Tesoro Corporation and Subsidiaries v. State of Alaska, Department of Revenue

312 P.3d 1230 (Alaska 2013) · Supreme Court of the State of Alaska · October 25, 2013 · No. S-14326

Summary

The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed a superior court decision upholding income tax assessments and penalties imposed by the Alaska Department of Revenue against Tesoro Corporation and its subsidiaries for tax years 1994 through 1998. The court held that Tesoro operated as a single unitary business subject to formula apportionment and rejected its constitutional challenge to taxing income from its non-Alaskan subsidiaries. The court also concluded that the remedial apportionment formula was reasonable and that the penalties were permissible.

Holdings

  1. Tesoro and its subsidiaries constituted a single unitary business because the record showed functional integration, centralized management, and economies of scale sufficient to establish flows of value among the business segments.
  2. Tesoro lacked standing to challenge the internal consistency of Alaska's apportionment scheme because it failed to show that the alleged inconsistency caused it an actual adverse injury.
  3. The Department of Revenue's use of the property, sales, and extraction formula was reasonable as applied to Tesoro and satisfied AS 43.19.010, article IV, section 18(c).
  4. The Department of Revenue permissibly imposed failure-to-pay and negligence penalties because the penalties were based on Tesoro's repeated failure to recognize the unitary relationship between its Alaska refinery and pipeline operations, not merely on its challenge to the constitutionality of the apportionment formula.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Tesoro's subsidiaries constituted a single unitary business subject to formula apportionment under the Due Process and Interstate Commerce Clauses.
  2. Whether Tesoro had standing to challenge the internal consistency of Alaska's two-formula apportionment scheme.
  3. Whether the Department of Revenue's remedial property, sales, and extraction formula was reasonable as applied to Tesoro under AS 43.19.010, article IV, section 18.
  4. Whether the Department of Revenue permissibly imposed failure-to-pay and negligence penalties on Tesoro.

Disposition

affirmed

Cases Cited (24)

  • Ross v. State, Dep't of Revenue, 292 P.3d 906 (Alaska 2012)(followed)
  • Harrod v. State, Dep't of Revenue, 255 P.3d 991 (Alaska 2011)(followed)
  • State, Dep't of Revenue v. DynCorp & Subsidiaries, 14 P.3d 981 (Alaska 2000)(followed)
  • McKitrick v. State, Pub. Emps. Ret. Sys., 284 P.3d 832 (Alaska 2012)(followed)
  • Lindhag v. State, Dep't of Natural Res., 123 P.3d 948 (Alaska 2005)(followed)
  • Earth Res. Co. of Alaska v. State, Dep't of Revenue, 665 P.2d 960 (Alaska 1983)(followed)
  • Alaska Gold Co. v. State, Dep't of Revenue, 754 P.2d 247 (Alaska 1988)(followed)
  • ASARCO Inc. v. Idaho State Tax Comm'n, 458 U.S. 307 (1982)(followed)
  • Wisconsin v. J.C. Penney Co., 311 U.S. 435 (1940)(followed)
  • Container Corp. of Am. v. Franchise Tax Bd., 463 U.S. 159 (1983)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 24.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…