Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 79-3288 (2026)

Procedure where allocation does not fairly represent taxpayer's business activity; burden of proof of tax evasion

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KS-LEGkslegislature.org JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

79-3288. Procedure where allocation does not fairly represent taxpayer's business activity; burden of proof of tax evasion. If the allocation and apportionment provisions of this act including the provisions of K.S.A. 79-3279, do not fairly represent the extent of the taxpayer's business activity in this state, the taxpayer may petition for or the secretary of revenue may require, in respect to all or any part of the taxpayer's business activity, if reasonable:

(a) Separate accounting;

(b) the exclusion of any one or more of the factors;

(c) the inclusion of one or more additional factors which will fairly represent the taxpayer's business activity in this state; or

(d) the employment of any other method to effectuate an equitable allocation and apportionment of the taxpayer's income; or

(e) in the case of two or more businesses, whether or not incorporated and whether or not organized in Kansas, owned or controlled directly or indirectly by the same interests, which contrive through inter-company transactions to evade taxes imposed under this act, the secretary of revenue may distribute or allocate the gross income and deductions between or among such businesses or may require returns on a consolidated basis. The burden of proof of any contrivance to evade taxes under this act shall rest upon the director of taxation or secretary of revenue.

History: L. 1963, ch. 485, § 18; L. 1965, ch. 526, § 1; L. 1972, ch. 342, § 99; L. 1980, ch. 318, § 3; July 1.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases, 1974–2000 · leading case: Amoco Prod. Co. v. Armold, Dir. of Taxation, 518 P.2d 453 (Kan. 1974).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Amoco Prod. Co. v. Armold, Dir. of Taxation, 518 P.2d 453 (Kan. 1974). · cites it 9× “" The provisions of the Uniform Act most critical to this litigation appear in K.S.A. 1973 Supp. 79-3288 which read in pertinent part: "If the allocation and apportionment provisions of this act do not fairly represent the extent of the taxpayer's business activity in this…”

In Re the Appeal of Broce Constr. Co., 9 P.3d 1281 (Kan. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 7× “The taxpayers argued that the Department had the burden under K.S.A. 79-3288(e) to show that the companies in question were unitary.”

Pioneer Container Corp. v. Beshears, 684 P.2d 396 (Kan. 1984). · cites it 2× “’ “The provisions of the Uniform Act most critical to this litigation appear in K.S.A. 1973 Supp. 79-3288 which read in pertinent part: ‘If the allocation and apportionment provisions of this act do not fairly represent the extent of the taxpayer’s business activity in this…”

— K.S.A. § 79-3288(e) — 1 case

In Re the Appeal of Broce Constr. Co., 9 P.3d 1281 (Kan. Ct. App. 2000). “The taxpayers argued that the Department had the burden under K.S.A. 79-3288(e) to show that the companies in question were unitary.”

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.