(a) Subsection (e) of O.C.G.A. §
48-7-28.4 provides that the adjustment required by subsection (b) of O.C.G.A. §
48-7-28.4 shall be reduced, but not below zero, to the extent the corresponding captive REIT costs paid, accrued, or incurred by the taxpayer are received as income in an arm's length transaction, as defined below in subparagraph (5)(c)5. (i), by the captive REIT and the amount to be included in the income base is allocated or apportioned, or both, to and taxed by Georgia or another state that imposes a tax on or measured by the income of the captive REIT. For purposes of this paragraph, the corresponding expenses and costs shall not be considered to have been received as income by the captive REIT to the extent such income is reduced, in computing the income of the captive REIT in Georgia or another state, by the dividends paid deduction or by expenses paid, accrued, or incurred by the captive REIT to persons that are not related members, or both. For example:
1. A taxpayer doing business in Georgia expenses $5,000,000 in captive REIT costs. The captive REIT files a return in State A. The captive REIT's apportionment ratio in State A is 75%. The captive REIT has no dividends paid deduction and no expenses paid, accrued, or incurred to persons that are not related members. Applying the apportionment ratio to the income of the captive REIT results in $3,750,000 of the captive REIT's income being apportioned to and taxed in State A. Subtracting the $3,750,000 from the $5,000,000 results in the taxpayer making an addback adjustment for Georgia purposes of $1,250,000.
2. A taxpayer doing business in Georgia expenses $5,000,000 in captive REIT costs. The captive REIT files a return in State B. The captive REIT's apportionment ratio in State B is 75%. However, the captive REIT has a dividends paid deduction of $2,500,000 and expenses paid, accrued, or incurred to persons that are not related members of $2,000,000, both of which reduce the income to $500,000. Applying the apportionment ratio to the income of $500,000 results in $375,000 of the captive REIT's income being apportioned to and taxed in State B. Subtracting the $375,000 from the $5,000,000 results in the taxpayer making an addback adjustment for Georgia purposes of $4,625,000.
3. A taxpayer doing business in Georgia expenses $5,000,000 in captive REIT costs. The captive REIT does not file returns in any state. However, the taxpayer is required by State C to adjust their income for such captive REIT costs. Assume this results in the taxpayer decreasing their expense in State C by $2,500,000. Since it is the taxpayer itself and not the captive REIT that is being taxed by State C, the addback adjustment for Georgia purposes is not reduced and is equal to $5,000,000.
(b) To the extent a taxpayer is deemed to indirectly pay captive REIT costs as provided in paragraph (3), the taxpayer shall be eligible for this exception only to the extent such captive REIT costs indirectly received by the captive REIT meet the requirements of this exception. For example: Assume the same facts as those in the example in subparagraph (3)(a). The exception would only be available if the captive REIT costs deemed to be paid by Corporation A to Corporation C are received as income in an arm's length transaction by Corporation C and such income is allocated or apportioned, or both, to and taxed by Georgia or another state that imposes a tax on or measured by the income of Corporation C.
(c) When a taxpayer seeks to claim the exception provided by subsection (e) of O.C.G.A. §
48-7-28.4, the taxpayer must attach a copy of Form IT-REIT and any applicable schedules to its tax return and provide the following information on the Form IT-REIT (with all supporting documentation to be made available upon request):
1. The name and federal identification number of the captive REIT(s);
2. The name of each state and type of tax paid;
3. The amount of the captive REIT costs;
4. The amount of captive REIT costs subject to apportionment and/or allocation and reduced by the dividends paid deduction and by expenses paid, accrued, or incurred to persons that are not related members, the apportionment ratio, and the amount of income apportioned after applying the ratio for each state for such captive REIT;
5. A brief description of the arm's length status of the transactions between the taxpayer and the captive REIT. However, a more detailed description needs to be made available upon request or upon audit. The following shall apply with respect to such detailed description:
(i) The taxpayer must establish and substantiate by a preponderance of evidence that the amount of the cost or expense in question was substantially identical to what would be expended in an arm's length transaction under substantially similar circumstances. "Arm's length" is the amount of consideration that would be paid or received in a transaction between unrelated persons, whereby neither person is under any compulsion to enter into the transaction and each person has reasonable knowledge of all relevant facts. This arm's length standard is also met if the results of a transaction are consistent with the results unrelated taxpayers would have had if they had engaged in the same transaction under the same circumstances;
(ii) For purposes of substantiating that the amount of such expense(s) was at arm's length, a taxpayer who is relying upon an appraisal or a study must identify and make available upon request such appraisal or study and provide the name of the preparer thereof, and state the date on which such appraisal or study was issued and the general conclusions thereof;
(iii) In general, the Commissioner will be more likely to allow an exception when a taxpayer and a captive REIT are not controlled or managed on a day-to-day basis by the same person(s) and the same person(s) did not occupy both sides of the bargaining table. This will be particularly so when the taxpayer and a captive REIT were previously independent entities or, if not previously independent, function like independent entities without interconnected activities or overlapping interests. The taxpayer must indicate whether the taxpayer believes that the transaction was in fact negotiated by the taxpayer and a captive REIT who were dealing with each other on an arm's length basis. At the same time, the Commissioner recognizes that in many controlled-group contexts, a taxpayer and a captive REIT will not in fact conduct arm's length negotiations. If the terms of an agreement between a taxpayer and a captive REIT are substantially the same as those that unrelated parties would have entered into, the fact that the overall organization of which a taxpayer and a captive REIT form a part is centrally managed will not, by itself, preclude relief from the addback provisions;
(iv) The taxpayer must explain and clarify in detail how the captive REIT obtained the assets in question, such as whether the assets were either purchased by the captive REIT from a person that was not a related member or were purchased or received from a related member in an arm's length sales transaction and whether the assets were legally transferred to the captive REIT; and
(v) Where a taxpayer cannot show by a preponderance of evidence that the amount of the deduction was at arm's length, the Commissioner may adjust the cost or expense to reflect arm's length pricing or, alternatively, may deny the taxpayer's exception claim in its entirety; and
6. Such other information as the Commissioner may prescribe.