⁵⁹ Alaska DOR v. Magella Healthcare Corp., AK Super. Ct., 1st Jud’l Dist., No. 1JU-04-383 CI (11/24/2004).

⁶⁰ Walgreen Arizona Drug Co. v. AZ DOR, 97 P3d 896 (AZ Ct. App., Div’n 1, 2004).

⁶¹ General Motors Corp. v. Franchise Tax Board (FTB), 16 Cal. Rptr. 3d 41 (2004).

⁶² CA FTB Notice 2004-5 (8/6/04).

⁶³ Union Pacific Corp. v. Comm’r, 83 P3d 116 (ID Sup. Ct., 2004).

⁶⁴ Morton International, Inc. v. IL DOR, IL. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., No. 01 L 50752 (1/8/04).

⁶⁵ IN DOR, Ltr. of Finding 03-0384 (6/1/04).

⁶⁶ LA DOR, Private Letter Ruling (redacted version) 04-004 (9/13/04).

⁶⁷ MN DOR, Rev. Notice #04-07 (8/16/04).

⁶⁸ MT Admin. Rules 42.26.1001–342.26.1003 and 42.26.1101–42.26.1103 (4/23/04).

⁶⁹ Appeal of Joyce, Inc., CA State Board of Equalization (SBE), No. 066069 (11/13/66), which held that, in computing the numerator of the sales factor for sales into California, P.L. 86-272 must be applied on a corporate-entity basis.

⁷⁰ MT Admin. Rules 42.26.511 (4/23/04).

⁷¹ NJ Div’n of Tax’n, 33 NJ State Tax News 3 (9/1/04); Reg. 18:7-8.7(d).

⁷² See AB 2501, Laws 2002.

⁷³ In the Matter of Peter Pan Bus Lines, Inc., NYS Div’n of Tax App., DTA Nos. 819131 and 819132 (4/22/04).

⁷⁴ NYS Dep’t of Tax’n and Fin., TSB-A-04(8)C (5/12/04).

⁷⁵ In the Matter of the Petition of Alpharma, Inc., NYS Tax App. Trib., DTA No. 817895 (8/5/04).

⁷⁶ Appeal of Finnigan Corp. (Finnigan I), CA SBE, No. 88-SBE-022 (8/25/88) held that, in computing the numerator of the sales factor for sales to other states, P.L. 86-272 must be applied on a unitary-group basis, not on a corporate-entity basis. Appeal of Finnigan Corp. (Finnigan II), CA SBE, No. 88-SBE-022A (1/24/90), stressed that Finnigan I changed only an apportionment rule, not the state’s jurisdiction to tax particular corporations.

⁷⁷ In the Matter of ISCA Corp., NYC Tax App. Trib., TAT(H) 02-9(GC) (7/22/04).

⁷⁸ OH Dep’t of Tax’n, CFT Info. Rel. 2004-01 (4/19/04).

⁷⁹ OR Admin. Rules 150-314.615-(F), 150-314.665(2)-(A) and -(B), (5) and 6(C) and 150-316.127-(D)(1)(d).

⁸⁰ U.S. Bancorp v. DOR, OR Sup. Ct., Dkt. No. SC S51013 (12/16/04).

⁸¹ UPS Worldwide Forwarding v. Comm’th of PA, PA Comm’th Court, Nos. 62–65 F.R. 2001 (12/8/2004).

⁸² PA DOR, Legal Letter Ruling CRP-04-002 (7/8/04).

⁸³ PA DOR, Corp. Tax Statement of Policy 2004-02 (11/9/04).

⁸⁴ UT R-865-6F-36 (effective 10/19/04).

⁸⁵ General Motors Corp. v. Comm’th of VA, 602 SE2d 123 (2004).

⁸⁶ AZ DOR, Corp. Tax Ruling CTR 04-1 (7/13/04).

⁸⁷ CA FTB Notice 2004-2 (5/3/04).

⁸⁸ Re Envirodyne Industries Inc., 354 F3d 646 (7th Cir. 2004).

