🧪 TEST MODE ACTIVE Use test card: 4242 4242 4242 4242
TX 9805658L Franchise Tax (PRIOR TO 01/01/2008) 1998-05-15

Did a corporation owe a payment with its 1998 annual-report extension request when its prior initial report showed zero taxable capital and zero taxable earned surplus?

Short answer: No. The electronic-funds-transfer taxpayer chose the option requiring 100 percent of the tax reported for the previous year. Because its previous report was an initial report showing zero net taxable capital and zero net taxable earned surplus, both alternative calculations under Section 171.202(e)(2)(B) and Rule 3.575 produced no required payment with the extension request.

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1998. Ezel answers yours, under current Texas tax law, with citations.

Currency note: this ruling is from 1998
Subsequent statutory amendments, regulation changes, court decisions, or later rulings may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current tax advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, rate, or position mentioned here.
Disclaimer: This is an official Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts letter published on the State Tax Automated Research (STAR) system. Letters on STAR can be the basis of a detrimental reliance claim only for the taxpayer to whom the letter was directly issued (see 34 Tex. Admin. Code Rules 3.1 and 3.10); documents on STAR may no longer represent current policy even if not marked superseded. The answer applies to a 1998 annual-report extension, the taxpayer's selected statutory payment option, and the former taxable-capital and earned-surplus rates stated in the letter. Different or additional facts could change the response; confirm current extension rules. Taxpayer-identifying details are redacted. This summary is informational only and is not legal or tax advice. Consult a licensed Texas tax professional about your specific situation.
About this page: The plain-English summary, reader guidance, and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official state tax ruling. The original ruling (linked on this page) is the authoritative source for any reliance.

Plain-English summary

The corporation owed no tax payment with its 1998 annual-report extension request because its initial report showed zero for both former tax bases.

The corporation had filed its initial report in July 1997 and owed no tax because it reported no net taxable capital and no net taxable earned surplus. It planned to extend its 1998 annual report from May 15 to August 15, 1998 and was required to pay tax by electronic funds transfer.

It selected the Section 171.202(e)(2)(B) option based on 100 percent of the tax reported as due for the previous calendar year. Because the previous report was an initial report, Rule 3.575 required a payment equal to the greater of:

  • net taxable capital from the initial report multiplied by 0.25%; or
  • net taxable earned surplus from the initial report multiplied by 4.5%.

Both reported amounts were zero, so no payment accompanied the extension request.

What this means for you

Electronic-funds-transfer taxpayers

Under the historical option applied here, a zero-tax initial report could result in a zero extension payment when both statutory calculations were zero.

Tax professionals

The result depended on the taxpayer's selected extension-payment option, the initial report being timely filed for the calculation, and both reported tax bases being zero.

Common questions

Q: Did the extension eliminate the annual report?
A: No. It extended the filing deadline to August 15, 1998.

Q: Which prior report controlled the calculation?
A: The corporation's initial franchise-tax report.

Q: Why was the required payment zero?
A: Both net taxable capital and net taxable earned surplus were reported as zero.

Citations and references

  • Texas Tax Code Sec. 171.202(d), (e), including Sec. 171.202(e)(2)(B)
  • 34 Tex. Admin. Code Sec. 3.575

Source

Original ruling text

May 15, 1998




Dear Mr. **:

Thank you for your recent franchise tax ruling request on behalf of UTILITY
COMPANY A. You asked whether UTILITY COMPANY A is required to pay any
franchise tax with its request for an extension to file its 1998 annual report.

UTILITY COMPANY A filed its initial franchise tax report in July 1997 for the
privilege period ending December 31, 1997. Because the report, which was based
on December 31, 1996 financial information, reflected no net taxable capital or
net taxable earned surplus, UTILITY COMPANY A owed no tax.

On May 15, 1998, UTILITY COMPANY A will file a request to extend until August
15, 1998, the requirement to file its 1998 annual franchise tax report.
Because UTILITY COMPANY A is required to make its tax payments by electronic
funds transfer, Sections 171.202(d) and (e) of the franchise tax law apply to
their extension request.

UTILITY COMPANY A has selected the extension payment option set out in Section
171.202(e)(2)(B), which provides that it must pay 100 percent of the tax
reported as due for the previous calendar year on the report due in the
previous calendar year and filed on or before May 14. Because UTILITY COMPANY
A's previous report was its initial report, the 100 percent payment under
Section 171.202(e)(2)(B) and Franchise Tax Rule 3.575 must equal the greater
of:

(1) an amount produced by multiplying the net taxable capital, as reported on
the initial report filed on or before May 14 of the year for which the
extension is requested, by 0.25% for the 1995 and later reports; or

(2) an amount produced by multiplying the net taxable earned surplus, as
reported on the initial report filed on or before May 14 of the year for which
the extension is requested, by 4.5% for the 1995 and later reports.

Therefore, because UTILITY COMPANY A reported zero (0) net taxable capital and
zero (0) net taxable earned surplus on its initial report, UTILITY COMPANY A is
not required to make any tax payment with its request to extend the filing of
its 1998 annual report to August 15, 1998.

This response is based on the facts as presented in your letter. If the facts
change or if there are additional relevant facts, the response may change.

If you have any questions, please write me or call me at 463-3958.

Sincerely,

Teresa Comer
Tax Policy Division

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read a 1998 ruling on this question. Ezel checks current Texas tax law and answers your specific situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the authority it relies on.