Legal Opinion
Ceridian Corp. v. Franchise Tax Board
California Court of Appeal
Decided January 18, 2001No. A084298PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
PARRILLI, J.
In this case we hold that Revenue and Taxation Code section 24410 violates the commerce clause of the United States Constitution.
The Franchise Tax Board of the State of California (Board) appeals from a judgment awarding a refund to Ceridian Corporation (Ceridian). The trial court ruled that the statute governing taxation of insurance company dividends paid to major corporate stockholders is unconstitutional. The Board claims this ruling was erroneous, and also contends that even if the statute is invalid, a tax refund is not the proper remedy. We agree with the trial court…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- United States v. SalernoSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. BradySupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Oregon Waste Systems, Inc. v. Department of Environmental Quality of Ore.Supreme Court of the United States · 1994
- Hughes v. OklahomaSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- McKesson Corp. v. Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, Fla. Dept. of Business RegulationSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Chapman v. Commissioner of RevenueSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2002
- Hess Collection Winery v. Agricultural Labor Relations BoardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2006
- River Garden Retirement Home v. Franchise Tax BoardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010
- Ventas Finance I, LLC v. Franchise Tax BoardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008
- Farmer Bros. Co. v. Franchise Tax Bd.California Court of Appeal · 2003
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.