Could a Florida consolidated group use an alternative apportionment method because different state filing methods taxed more than 100% of federal income?

Plain-English summary

A multistate affiliated group elected to file a consolidated Florida corporate income-tax return. It filed consolidated returns in another state but separate-company returns in several others. Adding the various states' taxable-income bases produced totals greater than 100% of federal consolidated income, so the group proposed a special Florida method that would allocate the remaining untaxed income to Florida and cap the combined state bases at 100%.

Florida denied both prospective and retroactive alternative apportionment. A taxpayer seeking relief under section 220.152 and Rule 12C-1.0152 had to prove with clear and cogent evidence that the normal formula operated unreasonably and arbitrarily, produced a grossly distorted result, and attributed income out of all proportion to Florida activity.

The group did not meet that burden. Florida treated the affiliated group as one enterprise, combined every member's sales, payroll, property, and income, and also allowed member losses to offset other members' income. The Department concluded that the apparent over-100% result came from the group's inconsistent consolidated-versus-separate filing bases across states—not from a defect in Florida's three-factor formula.

The taxpayer was also bound by the consolidated filing form it had elected. Its retroactive claims failed for a second reason: the formal alternative-apportionment request was not filed by the due date, including extensions, for the affected returns. Florida added that the claims would still fail on the merits even if timely.

What this means for you

More than 100% taxed across states is not enough by itself

The ruling required proof that Florida's own formula caused constitutional distortion. Aggregating different states' tax bases did not isolate a Florida error.

Alternative apportionment is exceptional relief

The normal formula carries a strong presumption of validity. A taxpayer needs evidence connecting the computed Florida percentage to actual in-state activity and showing a grossly disproportionate result.

Filing elections have consequences

Consolidated filing combined the group's factors and income while allowing loss offsets. The taxpayer could not retain the favorable features of that election and disavow its less favorable consequences through a special allocation.

Timing is an independent requirement

Under the rule quoted in the TAA, a taxpayer had to petition for an alternative method on or before the return's due date, including extensions. An informal or late request did not preserve retroactive relief.

Common questions

Q: Did Florida approve the proposed alternative formula?
A: No. The taxpayer did not prove that Florida's standard consolidated formula was unreasonable, arbitrary, or grossly distortive.

Q: Was taxation of more than 100% of federal income sufficient evidence?
A: No. Florida attributed that result to the different filing bases used across states.

Q: Could the taxpayer obtain relief for earlier years?
A: No. The formal request was untimely and also failed the substantive distortion test.

Citations and references

• Fla. Stat. §§ 220.131, 220.15, and 220.152 (consolidated filing, normal apportionment, and alternative methods)
• Fla. Stat. § 213.22 (Technical Assistance Advisements)
• Fla. Admin. Code r. 12C-1.0152 (gross-distortion standard and petition timing)
• Roger Dean Enterprises v. Department of Revenue, 387 So. 2d 358 (Fla. 1980), and the federal cases discussed in the advisement

Source

• Landing page: Florida Tax Law Library
• Advisement: TAA 08C1-006

Original ruling text

SUMMARY
QUESTION: Does the standard apportionment factor fairly represent the extent of a taxpayer’s
tax base attributable to Florida?
ANSWER: The Taxpayer has not shown by clear and cogent evidence that Florida’s consolidated
apportionment calculation results in taxation of extraterritorial values. The Taxpayer receives the
benefits and protections of Florida law and has made an election to file on a consolidated basis, and
there is no question that Florida may constitutionally tax the Taxpayer’s business as a whole. The
Taxpayer has not demonstrated that the apportionment formula operates unreasonably and arbitrarily
in apportioning the Taxpayer’s consolidated income to Florida, or that the apportionment formula is
inaccurate and does not fairly reflect the Taxpayer’s business activity in Florida. Therefore, the
Taxpayer is not entitled to alternative apportionment relief under section 220.152, F.S. The Florida
consolidated apportionment factor, which the Taxpayer elected to use, is not distortive and does not
tax extraterritorial values.
July 25, 2008
Re:

Technical Assistance Advisement 08C1-006
Corporate Income Tax - Apportionment - Other Methods
Section 220.152, Florida Statutes (F.S.)
Rule 12C-1.0152, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.)
XXX, hereinafter referred to as “Taxpayer”

