Unisys Corp. v. Commonwealth
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
1DissentPellegrini, Judge
While I agree with that portion of the majority’s decision concluding that the apportionment formula used by the Department of Finance and Revenue (Department) to calculate Unisys Corporations’ (Unisys) franchise taxes complied with due process, I dissent from that portion of the majority’s opinion that the disparity between the calculations of Unisys’ allocated and actual shares was sufficient reason to require the Department to afford Unisys equitable relief under Section 401(3)2.(a)(18) of the Tax Reform Code of 19711 (referred to herein as Subsection 18). I disagree because I believe that…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Mobil Oil Corp. v. Commissioner of Taxes of Vt.Supreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Hans Rees' Sons, Inc. v. North Carolina Ex Rel. MaxwellSupreme Court of the United States · 1931
- Norfolk & Western Railway Co. v. Missouri State Tax CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. v. State Tax AssessorSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1996
- Triumph Hosiery Mills, Inc. v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1976
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.