UDITPA

(redirected from Uniform Division of Income for Tax Purposes Act)
AcronymDefinition
UDITPAUniform Division of Income for Tax Purposes Act (US)
References in periodicals archive ?
This framework, proposed initially in the Uniform Division of Income for Tax Purposes Act (UDITPA), has been codified by the commission in Article IV of the Multistate Tax Compact.
For example, many MTC member states have diverged from the definition of business income in the Uniform Division of Income for Tax Purposes Act (UDITPA) in order to provide that, in their jurisdictions, the definition includes transactional and functional tests.
Prior to the adoption of the Uniform Division of Income for Tax Purposes Act, former Sec.
Adopts the Uniform Division of Income for Tax Purposes Act (UDITPA)
In an unpublished decision, (63) a California Court of Appeal affirmed that a retail store's returns of principal from debt instruments held to maturity are not "sales" within the meaning of the state's Uniform Division of Income for Tax Purposes Act apportionment provisions and, accordingly, are not includible in the sales factor as gross receipts.
In 1957, in order to attain uniformity in state taxation methods, the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws formulated the Uniform Division of Income for Tax Purposes Act (UDITPA).
Under the Uniform Division of Income for Tax Purposes Act (UDITPA), a multistate corporate taxpayer's income is divided into two classes--business income and nonbusiness income.
This is the pattern of the Uniform Division of Income for Tax Purposes Act (UDITPA), which is followed by many of the States.
This provision is similar to that granted to states under the Uniform Division of Income for Tax Purposes Act, Section 18, which allows a state taxing administrator to use an apportionment method other than the standard method to more clearly reflect income due the state.
The Uniform Division of Income for Tax Purposes Act (UDITPA) is a model act governing the allocation of income among states.
It further found that the Uniform Division of Income for Tax Purposes Act's (UDITPA's) three-factor formula did not fairly represent KPI's business activity in New Mexico, because its only business activity in the state is the licensing of its trademarks for use there.
In Huffy Corp.,(40) the California State Board of Equalization (SBE) re-adopted the Joyce(41) rule (and overruled Finnigan(42)) to promote uniformity of the Uniform Division of Income for Tax Purposes Act and to more fairly reflect the fundamental principles of combined reporting.
Full browser ?