The general purpose of this Part is to impose a tax for the use of the State government upon the taxable income collectible annually:
(1) Of every resident of this State.
(2) Of every nonresident individual deriving income from North Carolina sources attributable to the ownership of any interest in real or tangible personal property in this State, deriving income from a business, trade, profession, or occupation carried on in this State, or deriving income from gambling activities in this State. (1939, c. 158, s. 301; 1967, c. 1110, s. 3; 1989, c. 728, s. 1.2; 1998-98, s. 69; 2005-276, s. 31.1(dd), (jj); 2005-344, s. 10.3; 2006-259, s. 8(j); 2006-264, s. 91(a).)
§ 105-134.1: Recodified as G.S. 105-153.3 by Session Laws 2013-316, s. 1.1(a), effective for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2014.
§ 105-134.2: Repealed by Session Laws 2013-316, s. 1.1(b), effective for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2014.
§ 105-134.2A: Expired pursuant to its own terms, effective for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2011.
§ 105-134.3: Repealed by Session Laws 2013-316, s. 1.1(b), effective for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2014.
§ 105-134.4: Repealed by Session Laws 2011-145, s. 31A.1(d), effective for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2012.
§ 105-134.5: Recodified as G.S. 105-153.4 by Session Laws 2013-316, s. 1.1(a), effective for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2014.
§ 105-134.6: Repealed by Session Laws 2013-316, s. 1.1(b), effective for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2014.
§ 105-134.6A: Repealed by Session Laws 2013-316, s. 1.1(b), effective for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2014.
§ 105-134.7: Repealed by Session Laws 2013-414, s. 1.1(b), effective for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2014.
§ 105-134.8: Repealed by Session Laws 2013-316, s. 1.1(b), effective for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2014.
§§ 105-135 through 105-149: Repealed by Session Laws 1989, c. 728, s. 1.3.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
22
cases, 1956–2020 · leading case:
Coley v. State, 631 S.E.2d 121 (N.C. 2006).
Coley v. State, 631 S.E.2d 121 (N.C. 2006).
· cites it 18× “Compare N.C.G.S. §§ 105-134 to -134.7 (2001) (superseded) with N.”
Aronov v. Sec'y of Revenue, 371 S.E.2d 468 (N.C. 1988).
· cites it 6× “§ 105-147(9)(d)(2) exceeded *136 statutory authority as espoused in the general purpose clause of N.C.G.S. § 105-134. The Court of Appeals declined to reach the question of whether the Secretary’s interpretation violated the federal commerce clause.”
Coley v. State, 620 S.E.2d 25 (N.C. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 4× “North Carolina General Statutes § 105-134 (2003) provides that: "[t]he general purpose of [the Individual Income Tax Act] is to impose a tax for the use of the State government upon [ ] taxable income collectible annually[.”
Gulf Oil Corp. v. Clayton, 147 S.E.2d 522 (N.C. 1966).
· cites it 8× “105-267 to review the allocation and apportionment, made under G.S. 105-134, of the income of a corporation transacting business partly within and partly without North Carolina.”
Sayles Biltmore Bleacheries, Inc. v. Johnson, 147 S.E.2d 177 (N.C. 1966).
· cites it 3× “Plaintiff asserts it is engaged in manufacturing, hence its income tax liability is measured by G.S. 105-134 (6) a. Defendant asserts liability must be determined by the use of the single factor of gross receipts as required by subsection f.”
Et & Wnc Transp. Co. v. Currie, 104 S.E.2d 403 (N.C. 1958).
· cites it 4× “Income Taxes,” as said sections were in full force and effect prior to the amendments and supplements to The Revenue Act enacted at the 1957 Session of the General Assembly.”
Myrtle Desk Co. v. Clayton, 174 S.E.2d 619 (N.C. Ct. App. 1970).
· cites it 6× “This ease involves G.S. 105-134 as it existed during the tax years in question and as it related to the allocation of the net income of corporations to be taxed in this State.”
Sloop v. Friberg, 320 S.E.2d 921 (N.C. Ct. App. 1984).
“The court therefore should consider this evidence in its findings on remand. D The trial court did not make any finding or conclusion as to the reasonable needs of the children for health, education, and maintenance, although it did hear testimony and receive considerable…”
Sloop v. Friberg, 320 S.E.2d 921 (N.C. Ct. App. 1984).
“The court therefore should consider this evidence in its findings on remand. D The trial court did not make any finding or conclusion as to the reasonable needs of the children for health, education, and maintenance, although it did hear testimony and receive considerable…”
Clark Equip. Co. v. Johnson, 134 S.E.2d 327 (N.C. 1964).
· cites it 2× “North Carolina uses a formula in which the property, sales and payrolls in this State is the enumerator; and all of the properties, payrolls and sales of the corporation are the denominator.”
Dayton Rubber Co. v. Shaw, 92 S.E.2d 799 (N.C. 1956).
“105-147(6) as set forth above, but it did not take into account other income received but not taxable under G.S. 105-134. It is also conceded by the defendant that the royalty income of the plaintiff in 1949 and 1950 was from non-unitary business operations having no relation or…”
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 105-134(1): 1 case
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 105-134(2): 1 case
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 105-134(6): 3 cases
Gulf Oil Corp. v. Clayton, 147 S.E.2d 522 (N.C. 1966).
“105-267 to review the allocation and apportionment, made under G.S. 105-134, of the income of a corporation transacting business partly within and partly without North Carolina.”
Sayles Biltmore Bleacheries, Inc. v. Johnson, 147 S.E.2d 177 (N.C. 1966).
“Plaintiff asserts it is engaged in manufacturing, hence its income tax liability is measured by G.S. 105-134 (6) a. Defendant asserts liability must be determined by the use of the single factor of gross receipts as required by subsection f.”
Clark Equip. Co. v. Johnson, 134 S.E.2d 327 (N.C. 1964).
“North Carolina uses a formula in which the property, sales and payrolls in this State is the enumerator; and all of the properties, payrolls and sales of the corporation are the denominator.”
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.