Legal Opinion

Dicon Fiberoptics, Inc. v. Franchise Tax Board

California Supreme Court

Decided April 26, 2012No. S173860PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

LIU, J.

The Enterprise Zone Act (Gov. Code, § 7070 et seq.) was enacted “to stimulate business and industrial growth” in “areas within the state that are economically depressed due to a lack of investment in the private sector.” (Id., § 7071, subd. (a).) Among the incentives available to businesses that operate within an enterprise zone is a hiring tax credit in the amount of a percentage of the wages paid to a “qualified employee.” (Rev. & Tax. Code, § 23622.7, subd. (a).) A “qualified employee” is an employee who falls into one of several categories, such as being eligible for the…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Hoechst Celanese Corp. v. Franchise Tax BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 2001
  2. Miller v. McColganCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
  3. Schatz v. Allen Matkins Leck Gamble & Mallory LLPCalifornia Supreme Court · 2009
  4. Citicorp North America, Inc. v. Franchise Tax BoardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2000
  5. The Pacific Co., Ltd. v. JohnsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1931

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Ward v. United Airlines, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2020
  2. 926 N. Ardmore Ave., LLC v. Cnty. of L. A.California Supreme Court · 2017
  3. Lucent Technologies, Inc. v. Board of EqualizationCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2015
  4. 2009 Metropoulos Family Trust v. California Franchise Tax BoardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2022
  5. 926 North Ardmore v. County of L.A.California Supreme Court · 2017

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

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

Powered by the Exa API