Why Some States May Tax NCTI Despite Exemptions on GILTI

NCTI: The Unforeseen Tax Challenge for States

The taxation landscape is shifting drastically as states begin to grapple with the implications of net CFC-tested income (NCTI), the successor to the global intangible low-taxed income (GILTI) tax. While several states like Iowa, Kansas, New Hampshire, and Tennessee previously opted out of GILTI, their decisions may not shield them from the complexities of NCTI. This conundrum arises primarily from the specific wording in their tax codes that exempt GILTI by name rather than through broader references in the Internal Revenue Code.

A Patchwork of State Responses

Across the nation, twelve additional states (Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Missouri, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, and the District of Columbia) have taken measures to exclude GILTI from their state tax codes. However, these measures may not automatically extend to NCTI. Arizona, in particular, stands at a crossroads, where its determination regarding NCTI remains uncertain. This discrepancy introduces a degree of unpredictability for corporations operating in these regions, potentially exposing them to taxation on international income that they would have previously considered exempt.

State vs. Federal Taxation: A Growing Disconnect

At the federal level, NCTI serves as a minimum tax designed to complement existing income taxation on international earnings. However, states do not provide foreign tax credits, a crucial element in the federal system meant to alleviate some of the tax burden on businesses with foreign subsidiaries. Consequently, states that choose to conform to NCTI effectively levy a tax on a portion of income generated abroad, regardless of whether those income streams are subject to significant foreign taxation. This disconnect amplifies double taxation concerns, putting states that adopt NCTI at a competitive disadvantage.

Why Decoupling from NCTI is Urgent

Decoupling from NCTI is not merely a technical tax decision but a necessary policy stance that can safeguard local economies. The urgency is particularly high for states—like Iowa and New Hampshire—that previously enacted measures to exempt certain international income from taxation. If state lawmakers do not act swiftly, businesses may face unfavorable tax liabilities. Compounding the issue further, the taxation of NCTI does not reflect the economic realities of foreign operations and could lead to companies restructuring their operations and investments to minimize their tax exposure in these high-tax states.

Looking Forward: Action Steps for Lawmakers

As we move toward 2026 and the full implementation of NCTI, there is a critical need for state legislators to address these discrepancies in their tax codes. The introduction of clear guidelines and a commitment to decoupling from NCTI can help states maintain their economic attractiveness. Moreover, definitive legislative action can provide clarity to taxpayers and ensure a fair taxation system that does not penalize businesses engaged in legitimate international operations.

In conclusion, the evolving nature of state tax codes concerning NCTI presents a unique challenge that demands prompt attention from policymakers. Failure to act may not only jeopardize state revenue but could also hinder competitiveness and deter economic growth. Stakeholders are encouraged to engage with local policymakers to advocate for tax decisions that support business innovation and economic resilience.