United States: Arizona Court Of Appeals Holds Definition Of "Business Income" Provides Two Separate Tests, No Liquidation Exception

The Arizona Court of Appeals has held in two recent cases that the state may tax corporate income as "business income" if either the transactional test or the functional test provided in the statutory definition is satisfied, and that there is no liquidation exception to the definition of business income.1 In the first case, Harris Corp., the Court also determined that the taxpayer's gains primarily associated with selling lines of business were properly classified as business income. In the second case, First Data Corp., the Court relied on its analysis from Harris and held that the gain from the taxpayer's sale of its wholly-owned subsidiary was business income even though a deemed asset sale occurred under federal law.


Harris Corporation, a Delaware corporation with executive offices in Florida, provided voice, data and video telecommunications products and related services. For the relevant tax years, Harris and its subsidiaries filed Arizona corporate income tax returns on a consolidated basis.2 Harris treated the income, expenses and losses from its business operations as business income, but treated the gains from the disposition of product lines as non-business income. The Arizona Department of Revenue conducted an audit and issued a notice of proposed assessment. After Harris filed an appeal with the Arizona Tax Court, both parties filed motions for summary judgment on whether the proceeds of the transactions were business income. The Tax Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Department and the taxpayer timely appealed.

First Data Corporation, a Delaware corporation that was headquartered in Georgia, provided electronic payment services to its customers. In 1999, First Data sold a wholly-owned subsidiary and realized net proceeds of $725 million. First Data and the purchasing bank elected to treat the sale of the subsidiary's stock as a sale of assets under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 338(h)(10). For federal income tax purposes, the subsidiary was deemed to have undergone a complete corporate liquidation with the distribution of the proceeds to its sole shareholder, First Data. The subsidiary reported the gain on its federal income tax return. For the 1999 tax year, First Data and its subsidiaries were a unitary business and filed an Arizona combined corporate income tax return. This return reflected First Data's treatment of the gain on the sale as non-business income. Following an audit, the Department reclassified the gain from the sale as business income and issued a notice of proposed assessment. First Data protested the assessment and timely appealed to the Arizona Tax Court. After both parties moved for summary judgment on the income classification issue, the Tax Court granted summary judgment in the Department's favor and incorporated its statutory analysis from the Harris case. First Data timely appealed.

Definition of Business Income

Arizona follows a modified version of the Uniform Division of Income for Tax Purposes Act (UDITPA) to apportion or allocate the income of multistate corporations to the state.3 The determination of whether income is business income or non-business income is crucial in dividing income among states. Business income generally is apportioned to Arizona based on a three-factor formula that consists of property, payroll and sales factors.4 Non-business income is allocated to a designated state based on certain factors. Arizona allocates non-business income such as capital gains from the sale of intangible property and interest income to the state where the taxpayer is domiciled.5 Other non-business income such as rents, royalties and capital gains from the sale of real or tangible personal property is allocated to the state where the property is located.6

Under Arizona law, which adopts the UDITPA definitions, "business income" is defined as "income arising from transactions and activity in the regular course of the taxpayer's trade or business and includes income from tangible and intangible property if the acquisition, management and disposition of the property constitute integral parts of the taxpayer's regular trade or business operations."7 "Non-business income" is defined as "all income other than business income."8 In states that have adopted these UDITPA definitions, courts have recognized that "business income" includes a "transactional" test from the first clause9 and a "functional" test from the second clause.10 However, courts are divided on the interpretation of this statute. Some courts have held that corporate income is business income if it satisfies either the transactional or the functional test,11 but other courts have held that there is one transactional test and the second clause describes examples of income within this definition.12

The Arizona Court of Appeals held in Harris that the statutory definition of "business income" contains two clauses that use different language and therefore provide two distinct definitions or tests. Thus, corporate income qualifies as business income if either the transactional test or the functional test is satisfied. The Court disagreed with the taxpayer's argument that the second clause is simply a subset of the first clause. Also, the Court carefully considered the meaning of the second clause (the functional test). The Court rejected the taxpayer's argument that the use of "and" in the second clause requires that the disposition as well as the acquisition and management of the property must be integral parts of the taxpayer's regular trade or business. Thus, the words "acquisition, management and disposition" do not establish three separate requirements that each must be integrally related to the taxpayer's business under the functional test. According to the Court, this interpretation is consistent with the legislative purpose included in the legislative comments in UDITPA and the state's corresponding regulation.13 Also, the Court noted that this interpretation better reflects the realities of taxing an asset over time.

No Liquidation Exception

In Harris, the Court held that there is no liquidation exception to business income. The Court rejected the taxpayer's argument that final dispositions through liquidation do not qualify as business income under either the transactional or functional test. According to the Court, a liquidation exception is inconsistent with its interpretation of the business income definition, particularly the functional test.14 Under the functional test, a court must look beyond whether a transaction is conducted in the regular course of business and consider whether the use or disposition of the property forms an integral part of the taxpayer's business. Also, the Court determined that the use of the proceeds of the liquidation is irrelevant to the functional test. Furthermore, the taxpayer's interpretation would cause a lack of symmetry because assets would be depreciated and expenses deducted, reducing business income prior to disposition of the assets, but when the assets are sold, any gain would become non-business income under a liquidation exception.

