Could PerkinElmer retroactively replace its subsidiaries' separate 1999 New Mexico corporate income tax returns with a combined unitary return and claim a $740,529 refund?

Plain-English summary

PerkinElmer could not retroactively replace its subsidiaries' separate 1999 New Mexico corporate income tax returns with a combined unitary return. The hearing officer upheld the Department's rule barring a retroactive reporting-method election and denied the company's protest over a $740,529 refund claim.

PerkinElmer was the parent of three corporations that each filed separate New Mexico corporate income tax returns for 1999: PerkinElmer, Inc. (formerly EG&G, Inc.), EG&G Management Systems, Inc., and Astrophysics Research Corporation. The companies continued filing separately in later years.

The IRS later audited the federal consolidated group. In late 2007, before that audit was finalized on February 26, 2008, the parent filed an amended 1999 New Mexico return. The amendment said a later review had determined that the businesses were unitary and treated the parent as the designated filer for a combined group. It claimed a $740,529 refund.

The IRS audit kept the refund claim within the limitation period

The ordinary refund deadline was three years after the end of the calendar year in which payment was due. Section 7-1-26(D)(1), however, allowed a claim within one year of an IRS audit adjustment that would have produced an overpayment for the affected period.

The hearing officer found that this exception made the otherwise seven-year-late refund claim timely. Timeliness did not decide whether PerkinElmer could change the filing method used on the original returns.

New Mexico's rule barred the retroactive filing-method change

New Mexico allowed corporations to use separate-entity, combined-unitary, or federal-consolidated reporting. Regulation 3.4.10.8(E) said that no retroactive election of a different method would be permitted and required an election or request to change methods no later than the last day the return could be timely filed.

For the subsidiaries' 1999 returns, that deadline fell in September or October 2000. Their late-2007 amendment therefore came years too late.

The hearing officer rejected PerkinElmer's argument that the regulation improperly narrowed Section 7-2A-8.3. The statutes themselves restricted later changes after a corporation elected combined or consolidated reporting. Allowing a retroactive combined return for 1999 while the subsidiaries had filed separately in every later year would also conflict with the requirement for prior permission to return to separate filing.

Federal relief rules did not override the New Mexico deadline

PerkinElmer argued that Treasury Regulation § 301.9100-3 supplied a federal “good faith” exception for a beneficial election missed without the taxpayer's fault.

The hearing officer found that New Mexico uses federal taxable income as a starting point but does not broadly adopt the Internal Revenue Code and Treasury Regulations word for word. New Mexico also had no statute like the Missouri provision behind the taxpayer's cited case. In any event, the amended-return explanation admitted that no unitary-business analysis had been performed when the original returns were prepared, and federal law did not provide the same combined-unitary filing method at issue here.

The earlier DePuy decision did not control

PerkinElmer also relied on D&O 05-10 involving DePuy, Inc. and Subsidiaries. The hearing officer said that decision did not generally authorize retroactive method changes. There, the Department had already accepted amended returns under a different interpretation and could not apply inconsistent interpretations selectively; the refund was still denied as untimely.

Those circumstances were not present in PerkinElmer's case.

Result: protest DENIED. The Department properly denied the amended-return refund claim.

What this means for you

Corporate groups considering combined reporting

Choose and document the New Mexico reporting method by the original return deadline. A later conclusion that combined reporting would have produced a better result does not itself permit a retroactive election.

Businesses reporting federal audit changes

An IRS audit can extend the time to claim a New Mexico refund tied to the federal adjustment, but that timing rule does not erase separate state-law requirements governing how the return must be filed.

Tax departments managing unitary-group positions

Analyze unitary status before filing, and keep the method consistent across later years unless the governing statute or the Secretary's permission allows a change. The hearing officer emphasized that a one-year retroactive switch could conflict with the group's actual filings in subsequent years.

Common questions

Q: Was the $740,529 refund claim too late?
A: No. The IRS-audit exception made the claim timely, even though it was filed about seven years after the original return was due.

Q: Why was the refund still denied?
A: The subsidiaries had elected separate-entity reporting on their original 1999 returns. Regulation 3.4.10.8(E) barred changing that election retroactively after the timely-filing deadline.

Q: Did the hearing officer invalidate the Department's regulation?
A: No. The decision held that Regulation 3.4.10.8 reasonably implemented Section 7-2A-8.3 and was valid.