Dear :
Your letter dated XXX, requests a Technical Assistance Advisement concerning whether the
Taxpayer may use an alternative apportionment formula. This response to your request
constitutes a Technical Assistance Advisement under Chapter 12-11, F.A.C., and is issued to you
under the authority of section 213.22, F.S.
FACTS
The Taxpayer is headquartered in XXX. The Taxpayer is XXX consisting of many XXX, several
XXX companies, XXX company, XXX company, and XXX company. Some of the companies
in the Taxpayer’s affiliated group are inactive. The Taxpayer has several XXX in Florida. The
Taxpayer also has an XXX company that does business in XXX XXX, XXX, XXX, and XXX.
The Taxpayer’s federal consolidated Taxable Income for tax years ending XXX, XXX, and
XXX, is XXX, XXX, and XXX, respectively.
The Taxpayer elected to file Florida corporate income tax returns on a consolidated basis. Under
the apportionment calculation provided for in section 220.15, F.S., for affiliated groups electing
to file on a consolidated basis, the Taxpayer’s consolidated apportionment factors and
consolidated taxable net income for Florida are:

Technical Assistance Advisement 08C1-006
Page 2

Sales Factor
Payroll Factor
Property Factor
Apportionment Factor
Taxable Net Income 1

XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX

XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX

XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX

The Taxpayer also files on a consolidated basis in XXX (tax rate XXX). The Taxpayer’s
consolidated XXX apportionment factors and consolidated taxable net income are: 2

Sales Factor
Payroll Factor
Property Factor
Apportionment Factor
Taxable Net Income

XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX

XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX

XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX

The Taxpayer’s XXX company files separate returns in XXX (tax rate XXX), XXX (tax rate
XXX), and XXX (tax rate XXX). The apportionment factors and taxable net incomes of the
XXX company’s separate income tax returns in XXX, XXX, and XXX are: 3

1

XXX
Sales Factor
Payroll Factor
Property Factor
Apportionment Factor
Taxable Net Income

XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX

XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX

XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX

XXX
Sales Factor
Payroll Factor
Property Factor
Apportionment Factor
Taxable Net Income

XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX

XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX

XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX

Taxable net income = (consolidated federal taxable income plus Florida additions, less Florida
subtractions) times apportionment factor less Florida exemption.
2
Figures from copies of returns Taxpayer filed in XXX.
3
Figures from copies of returns XXX company filed in XXX, XXX, and XXX.

Technical Assistance Advisement 08C1-006
Page 3

XXX
Sales Factor
Payroll Factor
Property Factor
Apportionment Factor
Taxable Net Income

XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX

XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX

XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX

When the taxable net income, including any additions and subtractions, from all states for the
Taxpayer’s affiliated group (consolidated and separate returns) are added together, the Taxpayer
pays an income tax on XXX taxable income, over 186% of its federal consolidated taxable
income, for tax year ending XXX. When the taxable net income from all states for the
Taxpayer’s affiliated group are added together, the Taxpayer pays an income tax on XXX, over
196% of its federal consolidated taxable income, for tax year ending XXX. When the taxable
net income from all states for the Taxpayer’s affiliated group are added together, the Taxpayer
pays an income tax on XXX, over 151% of its federal consolidated taxable income, for tax year
ending XXX.
The Taxpayer’s XXX company generated federal income of XXX, XXX, and XXX on a separate
basis for tax years ending XXX, XXX, and XXX, respectively. The XXX company’s Florida
division(s) generated federal income of XXX, XXX, and XXX, for tax years ending XXX, XXX,
and XXX, respectively. The Taxpayer also has a couple of subsidiaries that generate losses each
year, which offset income from other entities within the affiliated group during the consolidated
process.
The Taxpayer’s proposed alternative apportionment method allocates all of its income that is not
taxed in XXX, XXX, XXX, and XXX to XXX, so it only pays tax on 100% of its consolidated
federal income. The Taxpayer used this method when it filed its consolidated Florida corporate
income tax returns for tax years ending XXX, and XXX. The Taxpayer proposes filing an
amended return to claim a refund for tax year ending XXX.
QUESTION
Does the standard apportionment formula fairly represent the extent of a taxpayer’s tax base
attributable to Florida? If the answer is no, is the Taxpayer’s alternative apportionment
methodology appropriate in this situation?
LAW
Section 220.131, F.S., states in part:
...
(4) The computation of consolidated taxable income for the members of an
affiliated group of corporations subject to tax hereunder shall be made in the same
manner and under the same procedures, including all intercompany adjustments