Gains Properly Classified as Business Income

The Court in Harris applied the principles discussed above in determining that the taxpayer's gains received from the sale of assets constituted business income. As noted by the Court, most of these assets were undesired product lines. The Court specifically considered: (i) transactions by the taxpayer; (ii) the sale of a medical transcription product line; and (iii) transactions by the taxpayer's consolidated subsidiaries. In considering the taxpayer's sale of business lines, the Court rejected the taxpayer's argument that these were unique transactions that did not satisfy the transactional test. Because the taxpayer regularly acquired and disposed of product lines, the sales furthered the taxpayer's business and occurred in its course of buying and selling. The Court also rejected the taxpayer's argument that the functional test was not satisfied because ceasing business operations is not furthering business operations. The functional test was met because the taxpayer had used the assets to produce income in its regular trade or business. Similarly, gains from the sale of the medical transcription product line also were business income. The taxpayer's argument that gains resulting from a spin-off were non-business income was inconsistent with its earlier income characterizations. The gain was business income because the spin-off was part of a repositioning effort and strategy to increase shareholder value. Also, the taxpayer used the product line in its business when it held the asset.

Finally, the Court rejected the taxpayer's argument that the gains reported by its consolidated subsidiaries did not constitute business income. The taxpayer analyzed the transactions as though they were not performed by the parent company in the regular course of its telecommunications equipment business. The Court disagreed with this approach because it defeated the intent of the consolidated election. There was no basis for including subsidiaries in a consolidated return and then excluding all subsidiary income as non-business income because their business was unrelated to the parent company's business. The Court examined the transactions on a business-by-business basis and concluded that the subsidiaries each sold assets as part of their individual operations. Holding and selling assets was an integral part of each subsidiary's trade or business.

Deemed Asset Sale

In First Data, the Court expressly followed its opinion in Harris. However, because First Data concerned a deemed asset sale under IRC Section 338(h)(10),15 the Court was required to perform an additional analysis. The taxpayer argued that even states that have recognized a functional test provide a liquidation exemption when analyzing a Section 338(h)(10) election.16 The Court was not persuaded by these cases and noted that it had already rejected a liquidation exception in Harris. The presence of a Section 338(h)(10) analysis did not change the Court's analysis. The Court agreed with other courts that have rejected an exception to the business income definition even in light of a deemed asset sale under Section 338(h)(10).17 Also, the Court noted that state revenue departments, including the Arizona Department of Revenue,18 have found the gain from a Section 338(h)(10) election to be business income under their state's UDITPA statute.

In this case, First Data elected to treat the sale of its subsidiary's stock as a hypothetical sale of the subsidiary's assets under Section 338(h)(10). The subsidiary was part of the taxpayer's unitary business and reported the gain from the sale of the assets on the taxpayer's combined return. According to the Court, this gain satisfied the functional test and was properly classified as business income. Because the taxpayer had previously treated the income from the subsidiary's assets as arising in the regular course of business, the disposition of the assets constituted business income under the functional test.


As indicated in these cases, there is continuing disparity among courts in states that have adopted UDITPA concerning the classification of income.19 The analysis performed in these cases is relevant to the other states that have adopted the UDITPA approach to determine business income. According to the Arizona Court of Appeals, the transactional and functional tests are independent of each other and there is no liquidating business exception. This is true even if there is a deemed sale under IRC Section 338(h)(10). The Court also provides a detailed analysis of whether specific transactions constitute business income. The business income determination is very fact-specific, but the cases provide guidance concerning the type of analysis that courts perform.

In Harris, the Court indicates that if a corporation reports sales of assets in a particular business line as business income, the sale of the business line itself results in business income. Both cases illustrate that it is difficult for a corporate taxpayer to claim that a sale of any of its business lines results in non-business income. However, in the limited situations where an asset sale does not satisfy the transactional or functional test, a taxpayer could still successfully argue that the gain from a sale constitutes non-business income. The Court in Harris discusses a ruling issued by the Arizona Department of Revenue that provides an example where one transaction produces business income and another transaction produces non-business income.20 In the example, the sale of a former manufacturing facility is allocable as non-business income because the income is not earned in the regular course of a trade or business.21 Note that this example does not involve the sale of an entire business line and that asset sales producing non-business income would seem to be relatively rare.

Article IV of the Multistate Tax Compact incorporates the UDITPA provisions. The Multistate Tax Commission (MTC) currently is considering significant amendments to Article IV that include a proposal to change the "business income" terminology to "apportionable income" and revise the definition. A recent Report of the Hearing Officer, which analyzes the proposed amendments, recommends a clarification that the transactional test and the functional test are independent of each other.22 Thus, this report acknowledges that clarity is needed regarding the operation of these tests.23


1 Harris Corp. v. Arizona Department of Revenue, Arizona Court of Appeals, No. 1 CA-TX 11-0006, Nov. 26, 2013; First Data Corp. v. Arizona Department of Revenue, Arizona Court of Appeals, No. 1 CA-TX 11-0008, Nov. 26, 2013.

