container
franchise
tax
argued
january
decided
june
california
imposes
corporate
franchise
tax
geared
income
employs
unitary
business
principle
formula
apportionment
applying
tax
corporations
business
inside
outside
state
formula
used
commonly
called
formula
based
equal
parts
proportion
unitary
business
total
payroll
property
sales
located
state
appellant
packaging
manufacturer
delaware
corporation
headquartered
illinois
business
california
elsewhere
also
number
overseas
subsidiaries
incorporated
countries
operate
calculating
tax
years
question
case
share
net
income
apportionable
california
formula
appellant
omitted
subsidiaries
payroll
property
sales
appellee
franchise
tax
board
issued
notices
additional
assessments
gravamen
appellant
treated
overseas
subsidiaries
part
unitary
business
rather
passive
investment
paying
additional
assessments
protest
appellant
brought
action
refund
california
superior
upheld
additional
assessments
california
appeal
affirmed
held
california
application
unitary
business
principle
appellant
foreign
subsidiaries
proper
pp
taxpayer
burden
showing
clear
convincing
evidence
state
tax
results
extraterritorial
values
taxed
reasonably
possible
defer
judgment
state
courts
deciding
whether
particular
set
activities
constitutes
unitary
business
task
determine
whether
state
applied
correct
standards
case
whether
judgment
within
realm
permissible
judgment
pp
merit
appellant
argument
appeal
important
part
analyzed
case
incorrect
legal
standard
rather
factors
relied
upon
holding
appellant
foreign
subsidiaries
constituted
unitary
business
factors
included
appellant
assistance
subsidiaries
obtaining
equipment
filling
personnel
needs
met
locally
substantial
role
played
appellant
loaning
funds
subsidiaries
guaranteeing
loans
provided
others
considerable
interplay
appellant
subsidiaries
area
corporate
expansion
substantial
technical
assistance
provided
appellant
subsidiaries
supervisory
role
played
appellant
officers
providing
general
guidance
subsidiaries
taken
combination
clearly
demonstrate
reached
conclusion
within
realm
permissible
judgment
pp
california
use
formula
apportion
income
unitary
business
consisting
appellant
foreign
subsidiaries
fair
appellant
burden
proving
income
apportioned
california
appropriate
proportions
business
transacted
state
burden
met
offering
various
statistics
appeared
demonstrate
wage
rates
generally
lower
foreign
countries
appellant
subsidiaries
operate
also
lower
wage
rates
offset
lower
levels
productivity
may
well
addition
foreign
payroll
going
production
given
corrugated
container
foreign
subsidiary
california
payroll
well
california
factors
contributing
production
mere
fact
possibility
reflected
appellant
accounting
disturb
underlying
premises
formula
apportionment
method
pp
california
obligation
foreign
commerce
clause
employ
analysis
used
federal
government
foreign
nations
evaluating
tax
consequences
intercorporate
relationships
japan
line
county
los
angeles
distinguished
pp
double
taxation
occasioned
california
scheme
impermissible
due
part
difference
tax
income
tax
tangible
property
california
trouble
avoiding
double
taxation
corporations
subject
franchise
tax
even
adopted
approach
moreover
california
tax
result
inevitable
double
taxation
perverse
simply
sake
avoiding
double
taxation
require
california
give
one
allocation
method
sometimes
results
double
taxation
favor
another
allocation
method
sometimes
result
pp
california
tax
violate
one
voice
standard
established
japan
line
supra
state
tax
variance
federal
policy
struck
either
implicates
foreign
policy
issues
must
left
federal
government
violates
clear
federal
directive
three
factors
weigh
strongly
conclusion
tax
might
lead
significant
foreign
retaliation
tax
create
automatic
asymmetry
international
taxation
imposed
domestic
corporation
foreign
entity
even
foreign
nations
legitimate
interest
reducing
tax
burden
domestic
corporations
appellant
amenable
taxed
california
one
way
another
tax
pays
function
california
tax
rate
allocation
method
moreover
california
tax
federal
law
fatally
inconsistent
federal
policy
claim
federal
tax
statutes
provide
necessary
force
requirement
tax
treaties
federal
government
adopt
form
analysis
taxing
domestic
income
multinational
enterprises
generally
waived
taxes
imposed
contracting
nations
domestic
corporations
tax
treaties
cover
taxing
activities
congress
never
enacted
legislation
designed
regulate
state
taxation
income
pp
brennan
delivered
opinion
white
marshall
blackmun
rehnquist
joined
powell
filed
dissenting
opinion
burger
joined
post
stevens
took
part
consideration
decision
case
franklin
latcham
argued
cause
appellant
briefs
prentiss
willson
neal
gobar
deputy
attorney
general
california
argued
cause
appellee
brief
george
deukmejian
attorney
general
briefs
amici
curiae
urging
reversal
filed
marlow
cook
lee
spence
robert
ash
allied
lyons
et
al
elaine
bialczak
george
beatty
william
goldman
james
peters
paul
frankel
jean
walker
committee
state
taxation
council
state
chambers
commerce
valentine
brookes
lawrence
brookes
emi
limited
et
al
william
allen
john
jones
mark
levy
financial
executives
institute
neil
papiano
dennis
page
firestone
tire
rubber
jeffrey
balkin
pro
se
jeffrey
balkin
et
al
briefs
amici
curiae
urging
affirmance
filed
david
leroy
attorney
general
idaho
theodore
spangler
deputy
attorney
general
david
wilkinson
attorney
general
utah
state
idaho
et
al
tyrone
fahner
attorney
general
fred
montgomery
special
assistant
attorney
general
lloyd
foster
state
illinois
michael
rieley
special
assistant
attorney
general
state
montana
jeff
bingaman
attorney
general
lisa
gillard
gmuca
assistant
attorney
general
state
new
mexico
robert
abrams
attorney
general
francis
dow
assistant
attorney
general
peter
schiff
state
new
york
robert
wefald
attorney
general
kenneth
jakes
assistant
attorney
general
state
north
dakota
dave
frohnmayer
attorney
