Legal Opinion
Bullock v. House of Lloyd, Inc.
Court of Appeals of Texas
Decided September 19, 1990No. 3-89-129-CVPublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
CARROLL, Justice.
The Comptroller of Public Accounts decided appellee had conducted business in Texas within the meaning of the Texas Franchise Tax Act and was, consequently, subject to the corporate franchise tax. Tex. Tax Code Ann. §§ 171.001 et seq. (1982 & Supp.1990). Appellee, a foreign corporation, relied upon a previous agency construction to the contrary and sued appellants 1 for a refund of franchise taxes. After the cause was submitted upon stipulated facts, the district court determined that appellee was not subject to the franchise tax and was entitled to a refund. We will affirm…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Western Live Stock v. Bureau of RevenueSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- McGoldrick v. Berwind-White Coal Mining Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1940
- Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio Railway Co. v. TexasSupreme Court of the United States · 1908
- Stanford v. ButlerTexas Supreme Court · 1944
- Puget Sound Stevedoring Co. v. State Tax CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1937
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Bullock v. Foley Bros. Dry Goods Corp.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1991
- Bullock v. Marathon Oil Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1990
- Lawrence Industries, Inc. v. SharpCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1995
- Lawrence Industries, Inc. v. John Sharp, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas Martha Whitehead, Successor in Office to Kay Bailey Hutchison, Treasurer of the State of Texas And Dan Morales, Attorney General of the State of Texas, Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin)1994
- Szostek v. Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts (In Re Szostek)United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Texas · 2010