PART 1. INTRODUCTION.
1.Introduction.
2.How to attribute apportionable royalty receipts.
When an example states that a particular attribution method is a reasonable method of proportionally attributing the use of an intangible, this does not preclude the existence of other reasonable methods of proportionally attributing the use depending on the specific facts and circumstances of a taxpayer's situation.
PART 2. HOW TO ATTRIBUTE APPORTIONABLE ROYALTY RECEIPTS.
Example 1. SportsCo licenses to AthleticCo the right to use its trademark on a basketball that AthleticCo manufactures, markets, and sells at retail on its web site. This is a marketing use. SportsCo is paid a fee based on AthleticCo's basketball sales in multiple states. SportsCo knows that sales from the AthleticCo web site delivered to Washington represent 10% of AthleticCo's total sales. Pursuant to subsection (201) (a) (i) of this section, SportsCo will attribute 10% of its apportionable royalty receipts received from AthleticCo to Washington. The remaining 90% will be attributed to other states.
Example 2. Same facts as Example 1, except that Athlet-icCo sells its basketballs at wholesale to MiddleCo, a distributor with its receiving warehouse located in Idaho. MiddleCo then sells the basketballs to RetailW, a retailer with stores in Washington, Oregon, and California. SportsCo would generally attribute its apportionable royalty receipts to the location of RetailW's customers. However, SportsCo does not have any data, and cannot reasonably obtain any data, relating to RetailW's customer locations. Pursuant to subsection (201) (a) (i) of this section, SportsCo may reasonably attribute receipts to Washington based on the percentage of RetailW's store locations in Washington as long as such attribution does not distort the number of customers in each state. SportsCo knows that 15% of RetailW's store locations are in Washington therefore it is reasonable for SportsCo to attribute 15% of its apportionable royalty receipts to Washington. The remaining 85% will be attributed to other states.
Example 3. MusicCo licenses to RetailCo the right to make copies of a digital song and sell those copies at retail on the internet for the U.S. market only. This is a marketing use. RetailCo has a single copy of the song on its server in Virginia. Each time a customer comes to RetailCo's web site and makes a purchase of the song, RetailCo creates a copy of the song (e.g., a new file) that is then available for sale to the customer. MusicCo would usually attribute its apportionable royalty receipts to the location of RetailCo's customers. However, MusicCo does not have any data, and cannot reasonably obtain any specific data, relating to RetailCo's customers' locations. Pursuant to subsection (201) (a) (i) of this section, MusicCo may reasonably attribute receipts to each state based on the percentage that each state's population represents in relation to the total market population, which in this case is the U.S. population, as long as such attribution does not distort the number of customers in each state.
Example 4. A local baseball star, Joe Ball, plays for a professional athletic franchise located in Washington. Joe Ball licenses to T-ShirtCo the right to put his image on t-shirts and sell them on the internet in the U.S. market. This is a marketing use limited to the U.S. by license. Joe Ball does not know where T-ShirtCo's customers are located and cannot reasonably obtain data to reasonably attribute receipts. In the absence of actual sales data from T-ShirtCo, Joe Ball cannot use relative population data to attribute receipts to the states as was done in Example 3 above. This is because Joe Ball is an overwhelmingly "local" celebrity in Washington. Joe Ball does not have a "national appeal" such that t-shirt sales by T-ShirtCo would be significant outside Washington. In this case, Joe Ball is unable to separately determine the use of the intangible property in specific states pursuant to subsection (201) (a) (i) of this section. However, it is reasonable for Joe Ball to assume that sales by T-ShirtCo of Joe Ball shirts are primarily delivered to customers in Washington. Accordingly, Joe Ball should assign all receipts received from T-ShirtCo to Washington, pursuant to subsection (201) (a) (ii) of this section.
Example 5. MegaComputer ("Mega") manufactures and sells computers. SoftwareCo licenses to MegaComputer the right to copy and install the software on Mega's computers, which are then offered for sale to consumers. This is a marketing use by Mega. Mega sells its computers to DistributorX that in turn sells the computers to RetailerY. Mega uses the intangible property at the location of the consumer. If Soft-wareCo can attribute its receipts to the location of the consumer (e.g., through the use of software registration data obtained from consumer), SoftwareCo should do so. In the absence of that more precise information, and pursuant to subsection (201) (a) (i) of this section, it would be "reasonable" for SoftwareCo to attribute its receipts in proportion to the number of RetailerY stores in each state.
