Opinion ID: 1198900
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the commission met the second prong of the test.

Text: The second prong requires that the agency's statutory construction be reasonable. [D]eference [is] not ... appropriate when an agency interpretation `is so obscure and doubtful that it is entitled to no weight or consideration.' J.R. Simplot Co., 120 Idaho at 862, 820 P.2d at 1219 (citing State v. Omaechevviaria, 27 Idaho 797, 803, 152 P. 280, 281 (1915)). In Simplot the Court found that the Commission's statutory interpretation was a `reasonable' one in the face of a statute that does not directly address the question at issue. Id. at 863, 820 P.2d at 1220. The statutes do not expressly treat the issue of whether an individual nonresident taxpayer who is the sole shareholder of an S corporation with an Idaho business situs may set off the taxable revenue from that corporation apportioned to Idaho with the non-Idaho losses suffered by his other partnership and business entities. The Commission's statutory interpretation is reasonable.