Q: Did the federal good-faith relief rule apply?
A: No. New Mexico had not broadly adopted that Treasury regulation for this state reporting-method election, and the facts would not have justified relief in any event.

Q: Did D&O 05-10 require the same result for PerkinElmer?
A: No. That decision involved materially different Department conduct and did not govern this protest.

Citations and references

Statutes and regulations:

• NMSA 1978, § 7-1-26(D)(1) — ordinary refund limitation and exception for an IRS audit adjustment
• NMSA 1978, § 7-2A-8.3(A)-(C) — combined returns and restrictions on later method changes
• NMSA 1978, § 7-2A-8.4(A)-(B) — consolidated returns and restrictions on later method changes
• NMSA 1978, § 7-2A-2(C), (G), (H), and (I) — federal concepts used in calculating New Mexico corporate income tax
• NMSA 1978, § 9-11-6.2(G) — presumption for Department regulations
• Regulation 3.4.10.7(A) NMAC — separate-entity reporting
• Regulation 3.4.10.8(B), (C), (E), and (F) NMAC — reporting-method hierarchy, later elections, and retroactive-election prohibition
• Treasury Regulation § 301.9100-3 — federal administrative-relief rule argued by PerkinElmer

Authorities discussed:

• Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. State of New Mexico ex rel. Taxation and Revenue Department, 139 N.M. 498, 134 P.3d 785 (Ct. App. 2006)
• Mountain States Telephone and Telegraph Co. v. New Mexico State Corporation Commission, 104 N.M. 36, 715 P.2d 1332
• Kidde America, Inc. v. Director of Revenue, 198 S.W.3d 153 (Mo. 2006)
• In the Matter of the Protest of DePuy, Inc. and Subsidiaries, D&O 05-10

Source

• Listing: New Mexico Decisions & Orders
• Decision post: PerkinElmer, Inc. and Subsidiaries
• Decision PDF: D&O 11-02

Original ruling text

BEFORE THE HEARING OFFICER
OF THE TAXATION AND REVENUE DEPARTMENT
OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

IN THE MATTER OF THE PROTEST OF No. 11-02
PERKINELMER, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES, FEIN 04-205204
REFUND DENIAL DATED MAY 9, 2008
CORPORATE INCOME TAX, FYE: JANUARY 1, 2000
LETTER ID: L1807898752

DECISION AND ORDER

This matter comes before Gerald B. Richardson, Hearing Officer, upon cross
motions for summary judgment and supporting memoranda of law. PerkinElmer, Inc.,
and Subsidiaries, hereinafter, "Taxpayer", was represented by William P. Gagnon. The
Taxation and Revenue Department, hereinafter, "Department", was represented by Amy
Chavez-Romero, Esq. Based upon the evidence and arguments submitted, IT IS
DECIDED AND ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Taxpayer is the parent corporation for three subsidiary corporations:
   PerkinElmer, Inc. (f/k/a EG&G, Inc.), hereinafter, "PerkinElmer"; EG&G Management
   Systems, Inc., hereinafter, "EG&G" and Astrophysics Research Corporation, hereinafter,
   "Astrophysics". PerkinElmer, EG&G and Astrophysics each filed New Mexico corporate
   income tax returns as separate corporate entities for the 1999 tax year on or about
   September 15, 2000.
2. The extended due date shown on page 1 of the 1999 PerkinElmer New
   Mexico return is October 16, 2000.
3. The extended due date shown on page 1 of the 1999 Astrophysics New
   Mexico return is September 15, 2000.
4. No extended due date is shown on the1999 EG&G New Mexico return.

1

5. PerkinElmer, EG&G and Astrophysics each filed separate corporate
   income tax returns for all tax years subsequent to the 1999 tax year.
6. The Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") audited the Taxpayer, a federal
   consolidated filer, for multiple tax years, including the 1999 tax year.
7. The IRS audit was finalized on February 26, 2008.
8. In late 2007, before the IRS audit was finalized, the Taxpayer filed an
   amended New Mexico corporate income tax return for the 1999 tax year. The amended
   return did not indicate that the Taxpayer's amended return was being filed as a
   combination of unitary domestic corporations. However, the amended return did contain
   a statement with an explanation of changes. This statement explained that the amended
   return was filed to report federal changes pursuant to an IRS audit. It further explained
   under the caption "Combined Filing", that for the 1999 tax year, PerkinElmer, EG&G and
   Astrophysics had each filed New Mexico corporate income returns as separate
   corporations and that the parent corporation, the Taxpayer herein, had participated in the
   filing of a US consolidated return for that same tax year with numerous affiliates and
   subsidiaries, but that at the time the returns were prepared, no analysis had been done to
   determine whether a unitary business existed, but that upon a subsequent review of its
   New Mexico tax filings, it had been determined that the business transacted by the
   Taxpayer during the tax year represented a unitary business and that the Taxpayer is the
   designated filer for the combined unitary group.
9. The combined unitary group included Perkin Elmer, EG&G and
   Astrophysics, all of which had filed original 1999 New Mexico corporate income tax
   returns as separate corporate entities.
10. The amended 1999 return claimed a refund of $740,529.
11. By letter dated May 9, 2008, the Department denied the refund claim in
    part because the return did not contain a check mark to indicate the filing method.
12. By letter dated June 11, 2008, PerkinElmer Inc. and Subsidiaries filed a
    timely protest to the Department's denial of its refund claim.
13. The Department acknowledged the protest by letter dated June 18, 2008.

2

14. Subsequently, the Taxpayer provided the Department additional
    information to review concerning its protest, including information concerning the IRS
    audit and its resolution.
15. On August 5, 2009, counsel for the Department issued letter to the
    representative for the Taxpayer explaining its position that Regulation 3.4.10.8(E)
    NMAC prohibits the retroactive election of a different filing method for reporting income
    tax and that the deadline for making such an election would have been September 15,
    2000, the last day on which the Taxpayer's 1999 corporate income tax return could be
    timely filed.

DISCUSSION

The legal issue to be determined herein is whether the Taxpayer is entitled to a
refund of corporation income tax based upon the filing of an amended corporate income
tax return many years later, which retroactively changed the method under which its
subsidiaries had reported New Mexico corporation income tax. Normally, the statute of
limitation for filing a claim for refund requires that the claim is made within three years
of the end of the calendar year in which the payment was originally due. See, § 7-1-
26(D)(1) NMSA 1978. However, there is an exception, "[I]f, as a result of an audit by
the internal revenue service...any adjustment of federal tax is made with the result that
there would have been an overpayment of tax if the adjustment to federal tax had been
applied to the taxable period to which it relates...." In such case, a taxpayer may make a
claim for refund "within one year of the date of the internal revenue audit adjustment...."
Thus, although the claim for refund at issue was made seven years after the original
return was due, it was made within the statute of limitations because of the IRS audit.
The New Mexico Corporate Income and Franchise Tax Return provides for three
different reporting methodologies by which corporations may determine their New
Mexico taxable income for purposes of reporting corporate income tax. See, Exhibits A
and B. These methodologies are: separate corporate entity; hereinafter, "separate
reporting"; combination of unitary domestic corporations, hereinafter, "combined
reporting"; and federal consolidated group, hereinafter, "consolidated reporting".

3
The Corporate Income and Franchise Tax Act, Chapter 7, Article 2A NMSA 1978
does not have a provision defining separate reporting, but it is addressed in Regulation
3.4.10.7(A) NMAC, which provides as follows:
A. Under the "separate accounting method" of reporting formerly
provided for in Paragraph (4) of Subsection A of Section 7-2A-8 NMSA
1978 for taxable years beginning prior to January 1, 1996, a taxpayer
accounts for that portion of business activity conducted within this state as
if the business activities were conducted by a distinct and separate entity
which operated solely within this state. A pro forma federal form 1120
reflecting such activity shall be prepared and included with the New
Mexico report form. Only income generated and expenses incurred from
business activities conducted within this state are to be included when
calculating New Mexico tax liability.

Consolidated reporting is addressed in § 7-2A-8.4 NMSA 1978, which provides in part:
A. Any corporation that is subject to taxation under the Corporate
Income and Franchise Tax Act and that reports to the internal revenue
service for federal income tax purposes its net income consolidated with
the net income of one or more other corporations may elect to report to
New Mexico on the same basis.

