California § 25137. 25137. (Added by Stats. 1966, Ch. 2.)

California Statutes

§ 25137. — 25137. (Added by Stats. 1966, Ch. 2.)

California § 25137.

JurisdictionCalifornia

Code RTCRevenue and Taxation Code - RTC

Div. 2.DIVISION 2. OTHER TAXES

Part 11.PART 11. CORPORATION TAX LAW

Ch. 17.CHAPTER 17. Allocation of Income

Art. 2.ARTICLE 2. Uniform Division of Income for Tax Purposes Act

This text of California § 25137. (25137. (Added by Stats. 1966, Ch. 2.)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cal. Revenue and Taxation Code - RTC Code § 25137. (2026).

Text

If the allocation and apportionment provisions of this act do not fairly represent the extent of the taxpayer’s business activity in this state, the taxpayer may petition for or the Franchise Tax Board may require, in respect to all or any part of the taxpayer’s business activity, if reasonable:

(a)Separate accounting;

(b)The exclusion of any one or more of the factors;

(c)The inclusion of one or more additional factors which will fairly represent the taxpayer’s business activity in this state; or

(d)The employment of any other method to effectuate an equitable allocation and apportionment of the taxpayer’s income.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

If the allocation and apportionment provisions of this act do not fairly represent the extent of the taxpayer’s business activity in this state, the taxpayer may petition for or the Franchise Tax Board may require, in respect to all or any part of the taxpayer’s business activity, if reasonable:
(a)
Separate accounting;
(b)
The exclusion of any one or more of the factors;
(c)
The inclusion of one or more additional factors which will fairly represent the taxpayer’s business
activity in this state; or
(d)
The employment of any other method to effectuate an equitable allocation and apportionment of the taxpayer’s income.

Capitol Industries-Emi, Inc. v. William M. Bennett, Kenneth Cory, Richard Silberman, Individually and Asmembers Of, and Martin Huff, Individually, and as Executive Officer Of, Thefranchise Tax Board, State of California, Emi Limited v. William M. Bennett, Kenneth Cory, Richard Silberman, Individually and Asmembers Of, and Martin Huff, Individually and as Executive Officer Of, Thefranchise Tax Board, State of California

681 F.2d 1107 (Ninth Circuit, 1982)

Legislative History

Added by Stats. 1966, Ch. 2.

View on official source ↗

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

California § 25137., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/statute/ca/RTC/25137..

Text

Related

Legislative History

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack