Note: Under Tyler Pipe Industries, Inc. v. Washington State Dept. of Revenue, 483 US. 232 (1987), the U.S. Supreme Court held that it made no difference whether the taxpayer's representatives were classified as independent contractors or employees. Also see Scripto, Inc. v. Carson, 362 U.S. 207 (1960).
Example: Training Company is a calendar year-end corporation headquartered outside Wisconsin. Training Company does not maintain a business location or have resident employees in Wisconsin. During the year, Training Company sends five employees to Wisconsin for three days to conduct a training seminar related to the operation of machinery that Training Company sold to the taxpayer. Training Company has nexus since its employees conducted activity in Wisconsin for 15 days.
Example: Repair Company is a calendar year-end corporation headquartered outside Wisconsin. Repair Company does not maintain a business location or have resident employees in Wisconsin. During the year, Repair Company sends four technicians to repair customer equipment located in Wisconsin. Each of the technicians perform repairs in Wisconsin for three days during the year. Repair Company has nexus in Wisconsin since its employees or representatives perform services in Wisconsin. Public Law 86-272 does not apply because services such as repair activities are not a protected activity.
Example: Corporation W is a calendar year corporation that operates five retail stores, one of which is in Wisconsin. The stores constitute a unitary business. Corporation W is not in a combined group. In the year 2014, Corporation W operated one store in Wisconsin. On August 31, 2014, Corporation W sold the Wisconsin store to Corporation Y but continued to operate the other stores outside Wisconsin. Between September 1,2014 and December 31, 2014, Corporation W had no activities that would create nexus in Wisconsin. Corporation W is considered to have nexus in Wisconsin for its entire taxable year. Therefore, on its 2014 Wisconsin Form 4, Corporation W must compute its apportioned share of Wisconsin income based on its apportionable income from all of its stores for the entire year 2014. In addition, the numerator of the sales factor in its apportionment computation must include sales shipped to Wisconsin customers for the entire year 2014.
Note: Section 71.23(3), Stats., provides specific activities that do not constitute nexus in Wisconsin even if they exceed the protection of P.L. 86-272.
Example: Assume the same facts as the example in sub. (4) (c). In addition, assume Corporation Y is a member of Combined Group XYZ, which reports on a calendar year. Although Group XYZ operated numerous stores outside Wisconsin for the entire year, none of the members of Group XYZ had any nexus-creating activities in Wisconsin until July 1, 2014, when Corporation Y set up a temporary office in Wisconsin in anticipation of the purchase of the store from Corporation W. However, Corporation Z had sales shipped to Wisconsin customers during 2014. Since Corporation Y established nexus in Wisconsin during the year, Group XYZ is considered to have nexus in Wisconsin for its entire taxable year. Therefore, Group XYZ must file a Wisconsin Form 6 for the year 2014. On the combined return, Group XYZ must include its apportionable income for the entire taxable year (from all stores) in the combined unitary income to be apportioned. The Wisconsin share of the combined unitary income for Corporation Y and Corporation Z is then determined as described in s. 71.255(5), Stats., and s. Tax 2.61(7). Assuming all of Group XYZ's Wisconsin sales are attributable to Corporations Y and Z, Corporations Y and Z would be the only corporations in the group with Wisconsin income.
Note: See s. Tax 2.62 for further discussion of the concept of a unitary business. Also see s. Tax 2.61(4) (h) for details of how a corporation's nexus may be affected by the water's edge rules of combined reporting, and how these water's edge rules may affect taxation of a corporation's income from a unitary business.
Note: See s. Tax 2.32 for a description of what constitutes gross receipts for purposes of applying the $4,000,000 threshold.
Examples:
Corporation | Gross Receipts | Wisconsin Income | Gross Tax | Surcharge |
A | $10,000,000 | $100,000 | $7,900 | $237 |
B | $3,000,000 | $400,000 | $31,600 | $0 |
C | $50,000,000 | $0 | $0 | $25 |
D | $100,000,000 | $6,000,000 | $474,000 | $9,800 |
The Wisconsin income and gross tax are computed using the method described in s. Tax 2.61. Since the economic development surcharge applies to each member of a combined group separately:
Corporation A is subject to the economic development surcharge because its gross receipts are at least $4,000,000.
* Corporation B is not subject to the economic development surcharge because its gross receipts are less than $4,000,000.
* Corporation C is subject to the minimum $25 economic development surcharge because its gross receipts are at least $4,000,000 and it has no gross tax liability.
* Corporation D is subject to the maximum $9,800 economic development surcharge because its gross tax of $474,000 multiplied by the economic development surcharge rate of 3% exceeds $9,800. The amount in excess of $9,800 is not imposed even though the other members have economic development surcharge liability of less than $9,800.
Wis. Admin. Code Department of Revenue Tax 2.82
Section Tax 2.82 interprets ss. 71.22(1r), 71.23(1) and (2), 71.255(5), and 77.93, Stats.