unitary business principle in New Jersey

9 New Jersey opinions name it 3 courts 1983–2011 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by New Jersey 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.

Followed or applied (4)

Case	Followed	Cited
Mobil Oil Corp. v. Commissioner of Taxes of Vt.green scotus · 1980 · cited in 5 New Jersey opinions naming this issue, 1983–2011 2 sentences 1990All dividend income — irre spective of whether it is generated by a “discrete business enterprise, ’’Mobil, 445 U.S. at 439 , 100 S.Ct. at 1232 — would become part of a unitary business if the test were whether the corporation commingled dividends from other corporations, whether subsidiaries or not. [458 U.S. at 364, n. 11, 102 S.Ct. at 3135, n. 11; emphasis supplied] Defendant argues further that the unitary nature of plaintiff’s stock investments in three of the public corporations is demonstrated by the clear relationship between the business activities of those corporations and plaintiff’ 1990All dividend income — irre spective of whether it is generated by a “discrete business enterprise, ’’Mobil, 445 U.S. at 439 , 100 S.Ct. at 1232 — would become part of a unitary business if the test were whether the corporation commingled dividends from other corporations, whether subsidiaries or not. [458 U.S. at 364, n. 11, 102 S.Ct. at 3135, n. 11; emphasis supplied] Defendant argues further that the unitary nature of plaintiff’s stock investments in three of the public corporations is demonstrated by the clear relationship between the business activities of those corporations and plaintiff’	2	5
Wisconsin v. J. C. Penney Co.green scotus · 1941 · cited in 2 New Jersey opinions naming this issue, 2008–2011 2 sentences 2011Penney Co., 311 U.S. 435, 444 , 61 S.Ct. 246, 250 , 85 L.Ed. 267, 270-71 (1940)). [Id. at 24-25, 128 S.Ct. at 1505 , 170 L.Ed.2d at 412 .] The Director argues that Judge Bianco’s resort to a formalistic application of the unitary business principle gives short shrift to the United States Supreme Court’s acknowledgement in Allied-Signal, Inc. v. Director, Division of Taxation, 504 U.S. 768 , 112 S.Ct 2251 , 119 L.Ed.2d 533 (1992), of the evolution of this principle and overlooks the legal standards that apply to BIS. 2011Penney Co., 311 U.S. 435, 444 , 61 S.Ct. 246, 250 , 85 L.Ed. 267, 270-71 (1940)). [Id. at 24-25, 128 S.Ct. at 1505 , 170 L.Ed.2d at 412 .] The Director argues that Judge Bianco’s resort to a formalistic application of the unitary business principle gives short shrift to the United States Supreme Court’s acknowledgement in Allied-Signal, Inc. v. Director, Division of Taxation, 504 U.S. 768 , 112 S.Ct 2251 , 119 L.Ed.2d 533 (1992), of the evolution of this principle and overlooks the legal standards that apply to BIS.	2	2
D. H. Holmes Co., Ltd. v. McNamaragreen scotus · 1988 · cited in 1 New Jersey opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008 2 sentences 2008Penney Co., 311 U.S. 435, 444 , 61 S.Ct. 246, 249-50 , 85 L.Ed. 267, 270 (1940) (“A state is free to pursue its own fiscal policies, unembarrassed by the Constitution, if by the practical operation of a tax the state has exerted its power in relation to opportunities which it has given, to protection which it has afforded, to benefits which it has conferred by the fact of being an orderly, civilized society”); Holmes Co. v. McNamara, 486 U.S. 24, 32 , 108 S.Ct. 1619, 1624 , 100 L.Ed.2d 21, 28 (1988) (holding, in a use tax context, that the Complete Auto requirement that a tax be “fairly relate 2008Penney Co., 311 U.S. 435, 444 , 61 S.Ct. 246, 249-50 , 85 L.Ed. 267, 270 (1940) (“A state is free to pursue its own fiscal policies, unembarrassed by the Constitution, if by the practical operation of a tax the state has exerted its power in relation to opportunities which it has given, to protection which it has afforded, to benefits which it has conferred by the fact of being an orderly, civilized society”); Holmes Co. v. McNamara, 486 U.S. 24, 32 , 108 S.Ct. 1619, 1624 , 100 L.Ed.2d 21, 28 (1988) (holding, in a use tax context, that the Complete Auto requirement that a tax be “fairly relate	1	1
ASARCO Inc. v. Idaho State Tax Commissiongreen scotus · 1982 · cited in 1 New Jersey opinions naming this issue, 1983–1983 2 sentences 1983Co. v. Missouri Tax Comm’n, 390 U.S. 317 , 88 S.Ct. 995 , 19 L.Ed.2d 1201 (1968)] The thrust of the Supreme Court’s decisions in Woolworth and ASARCO, supra, and two apportionment cases from the 1980 term, Mobil Oil Corp. v. Commissioner of Taxes, 445 U.S. 425 , 100 S.Ct. 1223 , 63 L.Ed.2d 510 (1980), and Exxon Corp. v. Wisconsin, 447 U.S. 207 , 100 S.Ct. 2109 , 65 L.Ed.2d 66 (1980), is that “the linchpin of apportionability in the field of state income taxation is the unitary-business principle.” ASARCO, supra, 458 U.S. at 317, 102 S.Ct. at 3109 , 73 L.Ed.2d at 795 , quoting from Mobil, supra 1983Co. v. Missouri Tax Comm’n, 390 U.S. 317 , 88 S.Ct. 995 , 19 L.Ed.2d 1201 (1968)] The thrust of the Supreme Court’s decisions in Woolworth and ASARCO, supra, and two apportionment cases from the 1980 term, Mobil Oil Corp. v. Commissioner of Taxes, 445 U.S. 425 , 100 S.Ct. 1223 , 63 L.Ed.2d 510 (1980), and Exxon Corp. v. Wisconsin, 447 U.S. 207 , 100 S.Ct. 2109 , 65 L.Ed.2d 66 (1980), is that “the linchpin of apportionability in the field of state income taxation is the unitary-business principle.” ASARCO, supra, 458 U.S. at 317, 102 S.Ct. at 3109 , 73 L.Ed.2d at 795 , quoting from Mobil, supra	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (1)

