Legal Opinion
Colgate-Palmolive Co. v. Franchise Tax Board
California Court of Appeal
Decided November 20, 1992No. C007044PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
DAVIS, J.
The principal issue in this appeal is whether California’s worldwide unitary .method of taxation (based on Rev. & Tax. Code, §§25101, 25120-25139), as applied to domestic-parent unitary corporate groups, is unconstitutional under the foreign commerce clause of the United States Constitution. (U.S. Const., art. I, § 8, cl. 3.) Using the dormant foreign commerce clause analytical framework set forth in Japan Line, Ltd. v. County of Los Angeles (1979) 441 U.S. 434 [60 L.Ed.2d 336, 99 S.Ct. 1813] and Container Corp. v. Franchise Tax Bd. (1983) 463 U.S. 159 [77 L.Ed.2d 545, 103…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1962
- Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. BradySupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Container Corp. of America v. Franchise Tax BoardSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Merrion v. Jicarilla Apache TribeSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Barclays Bank PLC v. Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal.Supreme Court of the United States · 1994
- Microsoft Corp. v. Franchise Tax BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 2006
- Citicorp North America, Inc. v. Franchise Tax BoardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2000
- A. M. Castle & Co. v. Franchise Tax BoardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1995
- London v. DRI-HONING CORP.California Court of Appeal · 2004
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.