From our private database of 35,800+ case briefs...
State of Alaska, Department of Revenue v. Amoco Production Company
Alaska Supreme Court
676 P.2d 595 (1984)
Facts
Amoco Production Company (Amoco) (plaintiff), a subsidiary of Standard Oil Company of Indiana, was incorporated in Delaware. Amoco did business in Alaska exploring for and producing oil and gas. Alaska adopted the Uniform Division of Income for Tax Purposes Act (the act) in 1959. The act provided a three-factor apportionment formula for states to use to apportion the income of a multistate business for tax purposes. One of the factors was the property factor, which was the fraction of the value of the multistate business’s property that was used in the taxing state. In calculating the property factor to use for the apportionment of Amoco’s income, the Alaska Department of Revenue (the department) (defendant) included the value of Amoco’s leaseholds in Alaska that were not producing gas or oil. Amoco appealed to the state superior court, arguing that the nonproducing leaseholds should not be included in the property factor of the apportionment formula because the leaseholds were not being used as required by the act. The superior court reversed the department, holding that the nonproducing leaseholds could not be included in the property factor. The department appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Burke, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 620,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 35,800 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.