Legal Opinion
Commissioner of Revenue v. Associated Dry Goods, Inc.
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided March 23, 1984No. C6-83-227PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
SIMONETT, Justice.
The relator taxpayer, with headquarters in New York City, has retailing divisions located throughout the United States, including the Powers Dry Goods Company division in Minnesota. The Tax Court held that the taxpayer was a “unitary” business conducted within and without Minnesota, so that the taxpayer’s aggregate income from all its divisions was to be apportioned under the three-factor formula of Minn. Stat. § 290.19 (1982) to determine the Minnesota state income taxes due. We affirm.
In 1916, Associated Dry Goods was incorporated as a Virginia corporation with corporate…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Container Corp. of America v. Franchise Tax BoardSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Mobil Oil Corp. v. Commissioner of Taxes of Vt.Supreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Butler Bros. v. McColgan, Franchise Tax CommissionerSupreme Court of the United States · 1942
- Exxon Corp. v. Department of Revenue of Wis.Supreme Court of the United States · 1980
- ASARCO Inc. v. Idaho State Tax CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Silent Hoist & Crane Co. v. Director, Division of TaxationSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1985
- NCR Corp. v. Commissioner of RevenueSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1989
- Watlow Winona, Inc. v. Commissioner of RevenueSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1993
- Pacific Mutual Door Co. v. JamesCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1991
- Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. Commissioner of RevenueSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1986
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.