Legal Opinion

Fujitsu IT Holdings, Inc. v. Franchise Tax Board

California Court of Appeal

Decided October 20, 2004No. A101101, A101203, A102558PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

RUVOLO, J.

I

INTRODUCTION

Amdahl Corporation (Amdahl), 1 a multinational business, sought a refund of $3,390,388 in taxes arising from assessments by the Franchise Tax Board (FTB) for the tax years 1988, 1989, 1991 and 1992. In the underlying tax refund action, Amdahl alleged that the FTB improperly assessed taxes against it for these years based on its erroneous treatment of dividends distributed by Amdahl’s first-tier and second-tier subsidiaries. Specifically, Amdahl claimed that the FTB: 1) incorrectly treated tax credit payments from Amdahl’s United Kingdom subsidiaries as…

2Cases cited40 opinions

  1. Parsons v. Bristol Development Co.California Supreme Court · 1965
  2. Yamaha Corp. of America v. State Board of EqualizationCalifornia Supreme Court · 1998
  3. Container Corp. of America v. Franchise Tax BoardSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  4. Wardair Canada Inc. v. Florida Department of RevenueSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  5. Japan Line, Ltd. v. County of Los AngelesSupreme Court of the United States · 1979

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Apple, Inc. v. Franchise Tax BoardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011
  2. Agnew v. State Board of EqualizationCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2005
  3. General Electric Co. v. Commissioner, New Hampshire Department of Revenue AdministrationSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 2006
  4. First American Commercial Real Estate Services Inc. v. County of San DiegoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011
  5. Colgate-Palmolive Co. v. Florida Department of RevenueDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2008

2 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