If the allocation and apportionment provisions of the Uniform Division of Income for Tax Purposes Act do not fairly represent the extent of the taxpayer's business activity in this state, the taxpayer may petition for, or the department may require, in respect to all or any part of the taxpayer's business activity, if reasonable:
A. separate accounting;
B. the exclusion of any one or more of the factors;
C. the inclusion of one or more additional factors which will fairly represent the taxpayer's business activity in this state; or
D. the employment of any other method to effectuate an equitable allocation and apportionment of the taxpayer's income.
History: 1953 Comp., § 72-15A-34, enacted by Laws 1965, ch. 203, § 19; 1977, ch. 249, § 46; 1986, ch. 20, § 57.
ANNOTATIONSTaxpayer's burden to show when modification of formula necessary. — Since there was nothing arbitrary or unreasonable about the department's conclusion that dividend income is apportionable without modification of the allocation and apportionment formula, the taxpayer bears the burden of showing by clear and cogent evidence that modification of the formula is necessary. Taxation & Revenue Dep't v. F.W. Woolworth Co., 1981-NMSC-008, 95 N.M. 519, 624 P.2d 28, rev'd on other grounds, 458 U.S. 354, 102 S. Ct. 3128, 73 L. Ed. 2d 819, reh'g denied, 459 U.S. 961, 103 S. Ct. 274, 74 L. Ed. 2d 213 (1982).