Technical Assistance Advisement 08C1-006
Page 4

and eliminations, as are required for consolidating the incomes of affiliated
corporations for the taxable year for federal income tax purposes in accordance
with s. 1502 of the Internal Revenue Code, and the amount shown as consolidated
taxable income shall be the amount subject to tax under this code.
(5) Each taxpayer shall apportion adjusted federal income under s. 220.15 as a
member of an affiliated group which files a consolidated return under this section
on the basis of apportionment factors described in s. 220.15. . . .
Section 220.15, F.S., states in part:
(1) Except as provided in ss. 220.151 and 220.152, adjusted federal income as
defined in s. 220.13 shall be apportioned to this state by taxpayers doing business
within and without this state by multiplying it by an apportionment fraction
composed of a sales factor representing 50 percent of the fraction, a property
factor representing 25 percent of the fraction, and a payroll factor representing 25
percent of the fraction. If any factor described in subsection (2), subsection (4), or
subsection (5) has a denominator that is zero or is determined by the department
to be insignificant, the relative weights of the other factors in the denominator of
the apportionment fraction shall be as follows:
(a) If the denominators for any two factors are zero or are insignificant, the
weighted percentage for the remaining factor shall be 100 percent.
(b) If the denominator for the sales factor is zero or is insignificant, the weighted
percentage for the property and payroll factors shall change from 25 percent to 50
percent, respectively.
(c) If the denominator for either the property or payroll factor is zero or is
insignificant, the weighted percentage for the other shall be 331/3 percent, and the
weighted percentage for the sales factor shall be 662/3 percent.
(2) The property factor is a fraction the numerator of which is the average value
of the taxpayer's real and tangible personal property owned or rented and used in
this state during the taxable year or period and the denominator of which is the
average value of such property owned or rented and used everywhere.
...
(4) The payroll factor is a fraction the numerator of which is the total amount paid
in this state during the taxable year or period by the taxpayer for compensation
and the denominator of which is the total compensation paid everywhere during
the taxable year or period.
...
(5) The sales factor is a fraction the numerator of which is the total sales of the
taxpayer in this state during the taxable year or period and the denominator of
which is the total sales of the taxpayer everywhere during the taxable year or
period.
...

Technical Assistance Advisement 08C1-006
Page 5

Section 220.152, F.S., states:
If the apportionment methods of ss. 220.15 and 220.151 do not fairly represent
the extent of a taxpayer’s tax base attributable to this state, the taxpayer may
petition for, or the department may require, in respect to all or any part of the
taxpayer’s tax base, if reasonable:
(1) Separate accounting;
(2) The exclusion of any one or more factors;
(3) The inclusion of one or more additional factors which will fairly represent the
taxpayer’s tax base attributable to this state; or
(4) The employment of any other method which will produce an equitable
apportionment.
Rule 12C-1.0152, F.A.C., states in part:
(1)(a) A departure from the applicable method of apportionment required
under the provisions of ss. 220.15 or 220.151, F.S., shall be permitted only
where the method does not accurately and fairly reflect business activity in
Florida. An alternative method may not be invoked, either by the
Department of Revenue or the taxpayer, merely because it reaches a
different apportionment percentage than the regularly applicable formula.
However, if the applicable formula will lead to a grossly distorted result in a
particular case, a fair and accurate alternative method is appropriate (see
Norfolk and Western Railway Co. v. Missouri State Tax Commission, 390 U.S.
317, 88 S. Ct. 995, 19 L. Ed. 2d 1201 (1968), which is incorporated by reference
in Rule 12C-1.0511, F.A.C.).
(b) A taxpayer seeking to utilize an alternative apportionment method must
show by clear and cogent evidence that the regularly applicable formula
would result in taxation of extraterritorial values (see Butler Bros. v.
McColgan, 315 U.S. 501, 62 S. Ct. 701, 86 L. Ed. 991 (1942), which is
incorporated by reference in Rule 12C-1.0511, F.A.C.). This can be shown only
if the regularly applicable formula is demonstrated to operate unreasonably
and arbitrarily in apportioning to Florida a percentage of income which is
out of all proportion to the business transacted in Florida and does not
accurately and fairly reflect business activity in Florida (see Hans Rees’ Sons,
Inc. v. North Carolina ex rel. Maxwell, 283 U.S. 123, 51 S. Ct. 385, 75 L. Ed 879
(1931), which is incorporated by reference in Rule 12C-1.0511, F.A.C.).
(2) The party seeking to use an alternative formula must prove that the
alternative formula fairly and accurately apportions income to Florida based
upon business activity in this state.
(3) A departure from the regularly applicable apportionment method will be
authorized only in limited and specific cases where unusual fact situations (which
ordinarily will be unique and nonrecurring) produce a result that is incongruous

