South Dakota Codified Laws 10-43-29.1. Alternative apportionment methods
If the apportionment methods included in §§ 10-43-22.1 to 10-43-25.9, inclusive, do not fairly represent the financial institution’s net income in this state, the financial institution may petition for, or the secretary may require with respect to all or any part of the taxpayer’s business activity:
(1) Separate accounting;
Terms Used In South Dakota Codified Laws 10-43-29.1
- Equitable: Pertaining to civil suits in "equity" rather than in "law." In English legal history, the courts of "law" could order the payment of damages and could afford no other remedy. See damages. A separate court of "equity" could order someone to do something or to cease to do something. See, e.g., injunction. In American jurisprudence, the federal courts have both legal and equitable power, but the distinction is still an important one. For example, a trial by jury is normally available in "law" cases but not in "equity" cases. Source: U.S. Courts
(2) The exclusion of any one or more of the factors;
(3) The inclusion of one or more additional factors which will fairly represent the taxpayer’s business activity in this state; or
(4) The employment of any other method to effectuate an equitable allocation and apportionment of the taxpayer’s taxable income.
The secretary shall promulgate rules pursuant to chapter 1-26 within six months of any decision to use any of the alternative apportionment methods provided under this section.
Source: SL 1935, ch 205, § 15-a; SDC 1939, § 57.2707; SDCL § 10-43-29; SL 1977, ch 96, § 16; SL 1987, ch 82, § 19; SL 2013, ch 54, § 1; SL 2013, ch 55, § 1.