New Mexico Statutes

N.M. Stat. § 7-4-1 (2026)

Short title.

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NM-LEGnmonesource.com JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Chapter 7, Article 4 NMSA 1978 may be cited as the "Uniform Division of Income for
Tax Purposes Act".

History: 1953 Comp., § 72-15A-16, enacted by Laws 1965, ch. 203, § 1; 1981, ch. 37,
§ 47.

                                   ANNOTATIONS

Law reviews. — For article, "New Mexico Taxes: Taking Another Look," see 32 N.M.L.
Rev. 351 (2002).

Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — Construction and application of Uniform
Division of Income for Tax Purposes Act, 8 A.L.R.4th 934.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 12 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1979–2023 · leading case: Pub. Serv. Co. v. New Mexico Taxation & Revenue Dep't, 157 P.3d 85 (N.M. Ct. App. 2007).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Pub. Serv. Co. v. New Mexico Taxation & Revenue Dep't, 157 P.3d 85 (N.M. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 4× “Under the Uniform Division of Income for Tax Purposes Act (UDITPA), NMSA 1978, §§ 7-4-1 to -21 (1965, as amended through 2002), "income arising from transactions and activity in the regular course of the taxpayer's trade or business" is considered "business income" under the Act.”

Kmart Corp. v. Taxation & Revenue Dep't, 131 P.3d 22 (N.M. 2005). · cites it 2× “rce Clause of the United States Constitution; (2) Whether New Mexico has jurisdiction to tax KPI under the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution; (3) If New Mexico has taxing jurisdiction, whether New Mexico’s Corporate Income and Franchise Tax Act, NMSA 1978, §§…”

Kmart Props., Inc. v. Taxation & Revenue Dep't, 131 P.3d 27 (N.M. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “KPI relies on the Uniform Division of Income for Tax Purposes Act (UDITPA), NMSA 1978, §§ 7-4-1 to -21 (1965, as amended through 2001), a widely-used, uniform system of apportioning and allocating the income of taxpayers who operate in multiple states.”

Kewanee Indus., Inc. v. Reese, 845 P.2d 1238 (N.M. 1993). · cites it 2× “These terms are defined in the Uniform Division of Income for Tax Purposes Act, NMSA 1978, §§ 7-4-1 to 4-21 (Repl.Pamp.1990) (UDI).”

Conoco, Inc. v. State Taxation & Revenue Dep't, 931 P.2d 739 (N.M. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 5× “Section 7 — 4-19 provides: If the allocation and apportionment provisions of the Uniform Division of Income for Tax Purposes Act [(UDITPA), NMSA 1978, §§ 7-4-1 through 7-4-21 (Repl.”

Conoco, Inc. v. Taxation & Revenue Dep't, 931 P.2d 730 (N.M. 1996). · cites it 2× “1995). To determine each of the factors, the in-state value of an asset is divided by the total value of the asset (including in-state and out-of-state value).”

NCR Corp. v. Taxation & Revenue Dep't, 856 P.2d 982 (N.M. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 2× “NMSA 1978, §§ 7-4-1 to -21 (Repl.Pamp.1990).”

Tipperary Corp. v. New Mexico Bureau of Revenue, 595 P.2d 1212 (N.M. Ct. App. 1979). “1975)] of the Uniform Division of Income for Tax Purposes Act (§§ 7-4-1 to 7-4-21, N.M.S.A.1978) [formerly §§ 72-15A-16 to 72-15A-36, N.”

Taxation & Revenue Dep't v. F. W. Woolworth Co., 624 P.2d 28 (N.M. 1981). “The stated purposes of this legislation are to facilitate determination of the tax liability of multistate taxpayers, promote uniformity and convenience and avoid duplicative taxation.”

F. W. Woolworth Co. v. Bureau of Revenue, 624 P.2d 51 (N.M. Ct. App. 1979). “1978, and are not apportionable under the Uniform Division of Income for Tax Purposes Act, “UDITPA” (§ 7-4-1 through 7-4-21, N.M.S.A. 1978). The resolution of the appeal lies in determining whether either item, gross-up or foreign dividends, is business income.”

United Parcel Serv. v. N.M. Tax'n & Revenue Dep't (N.M. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 2× “3, a requirement adopted by statute, see NMSA 1978,§ 7-4-19 (1986) of New Mexico’s Uniform Division of Income for Tax Purposes Act (UDIPTA), NMSA 1978, §§ 7-4-1 to -21 (1965, as amended through 2020).”

Taxation & Revenue Dept., Etc. v. Fw Woolworth, 624 P.2d 28 (N.M. 1981). “The stated purposes of this legislation are to facilitate determination of the tax liability of multistate taxpayers, promote uniformity and convenience and avoid duplicative taxation.”

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.