Section 35.01.01.333 - APPORTIONABLE AND NONAPPORTIONABLE INCOME DEFINED: FUNCTIONAL TESTSection 63-3027(1)(a), Idaho Code
01.In General. Apportionable income also includes income from tangible and intangible property, if the acquisition, management or disposition of the property constitutes an integral or necessary part of the taxpayer's regular trade or business operations.02.Terms.a. "Property" includes any interest in, control over, or use in property (whether the interest is held directly, beneficially, by contract, or otherwise) that materially contributes to the production of apportionable income.b. "Acquisition" refers to the act of obtaining an interest in property.c. "Management" refers to the oversight, direction, or control (directly or by delegation) of the property for the use or benefit of the trade or business.d. "Disposition" refers to the act, or the power, to relinquish or transfer an interest in or control over property to another, in whole or in part.e. "Integral part" refers to property that constituted a part of the composite whole of the trade or business, each part of which gave value to every other part, in a manner that materially contributed to the production of apportionable income.03.Integral, Functional, or Operative Component of Trade or Business. Under the functional test, apportionable income need not be derived from transactions or activities that are in the regular course of the taxpayer's own particular trade or business. It is sufficient, if the property from which the income is derived is or was an integral, functional, or operative component used in the taxpayer's trade or business operations, or otherwise materially contributed to the production of apportionable income of the trade or business, part of which trade or business is or was conducted within Idaho. Depending on the facts and circumstances of each case, property that has been converted to nonapportionable use through the passage of a sufficiently lengthy period of time or that has been removed as an operational asset and is instead held by the taxpayer's trade or business exclusively for investment purposes has lost its character as a business asset and is not subject to the rule of the preceding sentence. Property that was an integral part of the trade or business is not considered converted to investment purposes merely because it is placed for sale.04.Examples of Apportionable Income Under the Functional Test. Income that is derived from isolated sales, leases, assignments, licenses, and other infrequently occurring dispositions, transfers, or transactions involving property, including transactions made in liquidation or the winding-up of business, is apportionable income, if the property is or was used in the taxpayer's trade or business operations. Income from the licensing of an intangible asset, such as a patent, copyright, trademark, service mark, know-how, trade secrets, or the like, that was developed or acquired for use by the taxpayer in its trade or business operations, constitutes apportionable income whether or not the licensing itself constituted the operation of a trade or business, and whether or not the taxpayer remains in the same trade or business from or for which the intangible asset was developed or acquired.05.Operational Function Versus Investment Function. Under the functional test, income from intangible property is apportionable income when the intangible property serves an operational function as opposed to solely an investment function. The relevant inquiry focuses on whether the property is or was held in furtherance of the taxpayer's trade or business, that is, on the objective characteristics of the intangible property's use or acquisition and its relation to the taxpayer and the taxpayer's activities. The functional test is not satisfied where the holding of the property is limited to solely an investment function as is the case where the holding of the property is limited to mere financial betterment of the taxpayer in general.06.Property Held in Furtherance of Trade or Business. If the property is or was held in furtherance of the taxpayer's trade or business beyond mere financial betterment, then income from that property may be apportionable income even though the actual transaction or activity involving the property that gives rise to the income does not occur in Idaho.07.Presumptions. If with respect to an item of property a taxpayer takes a deduction from apportionable income that is apportioned to Idaho or includes the original cost in the property factor, it is presumed that the item or property is or was integral to the taxpayer's trade or business operations. No presumption arises from the absence of any of these actions.08.Application of the Functional Test. Application of the functional test is generally unaffected by the form of the property (for example, tangible or intangible property, real or personal property). Income arising from an intangible interest, for example, corporate stock or other intangible interest in a business or a group of assets, is apportionable income when the intangible itself or the property underlying or associated with the intangible is or was an integral, functional, or operative component to the taxpayer's trade or business operations. Thus, while apportionment of income derived from transactions involving intangible property as apportionable income may be supported by a finding that the issuer of the intangible property and the taxpayer are engaged in the same trade or business, i.e., the same unitary business, establishment of such a relationship is not the exclusive basis for concluding that the income is subject to apportionment. It is sufficient to support the finding of apportionable income if the holding of the intangible interest served an operational rather than an investment function of mere financial betterment.Idaho Admin. Code r. 35.01.01.333