Technical Assistance Advisement 08C1-006
Page 6

with the results of previous tax years under the regularly applicable
apportionment method.
(4) A taxpayer shall petition the Department for a departure from the
required apportionment method by filing, on or before the due date for filing
of the return for the taxable year, with extension, either: a written request
for a technical assistance advisement under s. 213.22, F.S., and Department
of Revenue Rule Chapter 12-11, F.A.C.; or, a petition for a declaratory
statement under s. 120.565, F.S.
. . . (Emphasis Supplied)
DISCUSSION
The Taxpayer is requesting the retroactive use of an alternative apportionment formula for
Florida for tax years ending XXX, XXX, and XXX, because it believes that it should not be
paying state income taxes on more than 100% of its consolidated federal taxable income. The
Taxpayer asserts that this occurs because its XXX company generates a substantial portion of the
Taxpayer’s affiliated group income from activities within and without Florida, while almost all
the other companies in the affiliated group, which are less profitable, generate income only in
XXX. The Taxpayer is also requesting the use of an alternative apportionment formula for XXX
on a prospective basis for tax years ending XXX and thereafter.
Prospective Request for Alternative Apportionment – Tax Years Ending XXX and Thereafter
Florida Standard Apportionment Formula
Apportionment is merely a method to break out a multi-state entity’s income among the states in
which it conducts business. Apportionment is not an exact science, but it has been widely
accepted by both state and federal courts as a reasonable approximation for this purpose. In
Moorman Manufacturing Co. v. Bair, Director of Revenue of Iowa, 437 U.S. 267 (1978), the
U.S. Supreme Court stated:
. . . [the] claim that the Constitution invalidates an apportionment formula
whenever it may result in taxation of some income that did not have its source in
the taxing state is incorrect.
437 U.S. at 272.
The Taxpayer believes the standard Florida apportionment formula taxes extraterritorial values
and apportions more income to Florida than Florida is constitutionally allowed to tax. As a
result of this belief, the Taxpayer is requesting permission to use an alternative apportionment
formula.
Alternative apportionment is very rare. The Florida Supreme Court recognized this fact in Roger
Dean Enterprises v. State, Department of Revenue, 387 So. 2d 358 (Fla. 1980).

Technical Assistance Advisement 08C1-006
Page 7

There is a very strong presumption in favor of normal three-factor apportionment
and against the applicability of relief provisions. . . . The relief provision should
be used where the statute reaches arbitrary or unreasonable results so that its
application could be attacked successfully on constitutional grounds. Departures
from the basic formula should be avoided except where reasonableness requires.
Id. at 363.
Rule 12C-1.0152, F.A.C., provides for an adjustment to the apportionment formula if the
standard formula leads to a grossly distorted result. This rule references two court cases.
In Norfolk, supra, the U.S. Supreme Court found the application of the apportionment formula
unconstitutional where the taxing state imposed an ad valorem property tax on the railroad
rolling stock, using the familiar single-factor mileage formula apportionment basis. The
taxpayer presented evidence showing the actual inventory of rolling stock in Missouri on tax day
was less than half (approximately $7,600,000 versus assessed value of $19,981,000) the value
assessed using Missouri’s apportionment formula. The taxpayer further demonstrated that its
calculation of the tax-day value was representative of the value of rolling stock located within
the state throughout the year and in the preceding year. The Supreme Court in Norfolk, at page
329, noted that it is not necessary for a state to demonstrate that its use of the mileage formula
yields an exact measure of value. However, the Supreme Court further stated that:
[w]hen a taxpayer comes forward with strong evidence tending to prove that the
mileage formula will yield a grossly distorted result in its particular case, the State
is obliged to counter that evidence or to make the accommodations necessary to
assure that its taxing power is confined to its constitutional limits. If it fails to do
so and if the record shows that the taxpayer has sustained the burden of proof to
show that the tax is so excessive as to burden interstate commerce, the taxpayer
must prevail.
In the Hans Rees’ case, supra, North Carolina tried to apportion income of a manufacturing
concern using a formula based on the ratio of the value of the taxpayer’s real and tangible
personal property located in North Carolina over the value of its real and tangible property
located everywhere times its entire income. The taxpayer was able to show that such a onefactor (property) apportionment formula “operated unreasonably and arbitrarily” in attributing
income to the state that was “out of all proportion” to the taxpayer’s activities in the state. The
Court concluded that proof the formula produced a tax on 83% of the taxpayer’s income when
only 17% of that income actually had its source in the State would be enough to invalidate the
assessment under the Due Process Clause. See Moorman Manufacturing. The type of distortion
present in Hans Rees’ is largely remedied today by use of a three-factor apportionment formula.
The three factors now generally used by states to apportion the income of most businesses (like
the taxpayer in Hans Rees’) to their state are sales, property, and payroll.
Rule 12C-1.0152, F.A.C., and the cited case law require the Taxpayer to show by clear and
cogent evidence that the apportionment formula results in taxation of extraterritorial values. The