Example 6. RideCo licenses the right to use its patented scooter brake to FunRide for the purpose of manufacturing scooters. FunRide will market the scooter under its own brand. This is a nonmarketing use. RideCo knows that Fun-Ride will manufacture scooters in Michigan and Washington and that the scooter design is used equally in Michigan and Washington. Pursuant to subsection (201) (a) (i) of this section, RideCo will attribute its receipts from the license of its patent equally to Michigan and Washington.
Example 7. BurgerZ licenses to JoeHam the right to use its jumbo hamburger making process and know-how. This is a nonmarketing use. JoeHam markets the jumbo hamburgers under its own brand. JoeHam has two restaurant locations, one in Washington and one in Oregon. BurgerZ's fee for the intangible rights is based on a percentage of sales at each location. Pursuant to subsection (201) (a) (i) of this section, BurgerZ will attribute receipts from its license with JoeHam to each location based on sales at those locations.
Example 8. WidgetCo licenses the use of its patent to ManuCo, to manufacture widgets. ManuCo has three manufacturing plants located in Michigan where it will use the patent for manufacturing widgets. ManuCo also has a single research and development (R&D) facility in Washington where it will use the patented technology to develop the next generation of its widgets. These are nonmarketing uses. Wid-getCo charges ManuCo a single price for the use of the patent in manufacturing and R&D. In the absence of information to the contrary, it is reasonable for WidgetCo to assume ManuCo's use of the patent is equal at all of ManuCo's relevant locations. Pursuant to subsection (201) (a) (i) of this section, because there are four locations where the patent is used equally, WidgetCo will attribute 25% of its apportionable royalty receipts to each of the four locations. Accordingly, 75% of the apportionable royalty receipts will be attributed to Michigan to reflect the use of the patent at the three manufacturing locations, and 25% of the apportionable royalty receipts will be attributable to Washington to reflect the use of the patent at the single R&D location.
Example 9. ProcessCo licenses to KimchiCo, for a single fee, the right to use its patent and trademark for manufacturing and marketing a food processing device. KimchiCo has a single manufacturing plant in Washington and markets the finished product solely in Korea. This mixed use license for a single fee is presumed to be for a marketing use. Accordingly, ProcessCo must attribute receipts under the guidelines established for marketing uses. Pursuant to subsection (201) (a) (i) of this section, KimchiCo is marketing and selling the device only in Korea; therefore, all receipts will be attributed to Korea.
Example 10. FranchiseCo operates a restaurant franchising business and licenses the right to use its trademark, patent, and know-how to EatQuick for a single fee. EatQuick will use the intangibles to create and market its food product. This is a mixed use license for a single fee and will be presumed to be for a marketing use. EatQuick has a single restaurant location in Washington, where all sales are made. Pursuant to subsection (201) (a) (i) of this section, the intangible property is used by EatQuick in Washington at its restaurant location. Taxpayer will attribute 100% of its apportion-able royalty receipts earned under the EatQuick license to Washington.
Example 11. Same facts as Example 10, except that EatQuick has five restaurant locations, one each in: Washington, California, Oregon, Idaho, and Montana. EatQuick pays an annual lump sum to FoodCo. This is a mixed use license for a single fee and will be presumed to be for marketing use. Further, FranchiseCo knows that EatQuick's use of the intangible property is equal at all locations. The intangible property is used equally by EatQuick in five states including Washington. Accordingly, pursuant to subsection (201) (a) (i) of this section, FoodCo will attribute 20% of its apportion-able royalty receipts to each location, including Washington.
Example 12. Same as Example 9, except the license agreement states that the nonmarketing use of the patent is valued at $450,000, and the marketing use of the trademark is valued at $550,000. This is a mixed use license with more than one fee. The stated values for the separate uses are reasonable. Pursuant to subsection (201) (a) (i) of this section, the receipts associated with the nonmarketing use are $450,000 and attributable to Washington where the patent is used in manufacturing. The receipts associated with the marketing use are $550,000 and attributed to Korea where the trademark is used for marketing and selling the finished product.
Wash. Admin. Code § 458-20-19403