Legal Opinion

First City Bank v. Franchise Tax Board

California Court of Appeal

Decided June 7, 1977No. Civ. 38627PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

LAZARUS, J. *

Plaintiff First City Bank (hereinafter First City) appeals from a summary judgment denying its claim for a $4,999 tax refund paid to respondent Franchise Tax Board (hereinafter Board). Both sides moved for summary judgment on the basis of stipulated facts. First City’s motion was denied. At issue was the question of whether a 2.5 percent tax on items of so-called “preference income” (see p. 448, post) in excess of $30,000 imposed on banking corporations under the provisions of Revenue and Taxation Code section 23400 et seq. is constitutionally valid.

The basic tax structure…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. M'culloch v. State of MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1819
  2. Lundberg v. County of AlamedaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1956
  3. Delaney v. LoweryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944
  4. County of Placer v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.California Supreme Court · 1958
  5. Diamond National Corp. v. State Board of EqualizationSupreme Court of the United States · 1976

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. California Building Industry Ass'n. v. Governing Board of Newhall School DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1988
  2. Hibernia Bank v. State Board of EqualizationCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1985

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API