general
stanton
long
deputy
attorney
general
william
gary
solicitor
general
theodore
de
looze
assistant
attorney
general
state
oregon
william
dexter
wilson
condon
attorney
general
alaska
james
eads
macfarlane
attorney
general
colorado
carl
ajello
attorney
general
connecticut
richard
gebelein
attorney
general
delaware
david
leroy
attorney
general
idaho
theodore
spangler
deputy
attorney
general
linley
pearson
attorney
general
indiana
robert
stephan
attorney
general
kansas
francis
bellotti
attorney
general
massachusetts
frank
kelley
attorney
general
michigan
warren
spannaus
attorney
general
minnesota
john
ashcroft
attorney
general
missouri
paul
douglas
attorney
general
nebraska
gregory
smith
attorney
general
new
hampshire
jeff
bingaman
attorney
general
new
mexico
rufus
edmisten
attorney
general
north
carolina
banks
deputy
attorney
general
robert
wefald
attorney
general
north
dakota
albert
hausauer
assistant
attorney
general
dave
frohnmayer
attorney
general
oregon
david
wilkinson
attorney
general
utah
multistate
tax
commission
et
al
richard
geltman
tany
hong
attorney
general
hawaii
national
governors
association
et
al
charles
brannan
national
farmers
union
citizens
tax
justice
et
al
frank
keesling
pro
se
briefs
amici
curiae
filed
lloyd
cutler
william
lake
government
kingdom
netherlands
john
easton
attorney
general
paul
hanlon
state
vermont
francis
morrissey
peter
powles
canadian
imperial
bank
commerce
et
al
harnack
richard
hanson
caterpillar
tractor
joanne
garvey
roy
crawford
committee
unitary
tax
john
nolan
confederation
british
industry
norman
barker
gulf
oil
anthon
cannon
international
bankers
association
california
et
al
kenneth
heady
phillips
petroleum
john
hupper
paul
dodyk
shell
petroleum
norman
barker
dean
dunlavey
sony
et
al
joseph
guttentag
carolyn
agger
daniel
lewis
union
industries
european
community
justice
brennan
delivered
opinion
another
appeal
claiming
application
state
taxing
scheme
violates
due
process
commerce
clauses
federal
constitution
california
imposes
corporate
franchise
tax
geared
income
common
large
number
employs
unitary
business
principle
formula
apportionment
applying
tax
corporations
business
inside
outside
state
appellant
delaware
corporation
headquartered
illinois
business
california
elsewhere
also
number
overseas
subsidiaries
incorporated
countries
operate
appellee
california
authority
charged
administering
state
franchise
tax
appeal
presents
three
questions
review
improper
appellee
state
courts
find
appellant
overseas
subsidiaries
constituted
unitary
business
purposes
state
tax
even
unitary
business
finding
proper
certain
salient
differences
among
national
economies
render
standard
apportionment
formula
used
california
inaccurate
applied
multinational
enterprise
consisting
appellant
subsidiaries
violate
constitutional
requirement
fair
apportionment
event
california
obligation
foreign
commerce
clause
art
cl
employ
analysis
used
federal
government
foreign
nations
evaluating
tax
consequences
intercorporate
relationships
various
aspects
state
tax
systems
based
unitary
business
principle
formula
apportionment
provoked
repeated
constitutional
litigation
see
asarco
idaho
state
tax
woolworth
taxation
revenue
exxon
wisconsin
dept
revenue
mobil
oil
commissioner
taxes
moorman
mfg
bair
general
motors
washington
butler
mccolgan
bass
ratcliff
gretton
state
tax
underwood
typewriter
chamberlain
due
process
commerce
clauses
constitution
state
may
imposing
tax
tax
value
earned
outside
borders
asarco
supra
case
integrated
business
enterprise
operating
one
state
however
arriving
precise
territorial
allocations
value
often
elusive
goal
theory
practice
see
mobil
oil
commissioner
taxes
supra
butler
mccolgan
supra
underwood
typewriter
chamberlain
supra
reason
others
long
held
constitution
imposes
single
formula
wisconsin
penney
taxpayer
distinct
burden
showing
clear
cogent
evidence
state
tax
results
extraterritorial
values
taxed
exxon
supra
quoting
butler
mccolgan
supra
turn
quoting
norfolk
western
north
carolina
ex
rel
maxwell
one
way
deriving
locally
taxable
income
basis
formal
geographical
transactional
accounting
problem
method
formal
accounting
subject
manipulation
imprecision
often
ignores
captures
inadequately
many
subtle
largely
unquantifiable
transfers
value
take
place
among
components
single
enterprise
see
generally
mobil
oil
supra
sources
cited
unitary
formula
apportionment
method
different
approach
problem
taxing
businesses
operating
one
jurisdiction
rejects
geographical
transactional
accounting
instead
calculates
local
tax
base
first
defining
scope
unitary
business
taxed
enterprise
activities
taxing
jurisdiction
form
one
part
apportioning
total
income
unitary
business
taxing
jurisdiction
rest
world
basis
formula
taking
account
objective
measures
corporation
activities
within
without
jurisdiction
long
ago
upheld
constitutionality
unitary
apportionment
method
although
subject
certain
constraints
see
hans
rees
sons
north
carolina
ex
rel
maxwell
bass
ratcliff
gretton
state
tax
supra
underwood
typewriter
chamberlain
supra
method
gained
wide
acceptance
one
forms
basis
uniform
division
income
tax
purposes
act
uniform
act
last
count
substantially
adopted
including
california
two
aspects
unitary
apportionment
method
traditionally
attracted
judicial
attention
one
might
easily
guess
notions
unitary
business
formula
apportionment
respectively
due
process
commerce
clauses
constitution
allow
state
tax
income
arising
interstate
activities
even
proportional
basis
unless
minimal
connection
nexus
interstate
activities
taxing
state
rational
relationship
income
attributed
state
intrastate
values
enterprise
exxon
wisconsin
dept
revenue
supra
quoting
mobil
oil
commissioner
taxes
supra
least
set
principles
imposes
obvious
largely
limitation
state
tax
purported
unitary
business
unless
least
part
conducted
state
see
exxon
supra
wisconsin
penney
supra
also
requires
bond
ownership
