Pioneer Container Corp. v. Beshears
Decision Date | 08 June 1984 |
Docket Number | No. 56237,56237 |
Parties | PIONEER CONTAINER CORPORATION, Appellant, v. Mark BESHEARS, Director of Taxation of the State of Kansas, Appellee. |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. A district court may not, on appeal, substitute its judgment for that of an administrative tribunal, but is restricted to considering whether, as a matter of law, (1) the tribunal acted fraudulently, arbitrarily or capriciously, (2) the administrative order is substantially supported by evidence, and (3) the tribunal's action was within the scope of its authority.
2. In reviewing a district court's judgment, as above, this court will, in the first instance, for the purpose of determining whether the district court observed the requirements and restrictions placed upon it, make the same review of the administrative tribunal's action as does the district court.
3. A multi-state business is a unitary business for income tax purposes when the operations conducted in one state benefit and are benefited by the operations conducted in another state or states. If its various parts are interdependent and of mutual benefit so as to form one integral business rather than several business entities, it is unitary.
4. Whether a multi-state business is separate or unitary depends upon the manner in which its business is conducted. The essential test to be applied is whether or not the operation of the portion of the business within the state is dependent upon or contributory to the operation of the business outside the state. If there is such relationship, the business is unitary.
5. The Kansas version of the Uniform Division of Income for Tax Purposes Act (UDITPA), K.S.A. 79-3271 et seq., is discussed.
6. The Director of Revenue is authorized by K.S.A. 79-32,141 to require the combined report method of allocation of income and expenses when it is determined that two or more corporations are engaged in a multi-state unitary business.
Conrad Miller, Jr., of McDowell, Rice & Smith, Chartered, Kansas City, argued the cause, and Charles F. Speer, Kansas City, was with him on briefs, for appellant.
David Prager, III, Topeka, Attorney, Kansas Dept. of Revenue, argued the cause, and William L. Edds, Topeka, Gen Counsel, Kansas Dept. of Revenue, was with him on briefs, for appellee.
James D. Dye, of Bever, Dye, Mustard & Belin, Wichita, was on brief of amicus curiae for that firm.
This is an appeal by plaintiff Pioneer Container Corporation (a Missouri corporation) from a judgment of the district court which affirmed an order of the Kansas Board of Tax Appeals finding plaintiff corporation and its wholly owned subsidiary, Pioneer Bag Company (a Kansas corporation, now defunct), constituted a unitary business and requiring a combined report method for allocation of income and expenses for state corporate income tax purposes.
For its first issue plaintiff contends the district court applied an improper standard of review.
In Kansas State Board of Healing Arts v. Foote, 200 Kan. 447, 436 P.2d 828 (1968), 28 A.L.R.3d 472, this court enunciated the standard rules for judicial review of administrative actions. In Foote this court declared a district court could not, on appeal, substitute its judgment for that of an administrative tribunal but was restricted to considering whether, as a matter of law, (1) the tribunal acted fraudulently, arbitrarily or capriciously, (2) the administrative order was substantially supported by evidence, and (3) the tribunal's actions were within the scope of its authority. 200 Kan. 447, 436 P.2d 828, Syl. p 1. See also In re Due Process Hearing of Bailey, 233 Kan. 714, 717, 664 P.2d 1379 (1983); Hemry v. State Board of Pharmacy, 232 Kan. 83, 86, 652 P.2d 670 (1982); Boswell, Inc. d/b/a Broadacres v. Harkins, 230 Kan. 738, 740, 640 P.2d 1208 (1982); Kansas Dept. of Health & Environment v. Banks, 230 Kan. 169, 171-72, 630 P.2d 1131 (1981); U.S.D. No. 461 v. Dice, 228 Kan. 40, 50, 612 P.2d 1203 (1980); Brinson v. School District, 223 Kan. 465, 469, 576 P.2d 602 (1978); Olathe Hospital Foundation, Inc. v. Extendicare, Inc., 217 Kan. 546, 539 P.2d 1 (1975). In reviewing a district court's judgment on an administrative action, Kansas appellate courts must first determine whether the district court observed the requirements and restrictions placed upon it and then make the same review of the administrative tribunal's action as did the district court. Kansas Dept. of Health & Environment v. Banks, 230 Kan. 169, 630 P.2d 1131, Syl. p 2; U.S.D. No. 461 v. Dice, 228 Kan. 40, 612 P.2d 1203, Syl. p 4; Olathe Hospital Foundation, Inc. v. Extendicare, Inc., 217 Kan. 546, 539 P.2d 1, Syl. p 4; Kansas State Board of Healing Arts v. Foote, 200 Kan. 447, 436 P.2d 828, Syl. p 2.
