Legal Opinion · Dissent

Canteen Corp. v. Commonwealth

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided March 6, 2003Published

1Dissent

DISSENTING OPINION by

Judge McGINLEY.

I respectfully dissent to the majority’s conclusion that Canteen’s “gain from the fictional liquidation of assets deemed to occur under a federal tax election pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 338(h)(10) is taxable by the Commonwealth” as non-business income.

The majority agrees with Canteen’s argument that “the gain from the fictional liquidation of assets should be treated the same as that from an actual liquidation, which is considered non-business income pursuant to our Supreme Court’s holding in Laurel Pipe Line Comp. v. Board of Finance and Revenue, 537 Pa. 205,…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Laurel Pipe Line Co. v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1994
  2. Norris v. CommonwealthCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1993
  3. Suburban/Bustleton Pharmacy, Inc. v. Commonwealth, Department of AgingCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1990
  4. Canteen Corp. v. CommonwealthCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2002

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

Powered by the Exa API