control
uniting
purported
unitary
business
see
asarco
supra
addition
principles
quoted
require
activities
purported
unitary
business
related
concrete
way
activities
functional
meaning
requirement
sharing
exchange
value
capable
precise
identification
measurement
beyond
mere
flow
funds
arising
passive
investment
distinct
business
operation
renders
formula
apportionment
reasonable
method
taxation
see
generally
asarco
supra
mobil
oil
supra
underwood
typewriter
chamberlain
supra
held
state
tax
apportioned
basis
combined
income
vertically
integrated
business
whose
various
components
manufacturing
sales
etc
operated
different
bass
ratcliff
gretton
supra
applied
principle
vertically
integrated
business
operating
across
national
boundaries
butler
mccolgan
supra
recognized
unitary
business
principle
apply
vertically
integrated
enterprises
also
series
similar
enterprises
operating
separately
various
jurisdictions
linked
common
managerial
operational
resources
produced
economies
scale
transfers
value
recently
refined
unitary
business
concept
exxon
wisconsin
dept
revenue
mobil
oil
commissioner
taxes
upheld
unitary
business
findings
asarco
idaho
state
tax
woolworth
taxation
revenue
found
findings
improper
california
statute
issue
case
uniform
act
relevant
provisions
derived
track
large
part
principles
discussed
particular
statute
distinguishes
business
income
multijurisdictional
enterprise
apportioned
formula
cal
rev
tax
code
ann
west
nonbusiness
income
although
statute
explicitly
require
income
distinct
business
enterprises
apportioned
separately
requirement
antedated
adoption
uniform
act
abandoned
final
point
needs
made
unitary
business
concept
speak
unitary
variations
theme
number
logically
consistent
underlying
principles
motivating
approach
example
state
might
decide
respect
formal
corporate
lines
treat
ownership
corporate
subsidiary
per
se
passive
investment
mobil
oil
however
made
clear
general
matter
per
se
rule
constitutionally
required
superficially
intercorporate
division
might
appear
attractive
basis
limiting
apportionability
form
business
organization
may
nothing
underlying
unity
diversity
business
enterprise
case
corporation
owning
controlling
either
directly
indirectly
another
corporation
corporations
case
corporation
owned
controlled
either
directly
indirectly
another
corporation
franchise
tax
board
may
require
consolidated
report
showing
combined
net
income
facts
deems
necessary
cal
rev
tax
code
ann
west
determined
certain
set
activities
constitute
unitary
business
state
must
apply
formula
apportioning
income
business
within
without
state
apportionment
formula
must
due
process
commerce
clauses
fair
see
exxon
supra
moorman
mfg
hans
rees
sons
first
obvious
component
fairness
apportionment
formula
might
called
internal
consistency
formula
must
applied
every
jurisdiction
result
unitary
business
income
taxed
second
difficult
requirement
might
called
external
consistency
factor
factors
used
apportionment
formula
must
actually
reflect
reasonable
sense
income
generated
constitution
invalidat
apportionment
formula
whenever
may
result
taxation
income
source
taxing
state
moorman
mfg
supra
emphasis
added
see
underwood
typewriter
nevertheless
strike
application
apportionment
formula
taxpayer
prove
clear
cogent
evidence
income
attributed
state
fact
appropriate
proportions
business
transacted
state
hans
rees
sons
led
grossly
distorted
result
norfolk
western
state
tax
moorman
mfg
supra
california
adopted
uniform
act
use
formula
commonly
called
formula
based
equal
parts
proportion
unitary
business
total
payroll
property
sales
located
taxing
state
see
cal
tax
rev
code
ann
west
approved
formula
butler
mccolgan
indeed
formula
met
approval
become
reasons
discuss
detail
infra
something
benchmark
apportionment
formulas
judged
see
moorman
mfg
supra
blackmun
dissenting
cf
general
motors
district
columbia
besides
fair
apportionment
formula
must
commerce
clause
also
result
discrimination
interstate
foreign
commerce
see
mobil
oil
supra
cf
japan
line
county
los
angeles
property
tax
aside
forbidding
obvious
types
discrimination
interstate
foreign
commerce
principle
might
construed
require
state
apportionment
formula
differ
substantially
methods
allocation
used
jurisdictions
taxpayer
subject
taxation
produce
double
taxation
income
resultant
tax
burden
higher
taxpayer
incur
business
limited
one
jurisdiction
least
interstate
commerce
context
however
antidiscrimination
principle
practice
required
much
addition
requirement
fair
apportionment
moorman
mfg
bair
supra
particular
explained
eliminating
overlapping
taxation
require
establish
single
constitutionally
mandated
method
taxation
also
rules
regarding
application
method
particular
cases
task
thought
essentially
legislative
declined
undertake
held
fairly
apportioned
tax
found
invalid
simply
differed
prevailing
approach
adopted
discuss
infra
however
searching
inquiry
necessary
confronted
possibility
international
double
taxation
ii
appellant
business
manufacturing
paperboard
packaging
operation
vertically
integrated
includes
production
paperboard
raw
timber
wastepaper
well
composition
finished
products
ordered
customers
operation
also
largely
domestic
years
issue
case
appellant
controlled
foreign
subsidiaries
located
four
latin
american
four
european
countries
percentage
ownership
subsidiaries
either
directly
subsidiaries
ranged
instances
half
appellant
interest
subsidiary
remainder
owned
local
nationals
one
subsidiaries
holding
company
payroll
sales
property
book
income
another
inactive
rest
engaged
respective
local
markets
essentially
business
appellant
appellant
subsidiaries
like
appellant
fully
integrated
although
bought
paperboard
intermediate
products
elsewhere
sales
materials
appellant
subsidiaries
accounted
subsidiaries
total
purchases
subsidiaries
also
relatively
autonomous
respect
matters
personnel
management
example
transfers
personnel
appellant
