Academic journal article Journal of Accountancy

Unitary Business Principle Clarified

Academic journal article Journal of Accountancy

Unitary Business Principle Clarified

Article excerpt

A recent addition to the Lexis database of Supreme Court decisions could spare the electronic legal research service's former owner from a $4 million tax bill. In MeadWestvaco v. Illinois, the nation's top court said an Illinois appellate court improperly applied the operational function test of the unitary business principle in concluding that MeadWestvaco Corp. ("Mead") owed the state capital gains tax on a portion of its gain from the 1994 sale of Lexis/Nexis ("Lexis").

Mead, which is domiciled in Ohio, earned an approximately $1 billion capital gain from the sale of its Lexis business division in 1994. Mead did not report any of the gain as business income on its 1994 Illinois tax returns. Illinois said the gain on the sale was business income subject to apportionment by Illinois because Lexis did substantial business in Illinois. The state assessed Mead approximately $4 million in taxes and penalties. Mead paid the tax under protest and filed suit in state court.

The trial court said Lexis and Mead were not a unitary business because they were not functionally integrated or centrally managed and enjoyed no economies of scale. The court concluded, though, that the state could tax an apportioned share of Mead's capital gain because Lexis served an "operational purpose" in Mead's business. The Appellate Court of Illinois affirmed (861 N.E.2d 1131 (2007)). After the Illinois Supreme Court refused to hear the case, Mead appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Justice Samuel Alito, writing for a unanimous court, said the Illinois court misapplied the precedents of Allied-Signal (504 U. …

Search by... Author
Show... All Results Primary Sources Peer-reviewed

Oops!

An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.