Legal Opinion
General Motors Corp. v. Franchise Tax Board
California Supreme Court
Decided August 17, 2006No. S127086PublishedCited by 17 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
WERDEGAR, J.
Like many large companies, plaintiff General Motors Corporation has an active treasury department. Its treasury department supplements the company’s other income-generating activities by investing the company’s idle cash in short-term marketable securities. These investments present special analytical problems under the Uniform Division of Income for Tax Purposes Act (UDITPA), 1 which California has adopted (Rev. & Tax. Code, § 25120 et seq.) 2 and which it uses to determine what portion of a multistate company’s corporate income it may tax. A key part of the UDITPA, the…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Frank Lyon Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Container Corp. of America v. Franchise Tax BoardSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Tidewater Marine Western, Inc. v. BradshawCalifornia Supreme Court · 1996
- Granite Partners, LP v. Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1998
- Hoechst Celanese Corp. v. Franchise Tax BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 2001
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- STATE BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL v. DuncanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008
- James Goggin v. State Tax AssessorSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 2018
- Limited Stores, Inc. v. Franchise Tax BoardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
- Dicon Fiberoptics, Inc. v. Franchise Tax BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 2012
- Bunzl Distribution USA, Inc. v. Franchise Tax Bd., California Court of Appeal, 5th District2018
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.