subsidiaries
rare
occurred
subsidiary
fill
position
locally
formal
training
program
subsidiaries
employees
although
groups
foreign
employees
occasionally
visited
week
periods
familiarize
appellant
methods
operation
appellant
charged
one
senior
vice
president
four
officers
task
overseeing
operations
subsidiaries
officers
established
general
standards
professionalism
profitability
ethical
practices
dealt
major
problems
decisions
management
subsidiaries
however
left
hands
local
executives
always
citizens
host
country
although
local
decisions
regarding
capital
expenditures
subject
review
appellant
problems
generally
worked
consensus
rather
outright
domination
appellant
also
number
directors
officers
boards
directors
subsidiaries
generally
play
active
role
management
decisions
nevertheless
certain
respects
relationship
appellant
subsidiaries
decidedly
close
example
approximately
half
subsidiaries
debt
either
held
directly
guaranteed
appellant
appellant
also
provided
advice
consultation
regarding
manufacturing
techniques
engineering
design
architecture
insurance
cost
accounting
number
subsidiaries
either
entering
technical
service
agreements
informal
arrangement
finally
appellant
occasionally
assisted
subsidiaries
procurement
equipment
either
selling
used
equipment
employing
purchasing
department
act
agent
subsidiaries
tax
years
issue
case
appellant
filed
california
franchise
tax
returns
conducting
audit
appellant
returns
years
question
appellee
issued
notices
additional
assessments
years
respective
approaches
results
reflected
appellant
initial
returns
appellee
notices
additional
assessments
capture
legal
differences
issue
case
calculating
total
unapportioned
taxable
income
unitary
business
appellant
included
corporate
net
earnings
derived
federal
tax
form
subject
certain
adjustments
relevant
include
income
subsidiaries
also
deducted
authorized
state
law
see
supra
dividend
income
nonbusiness
interest
income
gains
sales
assets
related
unitary
business
calculating
share
net
income
apportionable
california
formula
appellant
omitted
subsidiaries
payroll
property
sales
results
calculations
summarized
margin
gravamen
notices
issued
appellee
appellant
treated
overseas
subsidiaries
part
unitary
business
rather
passive
investments
including
overseas
subsidiaries
appellant
unitary
business
two
primary
effects
increased
income
subject
apportionment
amount
equal
total
income
subsidiaries
less
intersubsidiary
dividends
see
supra
decreased
percentage
income
apportionable
california
net
effect
however
increase
appellant
tax
liability
three
years
appellant
paid
additional
amounts
protest
sued
california
superior
refund
raising
issues
case
tried
stipulated
facts
superior
upheld
appellee
assessments
appeal
california
appeal
affirmed
cal
app
cal
rptr
california
refused
exercise
discretionary
review
noted
probable
jurisdiction
iii
address
unitary
business
issue
first
previously
noted
taxpayer
always
distinct
burden
showing
clear
cogent
evidence
state
tax
results
extraterritorial
values
taxed
supra
one
necessary
corollary
principle
reasonably
possible
defer
judgment
state
courts
deciding
whether
particular
set
activities
constitutes
unitary
business
said
closely
related
context
norton
department
revenue
general
rule
applicable
taxpayer
claiming
immunity
tax
burden
establishing
exemption
burden
never
met
merely
showing
fair
difference
opinion
original
matter
might
decided
differently
course
constitutional
cases
power
examine
whole
record
arrive
independent
judgment
whether
constitutional
rights
invaded
mean
first
instance
findings
fact
supported
substantial
evidence
footnotes
omitted
emphasis
added
case
singularly
unconvinced
appellant
argument
state
appeal
important
part
analyzed
case
different
legal
standard
woolworth
one
articulated
appellant
argues
state
like
state
woolworth
improperly
relied
appellant
mere
potential
control
operations
subsidiaries
dispositive
factor
reaching
unitary
business
finding
fact
although
state
mentioned
major
policy
decisions
subsidiaries
subject
review
appellant
cal
app
cal
relied
principally
discussing
management
relationship
appellant
subsidiaries
concrete
observation
igh
officials
appellant
gave
directions
subsidiaries
compliance
parent
standard
professionalism
profitability
ethical
practices
cal
appellant
also
argues
state
erred
endorsing
administrative
presumption
corporations
engaged
line
business
unitary
presumption
affected
state
reasoning
one
element
among
many
moreover
considering
limited
use
put
find
presumption
criticized
appellant
reasonable
investment
business
enterprise
truly
distinct
corporation
main
line
business
often
serves
primary
function
diversifying
corporate
portfolio
reducing
risks
inherent
tied
one
industry
business
cycle
corporation
invests
subsidiary
engages
line
work
becomes
much
likely
one
function
investment
make
better
use
either
economies
scale
operational
integration
sharing
expertise
parent
existing
resources
finally
appellant
urges
us
adopt
rule
requiring
prerequisite
finding
mercantile
manufacturing
enterprise
unitary
characterized
substantial
flow
goods
brief
appellant
decline
invitation
prerequisite
constitutionally
acceptable
finding
unitary
business
flow
value
flow
goods
reiterated
woolworth
relevant
question
unitary
business
inquiry
whether
contributions
income
subsidiaries
result
ed
functional
integration
centralization
management
economies
scale
quoting
mobil
ubstantial
mutual
interdependence
woolworth
supra
arise
number
ways
substantial
flow
goods
clearly
one
clearly
one
state
appeal
relied
large
number
factors
reaching
judgment
appellant
foreign
subsidiaries
constituted
unitary
business
included
appellant
assistance
subsidiaries
obtaining
used
new
equipment
filling
personnel
needs
met
locally
substantial
role
played
appellant
loaning
funds
subsidiaries
guaranteeing
loans
provided
others
considerable
interplay
appellant
foreign
