Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
10 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1984–2012 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Illinois courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
General Telephone Co. v. Johnsongreen2 sentences2003The Supreme Court of Illinois, however, prescribed how to apply the "combined-apportionment" method under section 304(a) to determine an individual corporation's share of the group's Illinois income-tax liability in General Telephone Co. of Illinois v. Johnson , 103 Ill. 2d 363, 371-72 , 469 N.E.2d 1067, 1071 (1984), as follows: "First, the business income of each corporate member of the group would be computed so that the total business income of the group could be derived. 2003The Supreme Court of Illinois, however, prescribed how to apply the "combined-apportionment" method under section 304(a) to determine an individual corporation's share of the group's Illinois income-tax liability in General Telephone Co. of Illinois v. Johnson , 103 Ill. 2d 363, 371-72 , 469 N.E.2d 1067, 1071 (1984), as follows: "First, the business income of each corporate member of the group would be computed so that the total business income of the group could be derived. | 2 | 3 |
Bank of Lyons v. County of Cookgreen2 sentences2004Rather, the plaintiff argued that application of section 304(d) to the specific income at issue in that case violated its due process rights. “[W]here it is alleged that a statute valid upon its face is applied in a discriminatory or arbitrary manner, the rule generally prevails that recourse must be had in the first instance to the appropriate administrative board.” Bank of Lyons v. County of Cook , 13 Ill. 2d 493, 495 (1958); accord Phillips v. Graham , 86 Ill. 2d 274, 289 (1981). 2004Rather, the plaintiff argued that application of section 304(d) to the specific income at issue in that case violated its due process rights. “[W]here it is alleged that a statute valid upon its face is applied in a discriminatory or arbitrary manner, the rule generally prevails that recourse must be had in the first instance to the appropriate administrative board.” Bank of Lyons v. County of Cook, 13 Ill. 2d 493, 495 (1958); accord Phillips v. Graham, 86 Ill. 2d 274, 289 (1981). | 2 | 2 |
Phillips v. Grahamgreen2 sentences2004Rather, the plaintiff argued that application of section 304(d) to the specific income at issue in that case violated its due process rights. “[W]here it is alleged that a statute valid upon its face is applied in a discriminatory or arbitrary manner, the rule generally prevails that recourse must be had in the first instance to the appropriate administrative board.” Bank of Lyons v. County of Cook , 13 Ill. 2d 493, 495 (1958); accord Phillips v. Graham , 86 Ill. 2d 274, 289 (1981). 2004Rather, the plaintiff argued that application of section 304(d) to the specific income at issue in that case violated its due process rights. “[W]here it is alleged that a statute valid upon its face is applied in a discriminatory or arbitrary manner, the rule generally prevails that recourse must be had in the first instance to the appropriate administrative board.” Bank of Lyons v. County of Cook, 13 Ill. 2d 493, 495 (1958); accord Phillips v. Graham, 86 Ill. 2d 274, 289 (1981). | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Texaco-Cities Service Pipeline Co. v. McGaw
green
2 sentences1998The court declined to reach the question of whether apportionment under section 304(d)(2) amounted to a violation of due process, finding that Texaco-Cities had waived the issue by failing to raise it in the first instance in the administrative proceedings. 286 Ill.App.3d 529 , 221 Ill.Dec. 580 , 675 N.E.2d 1004 . 1998The court declined to reach the question of whether apportionment under section 304(d)(2) amounted to a violation of due process, finding that Texaco-Cities had waived the issue by failing to raise it in the first instance in the administrative proceedings. 286 Ill.App.3d 529 , 221 Ill.Dec. 580 , 675 N.E.2d 1004 . | 2 | 1998–1998 |
Moorman Manufacturing Co. v. Bair
green
2 sentences2012Instead, similarly to the requirement for an alternative method under section 304(f), a taxpayer must show “ ‘by “clear and cogent evidence” that the income attributed to the State is in fact “out of all appropriate proportions to the business transacted ... in that State” [citation] or has “led to a grossly distorted result,” [citation].’ ” Id. at 170 (quoting Moorman, 437 U.S. at 274 ). ¶ 45 Here, Ameritech does not argue that the net capital gains taxed by Illinois in 1999 were not generated within this state. 2012Instead, similarly to the requirement for an alternative method under section 304(f), a taxpayer must show “ ‘by “clear and cogent evidence” that the income attributed to the State is in fact “out of all appropriate proportions to the business transacted ... in that State” [citation] or has “led to a grossly distorted result,” [citation].’ ” Id. at 170 (quoting Moorman, 437 U.S. at 274 ). ¶ 45 Here, Ameritech does not argue that the net capital gains taxed by Illinois in 1999 were not generated within this state. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
GTE Automatic Electric, Inc. v. Allphin
green
2 sentences1989Lakehead contends in its brief on appeal that a taxpayer is entitled to an alternative apportionment formula under section 304(e) “whenever the originally imposed formula produces any distortion of business activity” (emphasis in original), citing GTE Automatic Electric, Inc. v. Allphin (1977), 68 Ill. 2d 326 , 369 N.E.2d 841 , as authority for that proposition. 1989Lakehead contends in its brief on appeal that a taxpayer is entitled to an alternative apportionment formula under section 304(e) “whenever the originally imposed formula produces any distortion of business activity” (emphasis in original), citing GTE Automatic Electric, Inc. v. Allphin (1977), 68 Ill. 2d 326 , 369 N.E.2d 841 , as authority for that proposition. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Caterpillar Tractor Co. v. Lenckos
green
2 sentences1984To reach that decision, we first considered the allocation difficulties that State taxing authorities encounter when a unitary business group member is to be taxed on its income attributable to activities within Illinois. ( 84 Ill. 2d 102, 116 .) According to courts that previously had considered this issue, we noted, the absence of express statutory provision for combined apportionment is not the critical test of whether the method is authorized by a particular State’s income tax statute. ( 84 Ill. 2d 102, 118-20 .) After examining the legislative history of our Income Tax Act, as well as the 1984To reach that decision, we first considered the allocation difficulties that State taxing authorities encounter when a unitary business group member is to be taxed on its income attributable to activities within Illinois. ( 84 Ill. 2d 102, 116 .) According to courts that previously had considered this issue, we noted, the absence of express statutory provision for combined apportionment is not the critical test of whether the method is authorized by a particular State’s income tax statute. ( 84 Ill. 2d 102, 118-20 .) After examining the legislative history of our Income Tax Act, as well as the | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.