10 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1998–2026 4 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by North Carolina 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Swindlergreen2 sentences2001In Polaroid the Court stated that under the functional test, "once a corporation's assets are found to constitute integral parts of the corporation's regular trade or business, income resulting from the acquisition, management, and/or disposition of those assets constitutes business income regardless of how that income is received." Id. at 306 , 507 S.E.2d at 296 . 2001In Polaroid the Court stated that under the functional test, "once a corporation's assets are found to constitute integral parts of the corporation's regular trade or business, income resulting from the acquisition, management, and/or disposition of those assets constitutes business income regardless of how that income is received." Id. at 306 , 507 S.E.2d at 296 . | 2 | 3 |
Laurel Pipe Line Co. v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2000In applying the functional test, that court once again focused on factors other than how the property was used by the corporation, relying instead on the "totality of the circumstances." Id. 2000In applying the functional test, that court once again focused on factors other than how the property was used by the corporation, relying instead on the “totality of the circumstances.” Id. | 1 | 3 |
Texaco-Cities Service Pipeline Co. v. McGawgreen2 sentences2000Id. at 369-70. *207 The next case to apply the functional test was Texaco-Cities Service Pipeline Co. v. McGaw, 182 Ill.2d 262 , 230 Ill.Dec. 991 , 695 N.E.2d 481 (1998). 2000Id. at 369-70. *207 The next case to apply the functional test was Texaco-Cities Service Pipeline Co. v. McGaw, 182 Ill.2d 262 , 230 Ill.Dec. 991 , 695 N.E.2d 481 (1998). | 1 | 3 |
Polaroid Corp. v. Offermangreen2 sentences2000Although our statutory distinction perhaps evinces a slightly broader meaning of the functional test, the distinction was irrelevant for purposes of Polaroid, 349 N.C. at 294 n. 3, 507 S.E.2d at 288 n. 3, and we find the distinction to be irrelevant here. 2000(Emphasis added.) I acknowledge, along with the majority, that Lenox's disposition of its ArtCarved division does not fall within the definition of business income as applied by the "transactional test." However, I do not agree that it does not comply with the definition of business income as applied by the "functional test." The majority correctly states that the functional test "focuses on income from tangible and intangible property if the acquisition, management, and/or disposition of the property constitute integral parts of the corporation's regular trade or business." The majority furth | 1 | 2 |
Simpson Timber Co. v. Department of Revenuegreen2 sentences2000Id. at 369-70. *207 The next case to apply the functional test was Texaco-Cities Service Pipeline Co. v. McGaw, 182 Ill.2d 262 , 230 Ill.Dec. 991 , 695 N.E.2d 481 (1998). 1998Similarly, in Simpson Timber Co. v. Department of Revenue, 326 Or. 370 , 953 P.2d 366 , the Supreme Court of Oregon held that its definition of business income — also modeled after UDITPA — encompassed the functional test. 4 In Simpson, the Oregon court was asked to determine whether monies received by Simpson Timber as compensation for the federal government’s condemnation of its timberland and timber constituted business income. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Rossgreen1 sentence2023See id. at 71–72. | 1 | 1 |
State ex rel. McCrory v. Bergergreen2 sentences2018See id. at 645-47 , 781 S.E.2d at 256 -57 . 2018See id. at 645-47 , 781 S.E.2d at 256 -57 . | 1 | 1 |
Ex Parte Uniroyal Tire Co.green2 sentences2000And the Alabama Supreme Court recently made a similar observation: "Moreover, even courts applying the functional test have excepted true liquidations from its application." Uniroyal Tire Co. v. State Dep't of Revenue, ___ So.2d ___, ___, No. 1981928, 2000 WL 1074041, at *11 (Ala.2000). 2000And the Alabama Supreme Court recently made a similar observation: “Moreover, even courts applying the functional test have excepted true liquidations from its application.” Uniroyal Tire Co. v. State Dep’t of Revenue, No. 1981928, 2000 WL 1074041, at *11 (Ala. 2000). | 1 | 1 |
The Kroger Co. v. the Dept. of Revenuegreen2 sentences2000Id. at 716. 2000Id. at 716 . | 1 | 1 |
Union Carbide Corp. v. Offermangreen2 sentences2000Id. at 671-72 , 513 S.E.2d at 345-46 (Horton, J., dissenting). 2000Id. at 671-72 , 513 S.E.2d at 345-46 (Horton, J., dissenting). | 1 | 1 |
Allied-Signal, Inc. Ex Rel. Bendix Corp. v. Director, Division of Taxationgreen2 sentences1998See Allied-Signal, Inc. v. Director of Div. of Taxation, 504 U.S. 768 , 119 L. 1998See Allied-Signal, Inc. v. Director of Div. of Taxation, 504 U.S. 768 , 119 L. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Bursell
green
2 sentences2022“Practically speaking, Rule 10(a)(1) contextualizes the objection for review on appeal, thereby enabling the appellate court to identify and thoroughly consider the specific legal question raised by the objecting party.” Id. ¶ 51 Notably, Rule 10(a)(1) does not require a party to recite certain magic words in order to preserve an issue; rather, it creates a functional requirement of bringing the M.E. 2022“Practically speaking, Rule 10(a)(1) contextualizes the objection for review on appeal, thereby enabling the appellate court to identify and thoroughly consider the specific legal question raised by the objecting party.” Id. ¶ 51 Notably, Rule 10(a)(1) does not require a party to recite certain magic words in order to preserve an issue; rather, it creates a functional requirement of bringing the M.E. | 2 | 2022–2022 |
McVean & Barlow, Inc. v. New Mexico Bureau of Revenue
green
2 sentences2000One of the first cases employing the functional test (or at least relying on the second part of the statutory definition) was McVean & Barlow, Inc. v. New Mexico Bureau of Revenue, 88 N.M. 521 , 543 P.2d 489 (Ct.App. 1975). 2000One of the first cases employing the functional test (or at least relying on the second part of the statutory definition) was McVean & Barlow, Inc. v. New Mexico Bureau of Revenue, 88 N.M. 521 , 543 P.2d 489 (Ct.App. 1975). | 2 | 2000–2001 |
State v. Garcia
green
2 sentences2026This rule, however, “does not require a party to recite certain magic words in order to preserve an issue; rather it creates a functional requirement of bringing the trial court’s attention to the issue such that the court may rule on it.” M.E. v. T.J., 380 N.C. 539 , 559, 869 S.E.2d 624 , 637 (2022) (citing State v. Garcia, 358 N.C. 382, 410 , 597 S.E.2d 724 (2004)). 2026This rule, however, “does not require a party to recite certain magic words in order to preserve an issue; rather it creates a functional requirement of bringing the trial court’s attention to the issue such that the court may rule on it.” M.E. v. T.J., 380 N.C. 539 , 559, 869 S.E.2d 624 , 637 (2022) (citing State v. Garcia, 358 N.C. 382, 410 , 597 S.E.2d 724 (2004)). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Pledger v. Getty Oil Exploration Co.
green
2 sentences2000Id. 2000Id. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
District of Columbia v. Pierce Associates, Inc.
green
2 sentences2000In District of Columbia v. Pierce Associates, Inc., 462 A.2d 1129 (D.C.Cir.1983), that court dealt with whether a corporation's receipt of insurance payments from one of its flooded manufacturing plants was business income. 2000Id. at 1132 . | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Ross-Araco v. Com., Bd. of Fin. & Rev.
green
2 sentences2000Id. 2000Id. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Dover Corp. v. Department of Revenue
green
2 sentences2000Id. 2000Id. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
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.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.