subsidiaries
area
corporate
expansion
cal
app
cal
substantial
technical
assistance
provided
appellant
subsidiaries
cal
supervisory
role
played
appellant
officers
providing
general
guidance
subsidiaries
respects
case
differs
asarco
woolworth
clearly
comes
closer
cases
presenting
functionally
integrated
enterprise
mobil
supra
state
entitled
tax
single
entity
need
decide
whether
one
factors
sufficient
constitutional
matter
prove
existence
unitary
business
taken
combination
least
clearly
demonstrate
state
reached
conclusion
within
realm
permissible
judgment
iv
turn
question
fair
apportionment
appellant
burden
proof
must
demonstrate
rational
relationship
income
attributed
state
intrastate
values
enterprise
exxon
quoting
mobil
supra
proving
income
apportioned
california
statute
appropriate
proportion
business
transacted
appellant
state
hans
rees
sons
appellant
challenges
application
california
formula
business
two
related
grounds
arising
practical
although
theoretical
matter
international
character
enterprise
first
appellant
argues
foreign
subsidiaries
significantly
profitable
formula
ignoring
fact
relying
instead
indirect
measures
income
payroll
property
sales
systematically
distorts
true
allocation
income
appellant
subsidiaries
problem
argument
obvious
profit
figures
relied
appellant
based
precisely
sort
formal
geographical
accounting
whose
basic
theoretical
weaknesses
justify
resort
formula
apportionment
first
place
indeed
considered
rejected
similar
argument
mobil
pointing
whenever
unitary
business
exists
separate
geographical
accounting
purports
isolate
portions
income
received
various
may
fail
account
contributions
income
resulting
functional
integration
centralization
management
economies
scale
factors
profitability
arise
operation
business
whole
becomes
misleading
characterize
income
business
single
identifiable
source
although
separate
geographical
accounting
may
useful
internal
auditing
purposes
state
taxation
constitutionally
required
citation
omitted
costs
production
foreign
countries
generally
significantly
lower
primarily
result
lower
wage
rates
workers
countries
wages
one
three
factors
used
formulary
apportionment
use
formula
unfairly
inflates
amount
income
apportioned
operations
wages
higher
brief
appellant
problem
evidence
however
come
close
impeaching
basic
rationale
behind
formula
appellant
foreign
subsidiaries
determined
unitary
business
therefore
may
well
addition
foreign
payroll
going
production
given
corrugated
container
foreign
subsidiary
also
california
payroll
well
california
factors
contributing
albeit
indirectly
production
mere
fact
possibility
reflected
appellant
accounting
disturb
underlying
premises
formula
apportionment
method
geographical
accounting
formula
apportionment
imperfect
proxies
ideal
difficult
achieve
practice
also
difficult
describe
theory
methods
formula
apportionment
particularly
problematic
focus
small
part
spectrum
activities
value
generated
although
generally
upheld
use
formulas
see
moorman
mfg
bair
underwood
typewriter
chamberlain
occasion
found
distortive
effect
focusing
one
factor
outrageous
particular
case
require
reversal
hans
rees
sons
north
carolina
ex
rel
maxwell
supra
example
apportionment
method
based
entirely
ownership
tangible
property
resulted
attribution
north
carolina
taxpayer
income
course
number
years
separate
accounting
analysis
purposely
skewed
resolve
doubts
favor
state
resulted
attribution
struck
application
formula
particular
business
holding
method
albeit
fair
face
operates
reach
profits
sense
attributable
transactions
within
jurisdiction
formula
used
california
gained
wide
approval
precisely
payroll
property
sales
appear
combination
reflect
large
share
activities
value
generated
therefore
able
avoid
sorts
distortions
present
hans
rees
sons
course
even
formula
necessarily
imperfect
seen
evidence
demonstrating
margin
error
systematic
inherent
formula
greater
margin
error
systematic
inherent
sort
separate
accounting
urged
upon
us
appellant
indeed
difficult
come
conclusion
basis
figures
case
appellant
statistics
showing
allegedly
enormous
distortions
caused
formula
tables
set
nn
supra
reveal
percentage
increase
taxable
income
attributable
california
methodology
employed
appellant
methodology
employed
appellee
comes
approximately
far
cry
difference
led
us
strike
state
tax
hans
rees
sons
figure
certainly
within
substantial
margin
error
inherent
method
attributing
income
among
components
unitary
business
see
also
moorman
mfg
supra
ford
motor
beauchamp
underwood
typewriter
supra
reasons
outlined
conclude
california
application
unitary
business
principle
appellant
foreign
subsidiaries
proper
use
standard
formula
apportion
income
unitary
business
fair
proper
fair
method
taxation
happens
however
quite
different
method
employed
federal
government
taxing
appellant
business
relevant
foreign
jurisdictions
taxing
business
appellant
subsidiaries
taxing
jurisdictions
adopted
qualified
separate
accounting
approach
often
referred
approach
taxation
related
corporations
approach
every
corporation
even
closely
tied
corporations
treated
decidedly
purposes
independent
entity
dealing
arm
length
affiliated
corporations
subject
taxation
jurisdictions
operates
income
realizes
books
unitary
business
consisting
appellant
subsidiaries
entirely
domestic
fact
different
jurisdictions
applied
different
methods
taxation
probably
make
little
constitutional
difference
reasons
discuss
supra
given
international
however
must
subject
case
additional
scrutiny
required
foreign
commerce
clause
see
mobil
oil
japan
line
bowman
chicago
case
relevant
inquiry
japan
line
japan
line
involved
attempt
california
impose
apparently
fairly
apportioned
nondiscriminatory
ad
valorem
property
tax
cargo
containers
instrumentalities
foreign
commerce
temporarily
located
various
california
ports
cargo
containers
however
subject
unapportioned
property
tax
home
port
japan
