tax on XYZ. The $50,000 attributed to Idaho is throw-out income that is excluded from the denominator because: XYZ is not subject to Idaho business activities taxes, does not have substantial nexus with Idaho under Washington standards, and performs in Washington at least part of the activities related to the receipts attributed to Idaho. The receipts factor is 500,000/900,000 or 55.56%.
Example 50. The same facts as Example 49 except XYZ performs no activities in Washington related to the $50,000 attributed to Idaho. In this situation, the $50,000 is not throw-out income and remains in the denominator. The receipts factor is: 500,000/950,000 or 52.63%.
Example 51. Calculating apportionable income. Corporation A received $2,000,000 in apportionable receipts from its worldwide apportionable activities, which included $500,000 of receipts that are deductible under Washington law. Corporation A's total apportionable income is $1,500,000 ($2,000,000 minus $500,000 of deductions). If Corporation A's receipts factor is 31.25%, then its taxable income is $468,750 ($1,500,000 multiplied by 0.3125).
Wash. Admin. Code § 458-20-19402