Technical Assistance Advisement 08C1-006
Page 8

Taxpayer must demonstrate that the apportionment formula operates unreasonably and arbitrarily
in apportioning income to Florida, that it is out of all proportion to the business transacted in
Florida, and that it does not accurately and fairly reflect business activity in Florida.
The Taxpayer attempts to show that the Florida apportionment formula is apportioning income to
Florida that is out of all proportion to the business transacted in Florida and that the Florida
computation of taxable income does not fairly reflect the Taxpayer’s business activity in Florida
by demonstrating that it is being taxed on more than 100% of its federal taxable income. The
facts show that in tax years ending XXX, XXX, and XXX, the Taxpayer is paying income taxes
to the various states in which it does business that amounts to more than 100% of its federal
taxable income. In addition, the facts show the XXX company, which generated a substantial
portion of the Taxpayer affiliated group income, is paying tax on over 60% of its separate
company income in states outside Florida. This is not the result of the Florida apportionment
formula being flawed.
The Florida consolidated return, which the Taxpayer elected to use, taxes the Taxpayer’s entire
affiliated group as a single enterprise with a consolidated apportionment formula. All sales,
payroll, and property of each of the entities in the affiliated group are consolidated into one
single apportionment factor, and all of the federal consolidated income of the Taxpayer, with
Florida additions and subtractions, is apportioned to Florida using the single consolidated
apportionment factor. 4
The taxation of more than 100% of the Taxpayer’s income appears to occur because the
Taxpayer is filing on different bases in the states in which it does business (consolidated returns
in Florida and XXX, and separate returns in XXX, XXX, and XXX). If the Taxpayer were filing
consolidated income tax returns in all states in which it does business, there likely would be no
question about Florida’s apportionment methodology nor any other state’s apportionment
methodology. Likewise, if the Taxpayer were filing separate income tax returns in all states in
which it does business, there should be no question about Florida’s apportionment methodology
nor any other state’s apportionment methodology.
The Taxpayer made an election to file consolidated income tax returns in Florida. The filing of a
consolidated return allows the Taxpayer to apportion income based upon sales, property, and
payroll of the entire affiliated group within and without Florida. This election also allows the
Taxpayer to offset income from one entity with losses from other entities within its affiliated
group. The Taxpayer’s exercise of the consolidated filing election was evidently beneficial to
the Taxpayer at the time it was made. It appears the consolidated election may now be less
beneficial to the Taxpayer.
The Taxpayer chose its filing method. Because taxpayers have been accorded less freedom than
tax authorities to disavow the form they have chosen, they are generally bound to the tax
4

The three factor apportionment formula required by Florida law has been approved by the United States
Supreme Court. See Amerada Hess Corporation v. Director, Division of Taxation, New Jersey
Department of the Treasury, 490 U.S. 66, 74, 109 S. Ct. 1617, 1622 (1989), citing Container Corporation
of America v. Franchise Tax Board, 463 U.S. 159, 170, 103 S. Ct. 2933, 2942 (1983).

