Legal Opinion
Nabisco, Inc. v. Rylander
Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin)
Decided May 6, 1999No. 03-98-00399-CVPublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
BEA ANN SMITH, Justice.
Appellants Nabisco, Inc., and Planters/Lifesavers Company (“Planters”) 1 filed suit after the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts (the “Comptroller”) refused to refund franchise taxes for which appellants claimed a deduction under section 171.104(1) of the franchise tax statute. See Tex. Tax Code Ann. § 171.104(1) (West 1992). Appellants sought a refund for their denied deduction as well as a declaratory judgment that the Comptroller’s rule interpreting section 171.104(1) is contrary to the franchise tax statute. Following a bench trial, the trial court held that the…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. BradySupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Japan Line, Ltd. v. County of Los AngelesSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Stanford v. ButlerTexas Supreme Court · 1944
- Sharp v. House of Lloyd, Inc.Texas Supreme Court · 1991
- Bullock v. National Bancshares Corp.Texas Supreme Court · 1979
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. Public Utility Commission of Texas, Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin)2002
- GTE Southwest, Inc. v. Public Utility Commission, Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin)2003
- Berry Contracting, L.P. v. Texas Workforce Commission, Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin)2004
- Berry Contracting, L.P. v. Texas Workforce Commission, Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin)2004
- DaimlerChrysler Corporation v. James E. Williams and Vicki Williams And Texas Motor Vehicle Board of the Texas Department of Transportation, Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin)2000
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.