Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Philadelphia Eagles Football Club, Inc. v. City of Philadelphia

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided April 25, 2003No. 14 & 15 EAP 2001Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION

Justice CASTILLE.

I agree with the lead opinion that the Commonwealth Court correctly found that the Philadelphia Eagles Football Club’s media receipts resulting from the television broadcast of football games were subject to the City of Philadelphia’s Business Privilege Tax (BPT) because the media receipts constitute copyright royalties for the licensing of a property right. I respectfully disagree, however, with the lead opinion’s conclusion that the City’s failure to apportion those media receipts based upon the percentage of games the Football Club plays in…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. BradySupreme Court of the United States · 1977
  2. Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Jefferson Lines, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1995
  3. Lucker Manufacturing, a Unit of Amclyde Engineered Products, Inc. v. The Home Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1994
  4. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Barron Industries, Inc.District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1992
  5. In Re Estate of MacFarlaneSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1983

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API