Dicon Fiberoptics, Inc. v. Franchise Tax Board
California Supreme Court
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
- Hoechst Celanese Corp. v. Franchise Tax BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 2001
- Miller v. McColganCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
- Schatz v. Allen Matkins Leck Gamble & Mallory LLPCalifornia Supreme Court · 2009
- Citicorp North America, Inc. v. Franchise Tax BoardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2000
- The Pacific Co., Ltd. v. JohnsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1931
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Ward v. United Airlines, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2020
- 926 N. Ardmore Ave., LLC v. Cnty. of L. A.California Supreme Court · 2017
- Lucent Technologies, Inc. v. Board of EqualizationCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2015
- 2009 Metropoulos Family Trust v. California Franchise Tax BoardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2022
- 926 North Ardmore v. County of L.A.California Supreme Court · 2017
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.