Section 7-2A-8.3 addresses combined reporting and provides in part:
A. A unitary corporation that is subject to taxation under the
Corporate Income and Franchise Tax Act and that has not previously filed
a combined return pursuant to this section or a consolidated return
pursuant to Section 7-2A-8.4 NMSA 1978 may elect to file a combined
return with other unitary corporations as though the entire combined net
income were that of one corporation. The return filed under this method
of reporting shall include the net income of all the unitary corporations.
Transactions among the unitary corporations may be eliminated by
applying the appropriate rules for reporting income for a consolidated
federal income tax return. Any corporation that has filed an income tax
return with New Mexico pursuant to Section 7-2A-8.4 NMSA 1978 shall
not file pursuant to this section unless the secretary gives prior permission
to file on a combined return basis.

Both statutes also contain provisions which limit a taxpayer's ability elect a different
reporting methodology once they have elected to file a return using either the combined
or consolidated methodology. Specifically, § 7-2A-8.4(B) provides as follows:
Once a corporation has been included in a consolidated return to New
Mexico, the corporation shall not elect to file a New Mexico return under
any other method without prior permission of the secretary, unless the

4
change in reporting method is required or allowed under the Internal
Revenue Code. Furthermore, such a corporation shall not elect nor shall
the secretary grant it permission to separately account for income in New
Mexico pursuant to Paragraph (4) of Subsection A of Section 7-2-8
NMSA 1978.

Similarly, § 7-2A-8.3(B) and (C) NMSA 1978 provide:
B. Once corporations have reported net income through a combined
return for any taxable year, they shall file combined returns for subsequent
taxable years, so long as they remain unitary corporations, unless the
corporations elect to file pursuant to Section 7-2-8.4 NMSA 1978 or
unless the secretary grants prior permission for one or more of the
corporations to file individually.
C. For taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 1993, no unitary
corporation once included in a combined return may elect, or be granted
permission by the secretary, for any subsequent taxable year to separately
account pursuant to Paragraph (4) of Subsection A of Section 7-2A-8
NMSA 1978.

With this background, we may now examine the issue at hand, whether the
Taxpayer may retroactively amend its 1999 Corporate Income Tax return to change its
reporting methodology from the separate entity reporting methodology elected by its
subsidiaries when they filed their original corporate income tax returns to a combined
return filed by the parent corporation on behalf of a unitary group of corporations
including the subsidiaries involved in the original filing. The Department denied the
claim for refund based upon its regulation concerning reporting methodologies,
Regulation 3.4.10.8 NMAC. The parts of that regulation which are pertinent to the issue
presented herein are as follows:
B. For taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 1996, a taxpayer
ma elect to file the taxpayer's initial New Mexico corporate income tax
return using any one of three reporting methods:
(1) 1st -- separate corporate entity;
(2) 2nd -- combination of unitary corporations;
(3) 3rd -- federal consolidated group.
C. In succeeding taxable years, a taxpayer may elect to file on a
different reporting method without written permission from the
department as long as the reporting method chosen is ranked higher on this
numbered list than the previous reporting method.

E. No retroactive election of a different method for reporting New
Mexico state income tax will be permitted. An election to report under a

5
higher-ranked method or a request for permission to file under a lower-
ranked method must be made no later than the last day on which the
corporate income tax return may be timely filed for the taxpayer's taxable
year to which the change in method applies.
F. This section (3.4.10.8 NMAC) applies to taxable years beginning
on or after January 1, 1996.

The Department specifically relied on Subsection E, which prohibits the retroactive
election of a different reporting methodology. From the context of that Subsection, it is
clear that an election of a reporting method is made at the time a return is originally filed,
or at the very latest, it must be made "no later than the last day on which the corporate
income tax return may be timely filed for the taxable year to which the change in method
applies." With respect to each of the subsidiaries involved in this matter, that would
have been in September or October of 2000.1
PerkinElmer and Subsidiaries argues that the Department's regulation is ultra
vires and therefore void because it goes beyond interpreting the statute and limits the
operation of the statute. It argues that the regulation is inconsistent with the language of
§ 7-2A-8.3(A) which states that a "unitary corporation...that has not previously filed a
combined return...may elect to file a combined return with other unitary
corporations...." (emphasis added) by limiting the amount of time a taxpayer has to elect
its filing methodology. In making this argument, this taxpayer must overcome the
presumption that agency regulations that interpret statutes and which are promulgated
under statutory authority are presumed to be a proper implementation of the statute.
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. State of New Mexico ex rel. Taxation and Revenue Department,
139 N.M. 498, ¶16, 134 P.3d 785, 790 (N.M. App. 2006). Additionally, an interpretation
of a statute by the agency charged with its administration is to be given substantial
weight. Id. Finally, a regulation issued by the Department is presumed to be a proper
implementation of the laws charged to the Department. Section 9-11-6.2 (G) NMSA
1978.
The Taxpayer has not overcome this presumption. In fact, given a reading of the
entirety of §§7-2A-8.3 and 7-2A-8.4, both of which have similar language stating that