Case	Negative	Cited
James v. International Telephone & Telegraph Corp.green mo · 1983 · cited in 1 New Jersey opinions naming this issue, 1989–1989 1 sentence 1989But see, James v. International Telephone and Telegraph Corp., 654 S.W. 2d 865 (Mo. 1983), which rejected a similar unitary business analysis.	1	1

Also cited on this issue (7)

Case	Cited	Years
MeadWestvaco Corp. v. Illinois Department of Revenue green scotus · 2008 2 sentences 2011Penney Co., 311 U.S. 435, 444 , 61 S.Ct. 246, 250 , 85 L.Ed. 267, 270-71 (1940)). [Id. at 24-25, 128 S.Ct. at 1505 , 170 L.Ed.2d at 412 .] The Director argues that Judge Bianco’s resort to a formalistic application of the unitary business principle gives short shrift to the United States Supreme Court’s acknowledgement in Allied-Signal, Inc. v. Director, Division of Taxation, 504 U.S. 768 , 112 S.Ct 2251 , 119 L.Ed.2d 533 (1992), of the evolution of this principle and overlooks the legal standards that apply to BIS. 2011Penney Co., 311 U.S. 435, 444 , 61 S.Ct. 246, 250 , 85 L.Ed. 267, 270-71 (1940)). [Id. at 24-25, 128 S.Ct. at 1505 , 170 L.Ed.2d at 412 .] The Director argues that Judge Bianco’s resort to a formalistic application of the unitary business principle gives short shrift to the United States Supreme Court’s acknowledgement in Allied-Signal, Inc. v. Director, Division of Taxation, 504 U.S. 768 , 112 S.Ct 2251 , 119 L.Ed.2d 533 (1992), of the evolution of this principle and overlooks the legal standards that apply to BIS.	2	2009–2011
Allied-Signal, Inc. Ex Rel. Bendix Corp. v. Director, Division of Taxation green scotus · 1992 2 sentences 2011Penney Co., 311 U.S. 435, 444 , 61 S.Ct. 246, 250 , 85 L.Ed. 267, 270-71 (1940)). [Id. at 24-25, 128 S.Ct. at 1505 , 170 L.Ed.2d at 412 .] The Director argues that Judge Bianco’s resort to a formalistic application of the unitary business principle gives short shrift to the United States Supreme Court’s acknowledgement in Allied-Signal, Inc. v. Director, Division of Taxation, 504 U.S. 768 , 112 S.Ct 2251 , 119 L.Ed.2d 533 (1992), of the evolution of this principle and overlooks the legal standards that apply to BIS. 2011Penney Co., 311 U.S. 435, 444 , 61 S.Ct. 246, 250 , 85 L.Ed. 267, 270-71 (1940)). [Id. at 24-25, 128 S.Ct. at 1505 , 170 L.Ed.2d at 412 .] The Director argues that Judge Bianco’s resort to a formalistic application of the unitary business principle gives short shrift to the United States Supreme Court’s acknowledgement in Allied-Signal, Inc. v. Director, Division of Taxation, 504 U.S. 768 , 112 S.Ct 2251 , 119 L.Ed.2d 533 (1992), of the evolution of this principle and overlooks the legal standards that apply to BIS.	2	1995–2011
