Example 1: Company A carries on business in Connecticut and is subject to corporation business tax. Company B, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Company A, is a company that is exempt from the Delaware Corporation Income Tax, under Del. Code Ann. tit. 30, §1902(b) (8), because its activities within Delaware are confined to the maintenance and management of its intangible investments. Company B leases an office for its exclusive use in Delaware where it has a staff of employees adequate in number to conduct all of its business affairs. All of Company B's assets are located in Delaware, and all its business activities, including all day-to-day decision-making and management functions, are conducted by its own officers and employees in Delaware, who have appropriate authority and expertise commensurate with their responsibilities. Company B received its intangible assets from Company A in a transfer by Company A under 26 U.S.C. § 351 solely in exchange for stock in Company B.
Based on these facts, the Commissioner shall determine that the arrangement under which Company A and Company B operate does not result in the improper or inaccurate reflection of the activity, business, income or capital of the companies.
Example 2: Company G carries on business in Connecticut and is subject to corporation business tax. Company H, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Company G, is a company that is exempt from the Delaware Corporation Income Tax, under Del. Code Ann. tit. 30, §1902(b) (8), because its activities within Delaware are confined to the maintenance and management of its intangible investments. Company H does not lease an office for its exclusive use in Delaware and it does not have adequate staff to conduct its business affairs. Not all of Company H's assets are located in Delaware, and some or all its business activities, including all day-to-day decision-making and management functions, are conducted by Company G in Connecticut. Company H received its intangible assets from Company G in a transfer by Company G under 26 U.S.C. § 351 solely in exchange for stock in Company H.
Based on these facts, the Commissioner shall determine that the arrangement under which Company G and Company H operate results in the improper or inaccurate reflection of the activity, business, income or capital of the companies, because Company G controls and dominates the business activities of Company H. Therefore, the Commissioner may shift income from Company H to Company G, or expenses from Company G to Company H, to reflect income properly or accurately.
Example 1: Company J carries on business in Connecticut and is subject to corporation business tax. Company K, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Company J, does not carry on business in Connecticut. In anticipation of a sale of certain of its property that is situated in Connecticut to an unrelated person, Company J transfers the property to Company K, which then promptly sells the property to the unrelated person for the sales price for which Company J itself could have sold the property directly to the unrelated person.
Based on these facts, the Commissioner shall determine that the arrangement between Company J and Company K with respect to the property results in the improper or inaccurate reflection of the net income of Company J, and shall include in the net income of Company J the fair profits which, but for such arrangement, Company J might have derived from the sale of the property.
Example 2: The facts are the same as in Example 1, except that Company K holds the property for a considerable length of time, making use of it in the interim in its own business, before eventually reselling it to the unrelated person.
Based on these facts, the Commissioner shall determine that the arrangement between Company J and Company K with respect to the property does not result in the improper or inaccurate reflection of the net income of Company J (assuming that arm's-length consideration was paid by Company K on the transfer of the property to it by Company J).
Conn. Agencies Regs. § 12-226a-1