Legal Opinion
Jim Beam Brands Co. v. Franchise Tax Board
California Court of Appeal
Decided October 17, 2005No. A107209PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
SEPULVEDA, Acting P. J.
Jim Beam Brands Co. (Jim Beam) appeals from a grant of summary judgment in favor of the Franchise Tax Board (FTB) in a tax refund action. Jim Beam brought the action below after the State Board of Equalization (SEE) ruled that the gain from Jim Beam’s sale of the stock of a wholly-owned subsidiary constituted “ ‘[bjusiness income’ ” within the meaning of Revenue and Taxation Code section 25120, subdivision (a). The trial court sustained the SBE’s decision and held that income from the sale was apportionable to California. In this court, Jim Beam argues that the…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Yamaha Corp. of America v. State Board of EqualizationCalifornia Supreme Court · 1998
- Lenox, Inc. v. TolsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2001
- Regents of University of California v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1999
- Hoechst Celanese Corp. v. Franchise Tax BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 2001
- Western Natural Gas Co. v. McDonaldSupreme Court of Kansas · 1968
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Harris Corp. v. Arizona Department of RevenueCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2013
- McKesson Water Products Co. v. Director, Division of TaxationNew Jersey Tax Court · 2007
- Blue Cross v. State Department of Health Care ServicesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
- 2009 Metropoulos Family Trust v. California Franchise Tax BoardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2022
- First Data Corp. v. Arizona Department of RevenueCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2013
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.