moreover
convention
signed
japan
made
clear
least
neither
national
government
impose
tax
temporarily
imported
cargo
containers
whose
home
port
nation
held
hen
state
seeks
tax
instrumentalities
foreign
commerce
two
additional
considerations
beyond
articulated
doctrine
governing
interstate
commerce
clause
come
play
first
enhanced
risk
multiple
taxation
although
consistent
application
fair
apportionment
standard
generally
mitigate
eliminate
double
taxation
domestic
context
neither
nation
ensure
full
apportionment
one
taxing
entities
foreign
sovereign
instrumentality
commerce
domiciled
abroad
country
domicile
may
right
consistently
custom
nations
impose
tax
full
value
state
seek
tax
instrumentality
apportioned
basis
multiple
taxation
inevitably
results
due
absence
authoritative
tribunal
capable
ensuring
aggregation
taxes
computed
one
full
value
state
tax
even
though
fairly
apportioned
reflect
instrumentality
presence
within
state
may
subject
foreign
commerce
risk
double
tax
burden
domestic
commerce
exposed
commerce
clause
forbids
quoting
evco
jones
turn
quoting
adams
mfg
storen
omitted
state
tax
instrumentalities
foreign
commerce
may
frustrate
achievement
federal
uniformity
several
ways
state
imposes
apportioned
tax
international
disputes
reconciling
apportionment
formulae
may
arise
novel
state
tax
creates
asymmetry
international
tax
structure
foreign
nations
disadvantaged
levy
may
retaliate
instrumentalities
present
jurisdictions
followed
taxing
state
example
various
instrumentalities
commerce
subjected
varying
degrees
multiple
taxation
result
plainly
prevent
nation
speaking
one
voice
regulating
foreign
commerce
omitted
case
similar
japan
line
number
important
respects
first
tax
imposed
like
tax
imposed
japan
line
resulted
actual
double
taxation
sense
income
taxed
without
apportionment
foreign
nations
attributable
appellant
foreign
subsidiaries
also
taxed
california
attributable
state
share
total
income
unitary
business
subsidiaries
part
second
double
taxation
stems
serious
divergence
taxing
schemes
adopted
california
foreign
taxing
authorities
third
taxing
method
adopted
foreign
taxing
authorities
consistent
accepted
international
practice
finally
federal
government
degree
spoken
seems
prefer
taxing
method
adopted
international
community
taxing
method
adopted
california
nevertheless
also
number
ways
case
clearly
distinguishable
japan
line
first
involves
tax
income
rather
tax
property
distinguished
property
income
taxation
mobil
oil
exxon
suggesting
reasons
allocation
single
situs
often
apply
case
property
taxation
carry
little
force
case
income
taxation
second
double
taxation
case
although
real
inevitabl
result
california
taxing
scheme
cf
japan
line
japan
line
relied
strongly
fact
one
taxing
jurisdiction
claimed
right
tax
given
value
full
another
taxing
jurisdiction
claimed
right
tax
entity
part
combination
resulting
necessarily
double
taxation
contrast
faced
two
distinct
methods
allocating
income
multinational
enterprise
approach
divides
pie
basis
formal
accounting
principles
formula
apportionment
method
divides
pie
basis
mathematical
generalization
whether
combination
two
methods
results
income
taxed
twice
portion
income
taxed
dependent
solely
facts
individual
case
third
difference
case
japan
line
tax
falls
foreign
owners
instrumentality
foreign
commerce
corporation
domiciled
headquartered
specifically
left
open
japan
line
application
case
domestically
owned
instrumentalities
engaged
foreign
commerce
extent
corporations
analogized
cargo
containers
first
place
case
falls
clearly
within
reservation
light
considerations
task
case
must
determine
whether
distinctions
present
tax
tax
issue
japan
line
add
constitutionally
significant
difference
reasons
explain
conclude
japan
line
said
ven
slight
overlapping
tax
problem
might
deemed
de
minimis
domestic
context
assumes
importance
sensitive
matters
foreign
relations
national
sovereignty
concerned
omitted
take
statement
absolute
prohibition
double
taxation
international
context
analysis
end
fact
absolute
rule
appropriate
japan
line
relied
much
mere
fact
double
taxation
strike
state
tax
issue
although
double
taxation
foreign
commerce
context
deserves
receive
close
scrutiny
scrutiny
must
take
account
context
double
taxation
takes
place
alternatives
reasonably
available
taxing
state
japan
line
taxing
state
entirely
eliminate
one
important
source
double
taxation
simply
adhering
one
rule
tax
extent
whatsoever
cargo
containers
owned
based
registered
abroad
used
exclusively
international
commerce
require
state
adhere
rule
means
unfair
rule
reflect
consistent
international
practice
express
federal
policy
case
california
try
avoid
double
taxation
simply
taxing
appellant
income
even
though
good
deal
plainly
domestic
party
suggested
rule
obvious
unfairness
requires
elaboration
california
try
avoid
double
taxation
adopting
version
approach
course
however
means
guarantee
end
double
taxation
already
noted
approach
generally
based
first
instance
multicorporate
enterprise
formal
accounting
despite
initial
reliance
approach
recognizes
much
formula
apportionment
approach
closely
related
corporations
engage
transfer
values
fully
reflected
formal
ledgers
thus
example
provides
case
two
businesses
whether
incorporated
whether
organized
whether
affiliated
owned
controlled
directly
indirectly
interests
secretary
treasury
may
distribute
apportion
allocate
gross
income
deductions
credits
allowances
among
businesses
determines
distribution
apportionment
allocation
necessary
order
prevent
evasion
taxes
clearly
reflect
income
businesses
california
trouble
avoiding
double
taxation
even
adopted
approach
think
product
difference
tax
income
tax
tangible
property
see
supra
allocating
income
among
various
taxing
jurisdictions
bears
resemblance
emphasized
throughout
opinion
slicing
shadow
absence
central
coordinating
authority
absolute
consistency
even
among
taxing
