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

California Statutes

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

California·Code RTC Revenue 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

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.

California § 25137. (25137. (Added by Stats. 1966, Ch. 2.)) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

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 ↗

Related

Legislative History