_____________________________________________________________________________________________

PRESIDING JUSTICE MYERSCOUGH delivered the opinion ofthe court:

In October 1999, the Illinois Department of Revenue(Department) assessed plaintiff, Follett Corporation (Follett), atax deficiency for tax years 1995, 1996, and 1997. TheDepartment concluded that certain out-of-state sales made byplaintiff were subject to the sales "throw-back" rule in theIllinois Income Tax Act (Income Tax Act) (35 ILCS5/304(a)(3)(B)(ii) (West 2000)) and, therefore, should beconsidered as Follett's Illinois sales in determining Follett'stax liability. Follett paid the tax under protest and filed acomplaint in the trial court under the State Officers andEmployees Money Disposition Act (30 ILCS 230/1 through 6a (West2000)) to challenge the Department's assessment. In itscomplaint, Follett named the Department, its Director, and theState Treasurer as defendants and sought injunctive anddeclaratory relief. Follett and the Department then moved forsummary judgment on the question of whether the sales "throw-back" rule applies to the sales at issue. In October 2002, thetrial court granted summary judgment to the Department,concluding that the "throw-back" rule applies to the sales inquestion. Follett appeals, arguing the "throw-back" rule is notapplicable. We affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background

Follett, an Illinois corporation, has its headquartersin River Grove, Illinois. Follett provides a wide variety ofproducts and services to schools, educators, libraries, andfederal agencies and institutions through its affiliates anddivisions. Follett and some of its affiliates operate as aunitary business group (hereinafter Follett Group). From 1995 to1997, Follett made sales of goods that were delivered to otherstates in which Follett itself was not subject to tax, butanother member of the Follett Group, Follett College StoresCorporation (Follett Stores), was taxed. Follett did not includethese sales in its Illinois sales calculation, believing theIllinois sales "throw-back" rule was not applicable to thesesales.

The Department, after conducting audits of the taxreturns provided by Follett and its affiliates, determined thatFollett should have included these sales in its Illinois salescalculation. The Department assessed Follett total unpaid taxliability of $341,363 for the 1995, 1996, and 1997 tax yearsrelating to the application of the sales "throw-back" rule. Thequestion before this court is whether the Department correctlyapplied the Illinois "throw-back" rule in assessing Follett the$341,363 tax deficiency.

B. Legal Background

1. Unitary Business Group

The Income Tax Act defines the term "unitary businessgroup" as "a group of persons related through common ownershipwhose business activities are integrated with, dependent upon[,]and contribute to each other." 35 ILCS 5/1501(a)(27) (West2000). Members of the group will not necessarily be subject totaxation by the same state or states.

For taxable years ending on or after December 31, 1993,section 502(e) of the Income Tax Act requires corporate membersof the same unitary business group to be

"treated as one taxpayer for purposes of anyoriginal return, amended return whichincludes the same taxpayers of the unitarygroup which joined in the election to filethe original return, extension, claim forrefund, assessment, collection and paymentand determination of the group's taxliability under this Act." 35 ILCS 5/502(e)(West 2000).

In this case, Follett and some of its affiliates,including Follett Stores, constituted a "unitary business group"as the term is defined in section 1501(a)(27) of the Income TaxAct. 35 ILCS 5/1501(a)(27) (West 2000). The Follett Group filedcombined tax returns for determination of the group's taxliability as required by section 502(e) of the Income Tax Act (35ILCS 5/502(e) (West 2000)).

2. Apportionment of a Taxpayer's Illinois Income

Section 304(a) of the Income Tax Act states:

"If a person other than a resident derivesbusiness income from this State and one ormore other states, then, for tax years endingon or before December 30, 1998, and except asotherwise provided by this [s]ection, suchperson's business income shall be apportionedto this State by multiplying the income by afraction, the numerator of which is the sumof the property factor (if any), the payrollfactor (if any)[,] and 200% of the salesfactor (if any), and the denominator of whichis 4 reduced by the number of factors otherthan the sales factor which have adenominator of zero and by an additional 2 ifthe sales factor has a denominator of zero." 35 ILCS 5/304(a) (West 2000).

The property factor, the payroll factor, and the salesfactor are all fractions: the property factor compares theaverage value of the "person's" property value in Illinois duringthe year to the value of its property everywhere; the payrollfactor compares the amount of compensation the "person" paid inIllinois during the year to the amount of compensation it paideverywhere; and the sales factor compares the "person's" sales inIllinois during the year to its sales everywhere. 35 ILCS5/304(a)(1) through (a)(3) (West 2000).

The parties maintain that this fraction formula can beexpressed as follows:

If a taxpayer is a member of a unitary business groupthat conducts some of its business in Illinois, section 304(e) ofthe Income Tax Act requires the use of the combined-apportionmentmethod to determine the amount of business income that isattributable to Illinois by such a taxpayer. 35 ILCS 5/304(e)(West 2000). The Income Tax Act itself does not define what isthe combined-apportionment method. The Supreme Court ofIllinois, however, prescribed how to apply the "combined-apportionment" method under section 304(a) to determine anindividual corporation's share of the group's Illinois income-taxliability in General Telephone Co. of Illinois v. Johnson, 103Ill. 2d 363, 371-72, 469 N.E.2d 1067, 1071 (1984), as follows:

"First, the business income of each corporatemember of the group would be computed so thatthe total business income of the group couldbe derived. Then, to determine theapportionment factor for a group membersubject to the Illinois income tax, theproperty, payroll, and sales factors would becomputed by using the individual groupmember's Illinois property, payroll, andsales as numerators, and the entire unitarygroup's property, payroll, and sales asdenominators. The average of these threefactors would be the group member'sapportionment factor. This apportionmentfactor then would be applied to the group'stotal business income to derive the amount ofbusiness income on which the group memberwould pay Illinois income tax." (Emphases inoriginal.)

