Arkansas Code Annotated

Ark. Code Ann. § 26-51-701 (2026)

Definitions

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaArk. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

As used in this Act, unless the context otherwise requires:

History. Acts 1961, No. 413, § 1; 1963, No. 529, § 1; 1979, No. 1024, § 1; A.S.A. 1947, § 84-2055; Acts 1989, No. 494, § 3.

A.C.R.C. Notes. Former subsection (d) of this section defined “financial organization”. The repeal of subsection (d) was a deviation from the official version of the Uniform Division of Income for Tax Purposes Act drafted by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws.

Meaning of “this Act”. Acts 1961, No. 413, codified as 26-51-701 et seq.

Research References

ALR.

Construction and Application of Uniform Division of Income for Tax Purposes Act (UDITPA) — Determination of Business Income. 74 A.L.R.6th 1.

Ark. L. Rev.

Case Note, Pledger v. Illinois Tool Works, Inc.: Arkansas Belatedly Recognizes the Unitary Business Principle as a Limitation of Its Power to Tax Capital Gains of Nondomiciliary Corporations, 45 Ark. L. Rev. 597.

U. Ark. Little Rock L.J.

Survey, Taxation, 14 U. Ark. Little Rock L.J. 401.

Case Notes

Business Income.

—In General.

The focus of subsection (a) is the nature of the taxpayer's business, and business income arising from either of two sources: (1) transactions and activity in the regular course of the taxpayer's business, or (2) income from the acquisition, management, and disposition of property that constitutes integral parts of the taxpayer's regular business. Pledger v. Getty Oil Exploration Co., 309 Ark. 257, 831 S.W.2d 121 (1992).

—Unitary Business Principle.

Under the “unitary business” rationale, the general test for determining whether a diversified group of businesses had a unitary business relationship was to determine whether the income that the state was attempting to tax resulted from functional integration, centralization of management, and economies of scale utilized by the corporate group. Pledger v. Illinois Tool Works, Inc., 306 Ark. 134, 812 S.W.2d 101, cert. denied, Pledger v. Illinois Tool Works, 502 U.S. 958, 112 S. Ct. 418, 125 L. Ed. 2d 721 (1991).

Applying the unitary business principle, the plaintiff's capital gains income from the sale of stock interest in three other companies was nonbusiness income for Arkansas's Uniform Division of Income for Tax Purposes Act purposes; for at no time did the plaintiff hold the majority of the stock in these companies, and did not have a controlling interest or part. Pledger v. Illinois Tool Works, Inc., 306 Ark. 134, 812 S.W.2d 101, cert. denied, Pledger v. Illinois Tool Works, 502 U.S. 958, 112 S. Ct. 418, 125 L. Ed. 2d 721 (1991).

Plaintiff's capital gains which were not an integral part of its regular manufacturing and leasing businesses did not fit the unitary business principle test. Pledger v. Illinois Tool Works, Inc., 306 Ark. 134, 812 S.W.2d 101, cert. denied, Pledger v. Illinois Tool Works, 502 U.S. 958, 112 S. Ct. 418, 125 L. Ed. 2d 721 (1991).

Commercial Domicile.

Taxpayers were not entitled to a “commercial domicile” for income tax purposes, since there was no evidence that they paid any income tax in the state of Texas, their place of business, or that Texas even had an income tax law. Shinn v. Heath, 259 Ark. 577, 535 S.W.2d 57 (1976).

