Court Opinion

ID: 9645014
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 21:10:33.776321+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:21.643788
License: Public Domain

BLACKMAR, Judge,
concurring in result.
The State Tax Commission concluded as follows;
3.2 The Commission' concludes that the income which was realized when Complainant divested itself of certain corporations did not arise from a transaction in the regular course of Complainant’s trade or business. Consequently, the income in question was properly allocated by Complainant to its commercial domicile as nonbusiness income.
This conclusion, however labeled, is essentially a finding of fact. Whatever the scope of review might be under § 536.140, RSMo 1978, the finding appears to me to be fully correct and supported by the evidence. ITT disposed of the subsidiaries under the pressure of a complicated and highly publicized anti-trust suit. The resulting capital gain cannot be properly characterized as “business income.” I agree with that portion of Part II of the principal opinion so holding.
Inasmuch as Missouri by its statutes does not purport to tax this nonbusiness income, there is no need ,to analyze the complicated constitutional issues presented, as further complicated by Container Corporation of America v. Franchise Tax Board, - U.S. -, 103 S.Ct. 2933, 77 L.Ed.2d 545 (1983).
I concur in the judgment of affirmance.