1 With respect to EG&G, although no extended due date was shown on its original return,

it will be assumed that it was September 15, 2000, since that is the date the officer signed
the original return.

6
taxpayers "may elect" to report on either a combined or consolidated basis, it is clear that
the election is made at the time a taxpayer files its return for any given taxable year and
that there are restrictions on whether and how taxpayers may make such elections in
subsequent years. As noted previously, both statutes have restrictions which limit a
taxpayer from changing its election of reporting methodology for subsequent years.
Specifically, with respect to combined reporting, at issue herein, Subsection B of § 7-2A-
8.3 limits a taxpayer who has elected to report on a combined basis from changing its
reporting methodology for subsequent years unless it elects to file on a consolidated basis
or it obtains prior permission from the Secretary for one or more of the corporations in
the combined group to file individually. Thus, the reasons for the prohibition against
retroactive changes in reporting methodology, found in Regulation 34.10.8E NMAC are
demonstrated by the facts of the instant matter. The subsidiary corporations elected to
file as separate entities not only in their 1999 original returns, but also in all subsequent
years. If the Taxpayer were to be allowed to amend the subsidiaries returns and to file as
a combined unitary corporation for tax year 1999, the provisions of § 7-2A-8.3 (B) would
be violated as no prior permission from the Secretary would have been obtained to allow
it's subsidiaries to file as separate corporate entities for tax year 2000 and subsequent
years.2 Thus, the provisions of Regulation 3.4.10.8(E) NMAC, which prohibit retroactive
elections to change reporting methods and which require that any requests to change
reporting methodologies be made no later than the date for timely filing a return are a
reasonable interpretation and implementation of § 7-2A-8.3 NMSA 1978.

2 The Taxpayer has stated that if its protest is granted and it is allowed this claim for

refund, that it will file amended tax returns, as a combined unitary corporation for
subsequent years. This could be done, however, only if the Secretary gave permission,
prior to filing amended returns, to do so, and given the position the Department has taken
in this protest, it would be fair to assume that such permission would not be granted.
Additionally, even if the Secretary were to grant such permission, if subsequent year
returns resulted in a claim for refund, such as is made in the instant matter, such claims
for refund could not be granted without violating the statute of limitations for making
such refund claims for many of the years subsequent to 1999 by the provisions of § 7-1-
26(D)(1) NMSA 1978. Thus, Regulation 3.4.10.8(E) also interprets § 7-2A-8.3 in a
manner which is consistent with the statute of limitations for filing amended returns
making claims for refund.