authorities
whose
basic
approach
task
quite
similar
may
much
ask
california
method
formula
apportionment
inevitably
led
double
taxation
see
supra
might
reason
enough
render
suspect
since
perverse
simply
sake
avoiding
double
taxation
require
california
give
one
allocation
method
sometimes
results
double
taxation
favor
another
allocation
method
also
sometimes
results
double
taxation
cf
moorman
mfg
argued
even
foreign
commerce
clause
require
california
adopt
approach
foreign
subsidiaries
domestic
corporations
require
whatever
system
taxation
california
adopts
must
result
double
taxation
particular
case
implication
rule
however
even
california
adopted
method
required
defer
merely
single
internationally
accepted
standard
case
japan
line
variety
reallocation
decisions
made
individual
foreign
countries
individual
cases
although
double
taxation
constitutionally
disfavored
state
affairs
particularly
international
context
japan
line
require
forbearance
extreme
come
finally
second
inquiry
suggested
japan
line
whether
california
decision
adopt
formula
apportionment
international
context
impermissible
may
impair
federal
uniformity
area
federal
uniformity
essential
prevents
federal
government
speaking
one
voice
international
trade
quoting
michelin
tire
wages
conducting
inquiry
however
must
keep
mind
state
tax
merely
foreign
resonances
implicate
foreign
affairs
infer
bsent
explicit
directive
congress
treatment
foreign
income
federal
level
mandates
identical
treatment
mobil
see
also
japan
line
michelin
tire
supra
thus
state
tax
variance
federal
policy
violate
one
voice
standard
either
implicates
foreign
policy
issues
must
left
federal
government
violates
clear
federal
directive
second
considerations
course
essentially
species
analysis
obvious
foreign
policy
implication
state
tax
threat
might
pose
offending
foreign
trading
partners
leading
retaliate
nation
whole
considering
issue
however
faced
distinct
problem
little
competence
determining
precisely
foreign
nations
offended
particular
acts
even
less
competence
deciding
balance
particular
risk
retaliation
sovereign
right
whole
let
tax
please
best
absence
explicit
action
congress
attempt
develop
objective
standards
reflect
general
observations
imperatives
international
trade
international
relations
case
like
mobil
real
issue
came
question
interstate
rather
foreign
commerce
nevertheless
three
distinct
factors
already
discussed
one
way
another
seem
us
weigh
strongly
conclusion
tax
imposed
california
might
justifiably
lead
significant
foreign
retaliation
first
tax
create
automatic
asymmetry
japan
line
supra
international
taxation
see
supra
second
tax
imposed
foreign
entity
case
japan
line
domestic
corporation
although
california
counts
income
arguably
attributable
foreign
corporations
calculating
taxable
income
domestic
corporation
legal
incidence
tax
falls
domestic
corporation
third
even
foreign
nations
legitimate
interest
reducing
tax
burden
domestic
corporations
fact
remains
appellant
without
doubt
amenable
taxed
california
one
way
another
amount
tax
pays
much
function
california
tax
rate
allocation
method
although
foreign
nation
might
offended
considers
unorthodox
treatment
appellant
california
simply
raised
general
tax
rate
achieve
economic
result
assume
offense
involved
either
event
attenuated
best
state
tax
may
course
foreign
policy
implications
threat
retaliation
note
however
case
unlike
japan
line
executive
branch
decided
file
amicus
curiae
brief
opposition
state
tax
lack
submission
means
dispositive
nevertheless
combined
considerations
discussed
suggest
foreign
policy
whose
nuances
must
emphasize
much
province
executive
branch
congress
seriously
threatened
california
decision
apply
unitary
business
concept
formula
apportionment
calculating
appellant
taxable
income
turn
specific
indications
congressional
intent
appellant
position
fares
better
first
claim
federal
tax
statutes
provide
necessary
force
second
although
party
great
number
tax
treaties
require
federal
government
adopt
form
analysis
taxing
domestic
income
multinational
enterprises
requirement
generally
waived
respect
taxes
imposed
contracting
nations
domestic
corporations
fact
nothing
else
confirms
view
taxation
reality
local
rather
international
concern
third
tax
treaties
entered
generally
cover
taxing
activities
subnational
governmental
units
none
treaties
restriction
methods
taxation
apply
moreover
senate
least
one
occasion
considering
proposed
treaty
attached
reservation
declining
give
consent
provision
treaty
extended
restriction
finally
remains
true
said
mobil
congress
long
debated
enacted
legislation
designed
regulate
state
taxation
income
thus
whether
apply
explicit
directive
standard
articulated
mobil
relaxed
standard
takes
account
residual
concern
foreign
policy
implications
california
tax
conclude
california
tax
issue
federal
law
fatally
inconsistent
federal
policy
vi
judgment
california
appeal
affirmed
footnotes
see
generally
honolulu
oil
franchise
tax
board
cal
superior
oil
franchise
tax
board
cal
see
opinion
california
appeal
case
cal
app
cal
rptr
see
also
cal
rev
tax
code
ann
west
allowing
separate
accounting
alternative
methods
apportionment
total
formula
apportionment
fairly
represent
extent
taxpayer
business
activity
state
note
uniform
act
speak
question
one
way
see
also
cal
rev
tax
code
ann
west
defining
ownership
control
necessary
corollary
california
approach
course
intercorporate
dividends
unitary
business
included
gross
income
since
inclusion
result
portion
subsidiary
income
first
income
attributed
unitary
business
second
dividend
income
parent
see
noted
adopted
hybrid
approach
mobil
example
nondomiciliary
state
invoked
unitary
business
justification
include
apportioned
share
certain
corporate
dividends
gross
income
taxpayer
require
combined
return
combined
apportionment
mobil
held
taxpayer
objection
approach
properly
raised
state
proceedings
justice
stevens