Cited: Cheney v. St. Louis Sw. Ry., 239 Ark. 870, 394 S.W.2d 731 (1965); Collins v. Skelton, 256 Ark. 955, 512 S.W.2d 542 (1974); Land O'Frost, Inc. v. Pledger, 308 Ark. 208, 823 S.W.2d 887 (1992).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1990–2026 · leading case: Pledger v. Illinois Tool Works, Inc., 812 S.W.2d 101 (Ark. 1991).
Pledger v. Illinois Tool Works, Inc., 812 S.W.2d 101 (Ark. 1991). · cites it 10× “UDITPA is designed to fairly apportion among the states in which a corporation conducts its multistate business a fair amount of value or business income earned by the corporations' activities in each state.”
Pledger v. Getty Oil Expl. Co., 831 S.W.2d 121 (Ark. 1992). · cites it 6× “Arkansas is one of twenty-three states that have adopted UDITPA, the Uniform Division of Income for Tax Purposes Act, Ark. Code Ann. §§ 26-51-701 to -723 (1987, Supp.”
Am. Honda Motor Co., Inc. v. Larry Walther, Dir., Arkansas Dep't of Fin. & Admin., 2020 Ark. 349 (Ark. 2020). · cites it 2× “]” Ark. Code Ann. § 26-51-701 (a). American Honda argues that the transactional test of the definition has not been met.”
Cent. & S. Companies, Inc. v. Weiss, 3 S.W.3d 294 (Ark. 1999). · cites it 2× “That statute states: (f) In computing Arkansas consolidated taxable income or loss to which the tax rate is applied, the separate net income or loss of each corporation which is entitled to be included in the affiliated group shall be included in the consolidated net income or…”
St. Louis Sw. Ry. Co. v. Ragland, 800 S.W.2d 410 (Ark. 1990). · cites it 4× “For reversal, SSW contends that the chancellor erred by including nonbusiness income, allocated to other states under Ark. Code Ann. § 26-51-701 through -723 (1987), in the computation of its net operating loss under Ark.”
Land O'Frost, Inc. v. Pledger, 823 S.W.2d 887 (Ark. 1992). · cites it 2× “The returns included the Illinois operations of the appellant in computing “business income” under Ark. Code Ann. § 26-51-701 (a) (1987) and requested a tax refund of $757,770, together with accrued interest.”
Jim Hudson, in His Off. Capacity as Sec'y & Dir. of the Arkansas Dep't of Fin. & Admin. v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc., 2024 Ark. 179 (Ark. 2024). · cites it 7× “This case arises from Murphy’s amended tax returns for years 2014 and 2015 and whether certain interest payments made by Murphy in relation to a credit agreement and the issuance of senior notes 15 are “nonbusiness expenses” under Arkansas’s version of the Uniform Division of…”
Jim Hudson, in His Off. Capacity as Sec'y & Dir. of the Arkansas Dep't of Fin. & Admin. v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc., 2024 Ark. 179 (Ark. 2024). · cites it 7× “This case arises from Murphy’s amended tax returns for years 2014 and 2015 and whether certain interest payments made by Murphy in relation to a credit agreement and the issuance of senior notes 15 are “nonbusiness expenses” under Arkansas’s version of the Uniform Division of…”
Jim Hudson, in His Off. Capacity as Sec'y, Arkansas Dep't of Fin. & Admin. v. United States Beef Corp., 2026 Ark. 63 (Ark. 2026). · cites it 22× “” Ark. Code Ann. § 26-51-701 (a) (Repl. 2020).”
Ark. Code Ann. § 26-51-701(a): 2 cases
Pledger v. Illinois Tool Works, Inc., 812 S.W.2d 101 (Ark. 1991). “UDITPA is designed to fairly apportion among the states in which a corporation conducts its multistate business a fair amount of value or business income earned by the corporations' activities in each state.”
Jim Hudson, in His Off. Capacity as Sec'y, Arkansas Dep't of Fin. & Admin. v. United States Beef Corp., 2026 Ark. 63 (Ark. 2026). “” Ark. Code Ann. § 26-51-701 (a) (Repl. 2020).”
Ark. Code Ann. § 26-51-701(e): 1 case
Pledger v. Illinois Tool Works, Inc., 812 S.W.2d 101 (Ark. 1991). “UDITPA is designed to fairly apportion among the states in which a corporation conducts its multistate business a fair amount of value or business income earned by the corporations' activities in each state.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.