Technical Assistance Advisement 08C1-006
Page 9

consequences that follow from their choice. See Bradley v. United States, 730 F.2d 718, 720
(11th Cir. 1984); Illinois Power Co. v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 1417, 1430 (1986), aff'd 896 F.2d
580 (D.C. Cir. 1990); Regal Kitchens, Inc. v. Department of Revenue, 641 So.2d 158 (Fla. 1st
DCA 1994). This rule seeks to avoid the uncertainty that would result from allowing the
taxability of a transaction to depend on whether an alternative form exists under which more
favorable tax consequences would result. National Alfalfa, 417 U.S. at 149; see Department of
Revenue v. McCoy Motel, Inc., 302 So.2d 440, 443 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974).
Based on the discussion above, the Taxpayer’s request for prospective alternative apportionment
is hereby denied.
Retroactive Request for Alternative Apportionment – Tax Years Ending XXX, XXX, and XXX
Rule 12C-1.0152, F.A.C., requires a taxpayer seeking alternative apportionment to petition the
Department on or before the due date for filing of the return for the taxable year, with extension.
In this case, the request for alternative apportionment was not provided in accordance with the
instructions contained in Rule 12-11, F.A.C., until the Taxpayer sent a letter dated XXX, with a
postmark of XXX, to Technical Assistance & Dispute Resolution. 5
Given the postmark date of the Taxpayer’s request for this Technical Assistance Advisement and
the plain requirement in Rule 12C-1.0152, F.A.C., that the request occur prior to the due date, or
extended due date of the return for which alternative apportionment is requested, the Taxpayer’s
request for alternative apportionment for tax years ending XXX, XXX, and XXX is not timely.
As a result, the Taxpayer’s request for alternative apportionment for tax years ending XXX,
XXX, and XXX, is denied.
In addition, even if it were determined that the Taxpayer’s request for alternative apportionment
for tax years ending XXX, XXX, and XXX, was timely, the Taxpayer’s request could not be
granted. This is based on the above analysis for prospective treatment. Therefore, the
Taxpayer’s request for retroactive alternative apportionment is hereby denied.
CONCLUSION
The Taxpayer has not shown by clear and cogent evidence that Florida’s consolidated
apportionment calculation results in taxation of extraterritorial values. The Taxpayer receives
the benefits and protections of Florida law and has made an election to file on a consolidated
basis, and there is no question that Florida may constitutionally tax the Taxpayer’s business as a
whole. The Taxpayer has not demonstrated that the apportionment formula operates
unreasonably and arbitrarily in apportioning the Taxpayer’s consolidated income to Florida, or
5

The Taxpayer previously included a letter dated XXX, with its tax year ending XXX consolidated
corporate income tax return, but that request was not filed in accordance with Rule 12-11, F.A.C. In
addition, although it is possible that the Taxpayer mailed the letter dated XXX, twice, there is no
information to substantiate that it was mailed in accordance with Rule 12-11, F.A.C., prior to the
postmark of XXX.

Technical Assistance Advisement 08C1-006
Page 10

that the apportionment formula is inaccurate and does not fairly reflect the Taxpayer’s business
activity in Florida. Therefore, the Taxpayer is not entitled to alternative apportionment relief
under section 220.152, F.S. The Florida consolidated apportionment formula, which the
Taxpayer elected to use, is not distortive and does not tax extraterritorial values. In addition, the
Taxpayer’s request for alternative apportionment for tax years ending XXX, XXX, and XXX, is
not timely, and does not meet the substantive requirements of the statute and rule.
This response constitutes a Technical Assistance Advisement under section 213.22, F.S., which
is binding on the Department only under the facts and circumstances described in the request for
this advice as specified in section 213.22, F.S. Our response is based on those facts and the
specific situation summarized above. You are advised that subsequent statutory or
administrative rule changes or judicial interpretations of the statutes or rules upon which this
advice is based may subject similar future transactions to a different treatment than expressed in
this response.
You are further advised that this response, your request and related backup documents are public
records under Chapter 119, F.S., and are subject to disclosure to the public under the conditions
of section 213.22, F.S. Confidential information must be deleted before public disclosure. In an
effort to protect confidentiality, we request you provide the undersigned with an edited copy of
your request for Technical Assistance Advisement, the backup material and this response,
deleting names, addresses and any other details which might lead to identification of the
taxpayer. Your response should be received by the Department within 15 days of the date of this
letter.
Sincerely,

Robert DuCasse
Technical Assistance and Dispute Resolution
RCD/

Record ID 42724