2 The returns reflected three categories of income that were in dispute: (i) gains recognized on the contribution of assets to a joint venture; (ii) proceeds from the sale of a medical transcription business line; and (iii) royalties received from patent rights, along with income from the sale of stock and other assets by subsidiaries engaging in investment activities.

3 ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 43-1131—43-1150.

4 ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 43-1139(A).

5 ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 43-1136(C); 43-1137.

6 ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 43-1135(A), (B); 43-1136(A), (B).

7 ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 43-1131(1).

8 ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 43-1131(4).

9 The first clause provides "income arising from transactions and activity in the regular course of the taxpayer's trade or business."

10 The second clause provides "income from tangible and intangible property if the acquisition, management and disposition of the property constitute integral parts of the taxpayer's regular trade or business operations."

11 Gannett Satellite Information Network, Inc. v. Department of Revenue, 201 P.3d 132 (Mont. 2009); Hoechst Celanese Corp. v. Franchise Tax Board, 22 P.3d 324 (Cal. 2001); Simpson Timber Co. v. Oregon Department of Revenue, 953 P.2d 366 (Or. 1998); Texaco-Cities Service Pipeline Co. v. McGraw, 695 N.E.2d 481 (Ill. 1998); Pledger v. Getty Oil Exploration Co., 831 S.W.2d 121 (Ark. 1992); District of Columbia v. Pierce Associates, Inc., 462 A.2d 1129 (D.C. 1983).

12 Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Iowa Department of Revenue, 511 N.W.2d 608 (Iowa 1993) (superseded by IOWA CODE § 422.32); Western National Gas Co. v. McDonald, 446 P.2d 781 (Kan. 1968) (superseded by KAN. STAT. ANN. § 79-3271(a)); General Care Corp. v. Olsen, 705 S.W.2d 642 (Tenn. 1986) (superseded by TENN. CODE ANN. § 67-4-2004).

13 See ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R15-2D-503.

14 In Jim Beam Brands Co. v. Franchise Tax Board, 34 Cal. Rptr. 3d 874 (Ct. App. 2005), the California Court of Appeal explained that a liquidation exception cannot be reconciled with the functional test.

15 An IRC § 338(h)(10) election permits a sale of stock to be treated, for federal income tax purposes, as a sale of assets by the entity whose stock is being sold (the target corporation) to a hypothetical new corporation of the same name. The target corporation is deemed to have received a purchase price equal to the amount that was paid by the purchaser to the parent corporation as consideration for the purchase of the target corporation's stock. The target corporation is then deemed to have made a liquidating distribution to its shareholders.

16 American States Insurance Co. v. Hamer, 816 N.E.2d 659 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004); ABB-C-E Nuclear Power, Inc. v. Director of Revenue, 215 S.W.3d 85 (Mo. 2007); Canteen Corp. v. Commonwealth, 818 A.2d 594 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2003); McKesson Water Products Co. v. Director, 23 N.J. Tax 449 (N.J. Tax Ct. 2007).

17 Newell Window Furnishing, Inc. v. Johnson, 311 S.W.3d 441 (Tenn. App. 2008); Centurytel, Inc. v. Department of Revenue, 297 P.3d 1264 (Or. 2013).

18 Corporate Tax Ruling 98-2, Arizona Department of Revenue, July 23, 1998.

19 Note that Arizona continues to use the UDITPA definitions of "business income" and "nonbusiness income." ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 43-1131(1), (4).

20 Corporate Tax Ruling 94-12, Arizona Department of Revenue, Nov. 15, 1994.

21 Corporations A, B, C, D and E file a federal consolidated return and elect to file as an affiliated group in Arizona. Corporation A manufactures mobile homes that are marketed by Corporation B and financed by Corporation C. Corporation D operates a chain of pet food stores. Corporation E invests in and markets commercial real estate. Corporations A, B and C constitute a single business and Corporations D and E constitute two other separate businesses. Corporations A, B and C do not engage in any real estate activities or transactions with Corporation E. If Corporation A sells a former manufacturing facility that has been vacant and unused for nine years, the income from the sale would be allocable nonbusiness income. However, the sale of a shopping center by Corporation E would constitute business income because it is in the regular course of Corporation E's business.

22 For a detailed discussion of the proposed amendments and this report, see GT SALT Alert: Report Released on Proposed Amendments to Multistate Tax Compact's Division of Income Provisions.

23 Most likely, the MTC will eventually decide to revise the approach for apportioning and allocating income. Note that the MTC's Executive Committee is scheduled to consider the report at a meeting on December 12, 2013. The MTC could take steps to follow the Hearing Officer's guidance, retain its own drafted language, or strike a compromise between the two approaches.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


From time to time Mondaq may send you emails promoting Mondaq services including new services. You may opt out of receiving such emails by clicking below.

*** If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of services offered by Mondaq you may opt out by clicking here .


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.