N.M. Admin. Code § 3.4.1.14
The definition of a "unitary group" under Section 7-2A-2 NMA1978 rests on the underlying concept of "unitary business", which reflects the general constitutional principles that have been set out by the U.S. Supreme Court and is meant to be applied consistent with those constitutional principals. See, in particular, Mobil Oil Corp. v. Comm'r of Taxes of Vt., 455 U.S. 425, 438 (1980) where the court noted that a "separate accounting, while it purports to isolate portions of income received in various states, may fail to account for contributions to income resulting from functional integration, centralization of management, and economies of scale." The court then characterized these as "factors of profitability" which "arise from the operation of the business as a whole." See also, MeadWestvaco Corp. v. Ill. Dep't of Revenue, 553 U.S. 16, 18 (2008). There, the court reiterated past holdings that the unitary business principle as articulated applies generally to entities, not assets, and that "an asset can be a part of a taxpayer's unitary business even without a 'unitary relationship' between the 'payor and payee.'" The court went on to review its precedent saying, "where the asset is another business, a unitary relationship's 'hallmarks' are functional integration, centralized management, and economies of scale." When a portion of a unitary business is conducted in New Mexico, the state has the constitutional authority to impose tax on that portion of the income derived from that business, provided that the tax is not discriminatory and is fairly apportioned. The primary factors indicating an economically interdependent business include centralized management, functional integration, and economies of scale, which may be demonstrated by substantial flows of value between components of the business as well as other similar indicia.
N.M. Admin. Code § 3.4.1.14