The district court herein utilized the Foote rules for judicial review of administration actions. Plaintiff contends the Foote rules were inapplicable herein by virtue of the matter having been submitted to the Board of Tax Appeals upon a stipulation of facts. This contention is fatally flawed. The case was not submitted to the Board of Tax Appeals on stipulated facts. Rather, the parties agreed the Board should use the record made at the hearing before the Director of Taxation in lieu of a de novo hearing. The testimony on the record was not consistent and, indeed, was conflicting in a number of respects. We conclude this issue is wholly lacking in merit.
For its second issue plaintiff contends the Board of Tax Appeals erroneously found that plaintiff and its subsidiary, Pioneer Bag Company, constituted a unitary business.
In tax law the concept of unitary business arises when a corporation has one or more subsidiaries or divisions which are dependent to or upon, or contribute to the parent corporation or other subsidiaries or divisions so, in essence, to constitute a homogenous enterprise. When such an entity exists it may be described as a unitary business and in determining the tax liability of the given subsidiary or division the taxing authority may consider the entire income of the unitary business and apportion taxes on the basis of the income attributable within the jurisdiction.
As defined by the Illinois Supreme Court:
Caterpillar Tractor Co. v. Lenckos, 84 Ill.2d 102, 108, 49 Ill.Dec. 329, 417 N.E.2d 1343 (1981).
See also PMD Investment Co. v. State, 216 Neb. 553, 345 N.W.2d 815 (1984).
In Crawford Manufacturing Co. v. State Comm. of Revenue and Taxation, 180 Kan. 352, 304 P.2d 504 (1956), this court held:
"Various portions of a business may be carried on exclusively in different states without destroying its unitary character if the integral parts are of mutual benefit to one another." Syl. p 3. (Emphasis supplied.)
See also Webb Resources v. McCoy, 194 Kan. 758, 401 P.2d 879 (1965).
We turn now to the facts of this case.
The Board of Tax Appeals made the following findings:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Miller v. Johnson Controls, Inc.
...benefit so as to form one integral business rather than several business entities, it is unitary." Pioneer Container Corporation v. Beshears, 235 Kan. 745, 684 P.2d 396, 399 (1984) (internal quotation marks omitted). Where the components of a enterprise are integrated by sufficient unity of......
-
Weir v. Anaconda Co.
...see also Imler v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., 8 Kan.App.2d 71, 650 P.2d 712, 714-15 (1982); cf. Pioneer Container Corp. v. Beshears, 235 Kan. 745, 684 P.2d 396, 398 (1984) (district court's standard of review of administrative action is restricted to whether as a matter of law: (1) the......
-
IN RE APPEAL OF PANHANDLE EASTERN PIPE LINE CO.
...the unitary business and apportion taxes on the basis of the income attributable within the jurisdiction." Pioneer Container Corp. v. Beshears, 235 Kan. 745, 747, 684 P.2d 396 (1984). In a series of cases beginning in 1980, the United States Supreme Court filed opinions discussing the unita......
-
Appeal of Morton Thiokol, Inc., 67954
...the present case. We agree that the four cases are distinguishable from the present case. Revenue relies on Pioneer Container Corp. v. Beshears, 235 Kan. 745, 684 P.2d 396 (1984), in distinguishing CBS, Polaroid, New England Power, and Simplot from the present case. It states that they are ......
-
In the Supreme Court of the United States.
...Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, and Oregon also found unitary combined reporting valid under UDITPA. Pioneer Container Corp. v. Beshears, 684 P.2d 396 (Kan. 1984); PMD Inv. Co. v. State Dep't of Revenue, 345 N.W.2d 815 (Neb. 1984); Caterpillar Tractor Co. v. Lenckos, 417 N.E.2d 1343 (Ill. 1981);......
-
State taxation: the role of Congress in developing apportionment standards.
...(10.) Container Corp. of America v. Franchise Tax Board, 463 U.S. 159, 164-65 (1983). (11.) Pioneer Container Corporation v. Beshears, 684 P.2d 396, 399 (Kan. (12.) See e.g., Container Corp., supra, and Barclays Bank PLC v. Franchise Tax Board, 512 U.S. 298 (1994). (13.) This approach is of......