Hoechst Celanese Corp. v. Franchise Tax Board
California Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
*513Opinion
BROWN, J.
States have long struggled to devise an equitable and constitutional method for taxing corporations that do business in multiple states and countries. Like many other states, California has adopted the Uniform Division of Income for Tax Purposes Act (7A pt. 1 West’s U. Laws Ann. (1999) U. Div. of Income for Tax Purposes Act, § 1 et seq., p. 361) (UDITPA) in an attempt to resolve this dilemma (see Rev. & Tax. Code, §§ 25120-25141).1 Under this scheme of taxation, all taxpayer income is divided into business or nonbusiness income. Business income is apportion-able to each state…
2Cases cited44 opinions
- Skidmore v. Swift & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1944
- Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Hughes Aircraft Co. v. JacobsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1999
- Lungren v. DeukmejianCalifornia Supreme Court · 1988
- Yamaha Corp. of America v. State Board of EqualizationCalifornia Supreme Court · 1998
39 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by81 opinions
- Kaufman & Broad Communities, Inc. v. Performance Plastering, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2005
- Pineda v. Bank of America, N.A.California Supreme Court · 2010
- Big Creek Lumber Co. v. County of Santa CruzCalifornia Supreme Court · 2006
- Microsoft Corp. v. Franchise Tax BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 2006
- People v. SinohuiCalifornia Supreme Court · 2002
76 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.