How are a broker-dealer's receipts sourced in New York when the business is a partnership?
Edvin Givargis Published 6 minute read
The short answer
It depends on which New York tax is asking, and that is the whole problem. The corporate franchise tax under Article 9-A gives a registered broker or dealer customer-based sourcing for its qualifying receipts (Tax Law section 210-A(5)(b)), and a corporate partner picks that treatment up through the aggregate method for its distributive share. The personal income tax under Article 22 never adopted those rules, so an individual partner's share of the very same receipts is sourced the old way, essentially by where the work is performed. New York City runs its own regime: the unincorporated business tax sources service receipts by place of performance as a general rule, but the UBT carries its own registered broker-dealer customer-sourcing provision, so the city answer for a registered firm differs from the city answer for everyone else. A broker-dealer organized as a partnership therefore has no single New York sourcing answer; it has one answer per audience. Firms that miss this file returns they never owed, or hand corporate partners numbers computed under the wrong regime, and the error compounds quietly for years because a filed return rarely gets a second look.
The corporate rule, and who actually qualifies
New York's corporate reform left Article 9-A with market-based sourcing generally, and for securities businesses it kept a specific customer-based regime: receipts of a registered broker or dealer from brokerage commissions, margin interest, account maintenance fees, and the other enumerated categories are sourced to New York when the customer is located here. The definition is the gatekeeper. A registered broker or dealer means one registered as such with the Securities and Exchange Commission or the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, including an OTC derivatives dealer as defined in the SEC's regulations (section 210-A(5)(f)). The Department reads the registration requirement literally: guidance addressing the predecessor rules concluded that only an entity actually registered qualifies, and that an owner of a registered entity does not acquire broker-dealer sourcing for its own separate receipts; what flows up is the registered entity's receipts, with their character intact, to a corporate partner computing tax under the aggregate method (NYT-G-17(2)(C)). Two consequences follow for partnership structures. First, where the registered entity sits in the structure matters: a registered subsidiary's qualifying receipts carry customer sourcing up to a corporate partner, but the unregistered parent's own advisory fees do not become broker-dealer receipts by association. Second, the partnership's information returns have to do extra work, because the forms ask for the Article 9-A numbers whether or not any partner needs them; the partnership-level schedules carry dedicated lines for the section 210-A(5) items precisely so a corporate partner can compute its share under the corporate rules.
The Article 22 divergence, and what it did to one set of returns
Article 22 contains no broker-dealer sourcing provision. When the corporate regime was rebuilt, the personal income tax allocation rules were left standing, so a nonresident individual partner allocates business income under the traditional rules, by the books and records where they fairly reflect New York activity, or by formula, with service receipts assigned to where the services are performed. The same dollar of commission income is thus a New York receipt for a corporate partner whose customer is in Manhattan, and a non-New York receipt for an individual partner whose firm performed the work in California.
The practical stakes are best seen in a pattern that recurs in placement and advisory practices. A firm with out-of-state offices and New York customers assumes, reasonably but wrongly, that customer location controls, and files New York partnership returns for years showing New York receipts. When the question is finally run through the correct layer, the analysis inverts: the entity-level and individual-partner sourcing is place of performance, the work was done outside New York, and New York receipts fall to zero. At that point the filing obligation itself can evaporate, because a partnership with no New York physical presence, no New York-source income under the applicable rules, and no New York resident partner has nothing tethering it to a New York return. The cleanup is its own project: deciding whether to amend the open years, filing a final return so the account closes cleanly rather than generating non-filer notices, and reissuing partner schedules where the original K-1s allocated New York amounts that no longer exist. The partnership filing fee follows the same thread, since the fee obligation tracks New York source income, so re-sourcing the receipts can turn the fee off as well.
One obligation survives the disappearance of the filing requirement, and it is easy to lose. A corporate partner still needs the broker-dealer receipt detail, by customer location, to compute its own Article 9-A tax, and it needs it whether or not the partnership files anything in New York. A partnership that stops filing New York returns should keep producing that detail, in the partner schedules or a supplemental footnote, because the corporate partner's obligation is independent of the partnership's, and the data has to come from somewhere.
The city's third answer
New York City adds a layer that is neither of the above. The unincorporated business tax applies at the entity level to partnerships doing business in the city, and its general rule for service receipts is place of performance; the city has not imported the state's corporate market-based regime into the UBT for services generally. But the UBT has long carried its own registered broker-dealer provision (Admin. Code section 11-508(e-3)), sourcing the same enumerated categories of receipts by customer location for a registered broker or dealer, and the Department of Finance has read it functionally at least once, extending the treatment in a letter ruling to an entity that operated in compliance with SEC broker-dealer requirements without formal registration. So the city analysis forks: a registered broker-dealer partnership sources qualifying receipts to the city by customer, while an unregistered advisory affiliate in the same structure sources by where its people did the work. For a structure with a registered entity, an unregistered manager, and offices inside and outside the city, the UBT computation can run on different sourcing for different entities in the same consolidated group, and the allocation of people and functions among those entities becomes a UBT fact question worth documenting deliberately.
Practice notes
The discipline in this area is to ask the sourcing question once per taxing regime, in writing, before the first return is filed: Article 9-A for corporate partners, Article 22 for individuals, UBT for the city, each with its own answer for registered and unregistered entities. Registration status should be confirmed with the client rather than assumed from the entity's name or function, since the customer-sourcing rules turn on actual SEC or CFTC registration and the structure often contains both registered and unregistered entities side by side. Where returns have been filed on the wrong theory, the remediation sequence matters: establish the correct sourcing first, then decide the amended-return question on its own merits, file final returns where the obligation has ended so the accounts close, and reissue partner schedules so downstream returns stop inheriting the error. And where a corporate partner sits anywhere in the structure, treat the broker-dealer receipt detail as a permanent deliverable independent of any New York filing, because the corporate partner's need for customer-location data outlives the partnership's last New York return.
This article states the law as of September 15, 2026
Statutes, rates, thresholds, and agency practice change, and a different set of facts can change the answer. Before acting on anything discussed above, contact G&G State Tax Group to confirm what has changed since this was written and how the rules apply to a specific situation.
G&G State Tax Group, LLC is a state and local tax advisory firm. The firm provides state and local tax consulting and representation in state and local tax controversies. G&G does not prepare or file tax returns, perform attest services, or provide bookkeeping, and is not a CPA firm.