Current Corporate Income Tax Developments (Part II) footnotes

³⁹Walgreen Arizona Drug Co. v. Dept of Rev., AZ Tax Ct., No. 2001-00032 (2002).

⁴⁰AZ DOR, CTR No. 02-2 (7/15/02).

⁴¹Appeal of Montgomery Ward and Co., Inc., CA State Board of Equalization, No. 02-SBE-133828 (10/3/02).

⁴²Appeal of Pacific Tel. & Tel Co., CA SBE, No. 78 SBE 28 (5/4/78).

⁴³Appeal of Colgate-Palmolive Co., CA SBE, No. 02 SBE 152028 (11/12/02).

⁴⁴Union Pacific Corp., ID Dist. Ct., No. CV OC 9704812D (6/3/02).

⁴⁵Mead Corp v. IL DOR, IL Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., No. 00 CH 7854 (12/2/02).

⁴⁶Colgate-Palmolive Co. v. IL DOR, IL Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., No. 01L50195 (10/15/02).

⁴⁷Amendment to 86 Ill. Adm. Code Sec. 100.3380(d), 26 Ill. Reg. 4602, Issue #13 (3/29/02).

⁴⁸MI DOT, RAB No. 2002-14 (6/5/02).

⁴⁹Lutheran Brotherhood Research Corp. v. Commr of Rev., MN Tax Ct., No. 7285 (5/8/02).

⁵⁰American Business Information, Inc. v. Neb. DOR, 264 Neb 574 (2002).

⁵¹Mayer & Schweitzer, Inc. v. Dept of Taxn, 20 NJ Tax 217 (9/18/02).

⁵²Petition of The Park Avenue Bank N.A., NYC Tax Appeals Tribunal, TAT(H) 99-93(BT) (1/7/02).

⁵³NYS Dept of Taxn and Fin., Advisory Opinion No. TSB-A-02(3)C (4/18/02).

⁵⁴Petition of Alpharma, Inc., NY DTA No. 817895 (9/12/02).

⁵⁵21 International Holdings, Inc. v. Clark, RI Dist. Ct., No. AA 97-11 (7/3/02).

⁵⁶Homart Development Co v. Norberg, 529 A2d 115 (RI Sup.Ct.1987).
57CO DOR, Final Determination DD-575 (4/17/02).

⁵⁸ID State Tax Comm., Dec. No. 16122 (8/14/02).

⁵⁹DOR of IL v. Shanghai, Inc., IL DOR Hearings No. 02-1 (2/7/02).

⁶⁰IN DOR, Letter of Finding No. 00-0194 (11/1/02).

⁶¹IN DOR, Letter of Finding No. 01-0121 (11/1/02).

⁶²Matter of Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Co., 29 P3d 21 (KS Sup.Ct. 2002).

⁶³Matter of Lee Apparel Co., Inc., 40 P3d 974 (KA Ct. App. 2002).

⁶⁴Amoco Corp. v. Commr of Rev., MN Tax Court, Nos. 7223 7231 (2/26/02).

⁶⁵Boise Cascade Corp. v. DOR, 70 SW3d 438 (MO Sup.Ct. 2002), revg and remg MO AHC (7/9/01).

⁶⁶Eddie Bauer, Inc. v. DOR, 70 SW3d 434 (MO Sup.Ct. 2002), revg and remg MO AHC (7/9/01).

⁶⁷General Motors Corp .v. DOR, 981 SW2d 561 (MO Sup.Ct. 1998).

⁶⁸Carpenter Technology Corp. v. Commr of Rev. Services, 256 Conn. 455 (2001).

⁶⁹Bankers Trust Corp v. NYC Dept of Fin., 750 NYS2d 29 (App. Div. 1st Dept. 2002).

⁷⁰See www.taxadmin.org.

⁷¹Patterson v. Gladwin Corp., Sup. Ct. AL, No. 1001747 (5/17/02), cert den. sub nom. Millcraft-SMS Services, LLC v. Underwood, No. 02-260 (10/21/02).

⁷²South Central Bell v. Alabama, 526 US 160 (1999).

⁷³Illinois Tool Works, Inc. v. Rev. Cabinet, Franklin Cty. Cir. Ct., No. 00-CI-00623 (12/5/02).

⁷⁴MA DOR, Letter Ruling 02-7 (9/16/02).

⁷⁵For further discussion of this ruling, see Lynch, Tax Clinic, Massachusetts Uses LLP Structure to Avoid MBT Problems, this issue.)

⁷⁶MI RAB 2002-16 (9/9/02).

⁷⁷Unisys Corp v. PA Bd. of Fin. & Rev., 812 A2d 448 (PA Sup.Ct. 2002).

⁷⁸For further discussion of Pennsylvania factor representation, see Rhines and Johnson, Tax Clinic, Factor Representation Not Required in Computing PA Capital-Stock Tax, 34 The Tax Adviser 82 (February 2003).

⁷⁹Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Johnson, Tenn. Ch. Ct., Davidson Cty., No. 97-1112-II (10/9/02).