Container Corp. of America v. Franchise Tax Board green scotus · 1983 2 sentences 1989Taken in combination, at least, they clearly demonstrate that the state court reached a conclusion "within the realm of permissible judgment." [ Id. at 179-180 , 103 S.Ct. at 2947-2948 ; citations and footnotes omitted.] The Court recognized that application of the unitary business principle was excruciatingly fact sensitive, and as long as the correct legal standard was applied, the Court limited its role to determining whether the state court's judgment "was within the realm of permissible judgment." Id. at 176 , 103 S.Ct. at 2946 . 1989Taken in combination, at least, they clearly demonstrate that the state court reached a conclusion "within the realm of permissible judgment." [ Id. at 179-180 , 103 S.Ct. at 2947-2948 ; citations and footnotes omitted.] The Court recognized that application of the unitary business principle was excruciatingly fact sensitive, and as long as the correct legal standard was applied, the Court limited its role to determining whether the state court's judgment "was within the realm of permissible judgment." Id. at 176 , 103 S.Ct. at 2946 .	2	1989–2011
Exxon Corp. v. Department of Revenue of Wis. green scotus · 1980 2 sentences 1983Co. v. Missouri Tax Comm’n, 390 U.S. 317 , 88 S.Ct. 995 , 19 L.Ed.2d 1201 (1968)] The thrust of the Supreme Court’s decisions in Woolworth and ASARCO, supra, and two apportionment cases from the 1980 term, Mobil Oil Corp. v. Commissioner of Taxes, 445 U.S. 425 , 100 S.Ct. 1223 , 63 L.Ed.2d 510 (1980), and Exxon Corp. v. Wisconsin, 447 U.S. 207 , 100 S.Ct. 2109 , 65 L.Ed.2d 66 (1980), is that “the linchpin of apportionability in the field of state income taxation is the unitary-business principle.” ASARCO, supra, 458 U.S. at 317, 102 S.Ct. at 3109 , 73 L.Ed.2d at 795 , quoting from Mobil, supra 1983Co. v. Missouri Tax Comm’n, 390 U.S. 317 , 88 S.Ct. 995 , 19 L.Ed.2d 1201 (1968)] The thrust of the Supreme Court’s decisions in Woolworth and ASARCO, supra, and two apportionment cases from the 1980 term, Mobil Oil Corp. v. Commissioner of Taxes, 445 U.S. 425 , 100 S.Ct. 1223 , 63 L.Ed.2d 510 (1980), and Exxon Corp. v. Wisconsin, 447 U.S. 207 , 100 S.Ct. 2109 , 65 L.Ed.2d 66 (1980), is that “the linchpin of apportionability in the field of state income taxation is the unitary-business principle.” ASARCO, supra, 458 U.S. at 317, 102 S.Ct. at 3109 , 73 L.Ed.2d at 795 , quoting from Mobil, supra	2	1983–1990
FW Woolworth Co. v. Taxation and Revenue Dept. of NM green scotus · 1982 2 sentences 2009Woolworth Co. v. Taxation & Revenue Dept., 458 U.S. 354 , 102 S.Ct. 3128 , 73 L.Ed.2d 819 (1982) and ASARCO, Inc., supra,: In ASARCO, Idaho claimed a right to tax a proportionate share of that company’s income derived from five foreign subsidiaries. 2009Woolworth Co. v. Taxation & Revenue Dept., 458 U.S. 354 , 102 S.Ct. 3128 , 73 L.Ed.2d 819 (1982) and ASARCO, Inc., supra,: In ASARCO, Idaho claimed a right to tax a proportionate share of that company’s income derived from five foreign subsidiaries.	1	2009–2009
Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady green scotus · 1977 2 sentences 2008Penney Co., 311 U.S. 435, 444 , 61 S.Ct. 246, 249-50 , 85 L.Ed. 267, 270 (1940) (“A state is free to pursue its own fiscal policies, unembarrassed by the Constitution, if by the practical operation of a tax the state has exerted its power in relation to opportunities which it has given, to protection which it has afforded, to benefits which it has conferred by the fact of being an orderly, civilized society”); Holmes Co. v. McNamara, 486 U.S. 24, 32 , 108 S.Ct. 1619, 1624 , 100 L.Ed.2d 21, 28 (1988) (holding, in a use tax context, that the Complete Auto requirement that a tax be “fairly relate 2008Penney Co., 311 U.S. 435, 444 , 61 S.Ct. 246, 249-50 , 85 L.Ed. 267, 270 (1940) (“A state is free to pursue its own fiscal policies, unembarrassed by the Constitution, if by the practical operation of a tax the state has exerted its power in relation to opportunities which it has given, to protection which it has afforded, to benefits which it has conferred by the fact of being an orderly, civilized society”); Holmes Co. v. McNamara, 486 U.S. 24, 32 , 108 S.Ct. 1619, 1624 , 100 L.Ed.2d 21, 28 (1988) (holding, in a use tax context, that the Complete Auto requirement that a tax be “fairly relate	1	2008–2008
Norfolk & Western Railway Co. v. Missouri State Tax Commission green scotus · 1968 2 sentences 1983Co. v. Missouri Tax Comm’n, 390 U.S. 317 , 88 S.Ct. 995 , 19 L.Ed.2d 1201 (1968)] The thrust of the Supreme Court’s decisions in Woolworth and ASARCO, supra, and two apportionment cases from the 1980 term, Mobil Oil Corp. v. Commissioner of Taxes, 445 U.S. 425 , 100 S.Ct. 1223 , 63 L.Ed.2d 510 (1980), and Exxon Corp. v. Wisconsin, 447 U.S. 207 , 100 S.Ct. 2109 , 65 L.Ed.2d 66 (1980), is that “the linchpin of apportionability in the field of state income taxation is the unitary-business principle.” ASARCO, supra, 458 U.S. at 317, 102 S.Ct. at 3109 , 73 L.Ed.2d at 795 , quoting from Mobil, supra 1983Co. v. Missouri Tax Comm’n, 390 U.S. 317 , 88 S.Ct. 995 , 19 L.Ed.2d 1201 (1968)] The thrust of the Supreme Court’s decisions in Woolworth and ASARCO, supra, and two apportionment cases from the 1980 term, Mobil Oil Corp. v. Commissioner of Taxes, 445 U.S. 425 , 100 S.Ct. 1223 , 63 L.Ed.2d 510 (1980), and Exxon Corp. v. Wisconsin, 447 U.S. 207 , 100 S.Ct. 2109 , 65 L.Ed.2d 66 (1980), is that “the linchpin of apportionability in the field of state income taxation is the unitary-business principle.” ASARCO, supra, 458 U.S. at 317, 102 S.Ct. at 3109 , 73 L.Ed.2d at 795 , quoting from Mobil, supra	1	1983–1983

Where else courts name it

OR 14 (1993–2023) CA 10 (1970–2018) NJ 9 (1983–2011) IL 8 (2000–2005) MN 7 (1984–2025) MO 7 (1983–1998) MI 6 (2005–2023) MD 6 (1984–2019) TN 5 (1994–2011) IN 4 (1999–2017) NM 4 (1993–2024) PA 3 (1995–2013) OK 2 (1994–1994) ME 2 (2007–2021) NY 2 (1986–1991) CO 2 (1983–1999) AZ 2 (2010–2013) AK 2 (1983–1998) WI 2 (1993–1994) KY 2 (1994–2009) ND 2 (1991–2005)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check