7
Next, the Taxpayer argues that New Mexico has adopted the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 as amended and as such, is required to adhere to it and the regulations
promulgated thereunder unless New Mexico has explicitly decoupled from the provisions
of the code. Specifically, the Taxpayer argues that the Department is thus required to
follow the "good faith" exception of Treasury Regulation §301.9100-3 to allow a
retroactive change in reporting methods despite the requirements of Regulation
3.4.10.8(E) NMAC. The Treasury Regulation allows the IRS to grant administrative
relief to taxpayers when certain beneficial elections are erroneously not exercised within
the prescribed time limits through no fault of their own. The Taxpayer cites to a decision
of the Missouri Supreme Court which allowed a corporation and its subsidiaries to
retroactively file a consolidated Missouri corporate income tax return even though the
group had not made a timely election to file a consolidated return by applying the good
faith exception cited above. See, Kidde America, Inc. v. Director of Revenue, 198
S.W.3d 153 (2006). This decision is distinguishable from the instant matter, however.
The reason the Missouri Supreme Court gave for its decision was a Missouri statute
requiring that the rules and regulations prescribed by the director of revenue "follow as
nearly as practicable the rules and regulations of the secretary of the Treasury of the
United States or his delegates regarding income taxation." Id. Thus, the court
determined that application of this statute required application of the federal "good faith"
exception. Id. New Mexico has no such statute. Although New Mexico's Corporate
Income and Franchise Tax Act does contain references to the Internal Revenue Code and
follows the code as a starting point to determine the taxable income to which the
corporation income tax applies, see, § 7-2A-2 (C), (G), (H) and (I) NMSA 1978, it
contains no such broad inclusion of the IRS regulations as contained in the Missouri
statute. Indeed, our courts have eschewed such an interpretation. As stated in Mountain
States Telephone and Telegraph Co. v. New Mexico State Corporation Commission, 104
NM. 36, 715 P.2d 1332:
New Mexico's Corporate Income Tax Act...does not incorporate or adopt
the Internal Revenue Code and Treasury Regulations word for word. New
Mexico taxpayers are not instructed to prepare their state returns by
following the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, inserting the words
"New Mexico" or "state" at appropriate points, but simply are required to
use the single figure calculated to be their federal taxable income as the

8
starting point for calculating state income tax. NMSA 1978, Sec. 7-2A-2
and -3 (Repl. Pamp. 1983).

Id. 104 N.M. at 43, 715 P.2d at 1339. Even were the "good faith" exception somehow
applicable, the facts of this case would not warrant its application. As stated in the
explanation accompanying the amended return submitted in this case, at the time of the
filing of the original returns, no analysis was done to determine whether a unitary
business existed. Thus it appears that the failure to elect a more beneficial filing
methodology was based on the failure of the taxpayer or its agent to make the analysis it
should have made at the time the original return was due. The inapplicability of the
federal good faith exception to the facts of this case is further demonstrated by the fact
there is no such thing as combined filing by unitary corporations under the Internal
Revenue Code. For federal tax purposes, a corporation which does not file on a separate
entity basis may file a consolidated return if it is a member of an affiliated group of
corporations. 26 U.S.C. § 1502. Neither the Internal Revenue Code or the Treasury
Regulations provide for filing a combined return, such as the amended return at issue in
this case.
Finally, the Taxpayer argues that in another administrative decision of the
Department, In the Matter of the Protest of DePuy, Inc. and Subsidiaries, Decision and
Order No. 05-10, the hearing officer granted retroactive relief allowing a taxpayer to
change its method of filing and the same result should be applied now. This is not a fair
characterization of that decision, however, and the facts presented herein are quite
distinguishable. In her decision, the hearing officer actually agreed that Regulation
3.4.10.8(E) NMAC prohibited the retroactive change in reporting methods, but found that
since the Department had granted the taxpayer's request to retroactively change its
reporting method based on a different and more liberal interpretation of § 7-2A-8.33 and
accepted amended returns for several other tax years, it could not pick and choose which
statutory interpretation to follow in a given situation. Nonetheless, the hearing officer
found that the amended return requesting a tax refund was barred by the statute of
limitations on claims for refund and denied the taxpayer's protest.

3 This more liberal interpretation has no application to this case because of the different

facts presented herein.

9
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The Taxpayer filed a timely, written protest to the Department's denial of
   its claim for refund of 1999 corporate income taxes, and jurisdiction lies over the parties
   and the subject matter of this protest.
2. The Taxpayer is prohibited by 3.4.10.8(E) from retroactively changing its
   reporting methodology from separate corporate entity to combined reporting.
3. Regulation 3.4.10.8 properly interprets and implements § 7-2A-8.3 NMSA
   1978 and is valid.
4. The federal "good faith" exception as found in Treasury Regulation
   §301.9100-3 does not apply and the Department need not follow it with respect to this
   protest.
5. The Department's prior administrative decision, In the Matter of the
   Protest of DePuy, Inc. and Subsidiaries, Decision and Order 05-10, does not apply to or
   govern the determination of this matter.
6. The Department properly denied the claim for refund filed by the
   Taxpayer when it filed an amended corporate income tax return for tax year 1999.

For the foregoing reasons, the Taxpayer's protest IS HEREBY DENIED.
DONE, this ____ day of January, 2011.

10