Skip to Main Content


Holland & Hart News Update

Apportionment Victory for Utah Taxpayers

On January 27, 2022, the Utah State Tax Commission held in Appeal No. 16-1358 that the state is constitutionally barred from apportioning and taxing the gain from the sale of a partnership where the seller and partnership were not unitary. Relying on MeadWestvaco Corp. v. Ill. Dep’t of Revenue, 553 U.S. 16 (2008) and other U.S. Supreme Court precedent, the Tax Commission ruled that Utah was barred by the U.S. Constitution from apportioning a gain recognized where a C Corporation sold an interest in a partnership and the C Corporation and the partnership did not share a unitary relationship through centralized management, economies of scale or functional integration. The Auditing Division argued in the case that an operational function standard should be applied rather than the unitary standard. Pursuant to MeadWestvaco, the Tax Commission ruled that, whereas the partnership sold was “another business” as opposed to a “specific asset,” the unitary standard must be applied. The Tax Commission thus concluded that, because the seller and partnership being sold did not share a unitary relationship, “the gain cannot constitutionally be taxed by Utah.”


Unless you are a current client of Holland & Hart LLP, please do not send any confidential information by email. If you are not a current client and send an email to an individual at Holland & Hart LLP, you acknowledge that we have no obligation to maintain the confidentiality of any information you submit to us, unless we have already agreed to represent you or we later agree to do so. Thus, we may represent a party adverse to you, even if the information you submit to us could be used against you in a matter, and even if you submitted it in a good faith effort to retain us.