⁸⁹ IN DOR, Ltr. of Finding 02-0501 (10/1/04).

⁹⁰ IN DOR, Ltr. of Finding 00-0379 (2/1/04).

⁹¹ Johnson Controls, Inc. v. Rev. Cabinet, KY Cir. Ct., Franklin Cty., Div’n II, Nos. 00-CI-00523 and 00-CI-00661 (7/1/04).

⁹² LA Proposed Rule 1138 (12/20/04).

⁹³ In the Matter of Lowe’s Home Centers, Inc., NY Div’n of Tax Appeals, ALJ Unit, DTA No. 818411 (9/30/04).

⁹⁴ In the Matter of Sherwin-Williams Co. v. Tax App. Trib., 784 NYS 2d 178 (NY App. Div., 2004).

⁹⁵ In the Matter of Toys “R” Us-NYTEX, NYC Tax App. Tribunal, TAT(E) 93-1039(GC) (1/14/04).

⁹⁶ VA Pub. Doc. No. P.D. 04-88 (8/31/04).

⁹⁷ VA Pub. Doc. No. P.D. 04-159 (9/30/04).

⁹⁸ VA Pub. Doc. No. P.D. 04-186 (10/8/04).

⁹⁹ VA Pub. Doc. No. P.D. 04-188 (10/8/04).

¹⁰⁰ CA FTB Notice 2004-1 (1/30/04); for background, see Salmon and Amitay, State and Local Taxes, “California Taxpayer Disclosure Requirements,” 35 The Tax Adviser 576 (September 2004).

101 CT DOR, Media Release (6/16/04).

¹⁰² See IL Public Act 93-0840 (SB 2207).

¹⁰³ NJ Div’n of Tax’n, 33 NJ State Tax News 2 (7/26/04).

¹⁰⁴ NC Voluntary Compliance Program Letter, signed by Sec’y Tolson (12/28/04).

¹⁰⁵ SC DOR, News Release (8/11/04).

¹⁰⁶ Re Magnetek, Inc., CA SBE, No. 198051 (1/27/04).

¹⁰⁷ FL Admin. Code Ann. Rule 12C-1.044 (effective 10/4/04).

¹⁰⁸ MN DOR, News Release (8/23/04).

¹⁰⁹ WI DOR, Ltr. to Wisconsin Bank Executives (7/27/04).

¹¹⁰ In the Matter of Northwest Energetic Services LLC, CA SBE, No. 236696 (10/19/04).

¹¹¹ CT DOR, IP 2004(12) and IP 2004(13) (6/8/04).

¹¹² BP Oil Pipeline Co. and Unocal Pipeline Co. v. Dep’t, IL App. Court, 1st Dist., Dkt. Nos. 1-01-2364 and 1-01-2365 (5/21/04) and Exxon Corp. v. Dep’t, IL App. Court, 1st Dist., Dkt. No. 1-01-3302 (5/21/04).

¹¹³ LA DOR, Rev. Info. Bull. No. 04-003 (7/30/04).

¹¹⁴ Unocal Pipeline Co. v. LA DOR, LA Ct. of App., 1st Cir. (12/30/04).

¹¹⁵ Chiron Corp. v. Dir., Div’n of Tax’n, NJ Tax Court, Dkt. No. 120-1999 (11/19/04).

¹¹⁶ NYS Dep’t. of Tax’n and Fin., TSB-A-04(6)I (10/25/04).

¹¹⁷ See Ch. 170 (SB 1145), Laws 2004 and Ch. 74 (SB 51), Laws 2004.

¹¹⁸ OH Tax Comm’r Journal Entry (6/28/04).

¹¹⁹ OK Tax Comm’r, Emergency Amendments to Rule 710:90-3-11 (10/02/04).

¹²⁰ PA DOR Letter (3/30/04).

¹²¹ AZ DOR, Private Taxpayer Ruling LR04-002 (3/2/04).

¹²² FTB Notice 2004-8 (12/1/04).

¹²³ Cuno v. DaimlerChrysler, Inc., 386 F3d 738 (6th Cir. 2004).