Follett points out that the combined-apportionmentfactor formula can be expressed as follows:

See General Telephone Co., 103 Ill. 2d at 371, 469 N.E.2d at1071.

3. Illinois Sales and the Sales "Throw-Back" Rule  

Section 304(a)(3)(B) of the Income Tax Act provide asfollows:"

"Sales of tangible personal property arein this State if:

(i) The property is deliveredor shipped to a purchaser, otherthan the United States government,within this State regardless of thef.o.b. point or other conditions ofthe sale; or

(ii) The property is shippedfrom an office, store, warehouse,factory[,] or other place ofstorage in this State and eitherthe purchaser is the United statesgovernment or the person is nottaxable in the state of thepurchaser; provided, however, thatpremises owned or leased by aperson who has independentlycontracted with the seller for theprinting of newspapers,periodicals[,] or books shall notbe deemed to be an office, store,warehouse, factory[,] or otherplace of storage for purposes ofthis [s]ection. Sales of tangiblepersonal property are not in thisState if the seller and purchaserwould be members of the sameunitary business group but for thefact that either the seller orpurchaser is a person with 80% ormore of total business activityoutside of the United States andthe property is purchased forresale." 35 ILCS 5/304(a)(3)(B)(West 2000).

This second provision, subsection (ii), is known as thesales "throw-back" rule because it treats certain out-of-statesales of a "person" as Illinois sales for the purpose ofcalculating that "person's" sales factor and its Illinoisapportionment.

C. The Dispute Between Follett and the Department

Follett and the Department disagree on how the "throw-back" rule should be applied, specifically, what is the meaningof the word "person" in section 304(a)(3)(B)(ii) of the IncomeTax Act (35 ILCS 5/304(a)(3)(B)(ii) (West 2000))?

Follett argues, when applying the combined-apportionment method to determine an amount of business income onwhich a group member would pay Illinois income tax, the word"person" in the "throw-back" provision should mean the entireunitary business group. Therefore, even though Follett madesales to purchasers in the states where Follett itself was notsubject to income tax, such sales should nevertheless not be"thrown back" to Illinois since another member of the Follettgroup, Follett Stores, was subject to income tax in those states.

The Department argues, and the trial court agreed, theword "person" in the sales "throw-back" rule does not refer tothe entire unitary business group. Instead, the word "person"refers to an individual corporate member in the group. BecauseFollett, as the "person," was not subject to tax in certainstates, its sales to those states should be "thrown back" toIllinois in calculating its Illinois sales and its Illinoiscombined-apportionment factor.

II. ANALYSIS

A. Standard of Review

This appeal involves the construction and applicationof the Illinois sales "throw-back" rule in the Income Tax Act (35ILCS 5/304(a)(3)(B)(ii) (West 2000)). When no factual dispute isinvolved and the question on appeal is only the application ofthe law to the undisputed facts, the standard of review is denovo. People v. Mitchell, 165 Ill. 2d 211, 230, 650 N.E.2d 1014,1023 (1995).

B. The Statutory Language in the Income Tax Act Supports the Department's Reading of the "Throw-Back" Statute

The Supreme Court of Illinois has stated in People v.Boykin, 94 Ill. 2d 138, 141, 445 N.E.2d 1174, 1175 (1983), tocorrectly construe and apply a statute, we must first ascertainand give effect to the intent of the legislature. In determiningthe legislative intent, courts should first consider thestatutory language. Boykin, 94 Ill. 2d at 141, 445 N.E.2d at1175. In addition, courts should give consideration to all thewords of the provision, so that no word or clause is renderedmeaningless or superfluous. People v. Singleton, 103 Ill. 2d339, 345, 469 N.E.2d 200, 203 (1984).

1. The Income Tax Act Defines the Term "Person"
as a "Corporation," Not as a "Unitary Business Group"

Section 1501(a)(18) of the Income Tax Act states: "Theterm 'person' shall be construed to mean and include anindividual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, firm,company, corporation, limited liability company, or fiduciary." 35 ILCS 5/1501(a)(18) (West 2000). Such a definition requires usto interpret the term "person" as each individual corporatemember of a unitary business group, but this definition does notsupport Follett's argument that the term "person" refers to thegroup itself.

2. The Language in the "Throw-Back" Provision Indicates the Term 
"Person" Refers to an Individual Corporation

We conclude the language in the last sentence of thesales "throw-back" provision demonstrates the legislature'sintent that, when a corporation is a member of a unitary businessgroup, we must analyze each out-of-state sale at the individualcorporate member's level to determine whether such a transactionis an Illinois sale. As a result, we should interpret the term"person" as each individual corporation rather than the entireunitary business group.

The last sentence of the "throw-back" provision states:

"Sales of tangible personal property are notin this State if the seller and purchaserwould be members of the same unitary businessgroup but for the fact that either the selleror purchaser is a person with 80% or more oftotal business activity outside of the UnitedStates and the property is purchased forresale." 35 ILCS 5/304(a)(3)(B)(ii) (West2000).

In 1982, the legislature added this sentence to the"throw-back" statute to exclude from the apportionmentcalculation all sales by any member whose activities are carriedon primarily outside of the United States. Pub. Act 82-1029,