however
reached
merits
stating
part
either
mobil
worldwide
petroleum
enterprise
part
one
unitary
business
vermont
must
evaluate
entire
enterprise
consistent
manner
citation
omitted
see
stevens
dissenting
outlining
alternative
approaches
available
state
cf
term
harv
rev
see
generally
general
accounting
office
report
chairman
house
committee
ways
means
key
issues
affecting
state
taxation
multijurisdictional
corporate
income
need
resolving
mobil
fact
involve
income
foreign
subsidiaries
fact
little
importance
case
two
reasons
first
discussed
supra
state
case
included
dividends
subsidiaries
parent
calculation
parent
apportionable
taxable
income
include
underlying
income
subsidiaries
second
taxpayer
case
conceded
dividends
taxed
somewhere
actual
issue
merely
whether
particular
state
barred
imposing
portion
tax
see
number
reasons
appellant
relatively
attitude
toward
management
subsidiaries
first
comported
company
general
management
philosophy
emphasizing
local
responsibility
accountability
respect
treatment
foreign
subsidiaries
similar
organization
appellant
domestic
geographical
divisions
second
reflected
fact
packaging
industry
like
advertising
industry
closely
related
highly
sensitive
differences
consumer
habits
economic
development
among
different
nations
therefore
requires
good
dose
local
expertise
successful
third
appellant
policy
designed
appeal
sensibilities
local
customers
governments
also
certain
spillover
goodwill
appellant
subsidiaries
appellant
customers
overseas
needs
occasion
ask
appellant
sales
representatives
recommend
foreign
firms
possible
representatives
refer
customers
appellant
subsidiaries
least
one
instance
appellant
became
involved
actual
negotiation
contract
customer
foreign
subsidiary
notices
additional
tax
followed
series
adjustments
payments
claims
refunds
assessments
whose
combined
effect
render
figures
outlined
text
illustrative
real
descriptions
present
claims
parties
regard
appellant
total
tax
liability
subsequent
events
however
concern
legal
issues
raised
case
remove
either
party
financial
stake
resolution
issues
therefore
disregard
sake
simplicity
total
income
percentage
amount
unitary
attributed
attributed
business
california
california
tax
see
exhibit
stipulation
record
according
notices
appellant
actual
tax
obligations
follows
total
income
percentage
amount
unitary
attributed
attributed
business
california
california
tax
see
exhibit
stipulation
record
approach
course
quite
different
one
follow
certain
constitutional
contexts
see
brooks
florida
new
york
times
sullivan
also
go
without
saying
every
claim
state
erred
making
unitary
business
finding
pose
substantial
federal
question
first
place
asarco
woolworth
consistent
standard
review
asarco
involved
claim
parent
certain
partial
subsidiaries
held
either
minority
interests
bare
majority
interests
part
unitary
business
state
upheld
claim
concluded
relying
factual
findings
made
state
courts
unitary
business
finding
impermissible
partial
subsidiaries
realistically
subject
even
minimal
control
asarco
therefore
passive
investments
basic
sense
term
held
specifically
accept
state
theory
case
constitute
misapplication
unitary
business
concept
destroy
concept
entirely
woolworth
much
closer
case
involving
one
partially
owned
subsidiary
three
wholly
owned
subsidiaries
examined
evidence
detail
reversed
state
unitary
business
finding
concluding
state
made
specific
crucial
legal
errors
merely
conclusions
drew
legal
standard
applied
analyzing
case
event
although
potential
control
said
woolworth
dispositive
unitary
business
issue
emphasis
added
relevant
whether
components
purported
unitary
business
share
degree
common
ownership
prerequisite
finding
unitariness
also
whether
might
exist
degree
implicit
control
sufficient
render
parent
subsidiary
integrated
enterprise
state
supra
wide
range
constitutionally
acceptable
variations
unitary
business
theme
thus
leading
scholar
suggested
flow
goods
requirement
provide
reasonable
workable
test
unitary
business
see
hellerstein
recent
developments
state
tax
apportionment
circumscription
unitary
business
nat
tax
hellerstein
allocation
apportionment
dividends
delineation
unitary
business
tax
notes
state
courts
adopted
test
see
commonwealth
acf
industries
see
mclure
operational
interdependence
appropriate
bright
line
test
unitary
business
least
tax
notes
however
sensible
test
may
policy
matter
however
see
reason
impose
requirement
constitutional
law
cf
wisconsin
penney
see
supra
see
also
woolworth
phase
subsidiary
business
integrated
parent
ibid
undisputed
testimony
stated
subsidiary
made
business
decisions
independently
parent
subsidiary
responsible
obtaining
financing
sources
parent
ibid
one
possible
exception
none
subsidiaries
officers
year
question
current
former
employee
parent
omitted
two
factors
relied
state
deserve
particular
mention
first
flow
capital
resources
appellant
subsidiaries
loans
loan
guarantees
indication
capital
transactions
conducted
arm
length
resulting
flow
value
obvious
made
clear
another
context
corn
products
refining
commissioner
capital
transactions
serve
either
investment
function
operational
function
case
appellant
loans
loan
guarantees
clearly
part
effort
ensure
overseas
operations
appellant
continue
grow
become
substantial
part
company
strength
profitability
container
corporation
america
annual
report
reproduced
exhibit
stipulation
facts
see
generally
second
noteworthy
factor
managerial
role
played
appellant
subsidiaries
affairs
made
clear
woolworth
unitary
business
finding
based
merely
type
occasional
oversight
respect
capital
structure
major
debt
dividends
parent
gives
investment
subsidiary
exxon
illustrates
however
mere
decentralization
management
responsibility
accountability
defeat
unitary
business
finding
difference
lies
whether
management
role
parent
play
grounded
operational
expertise
overall
operational
strategy
case
business
guidelines
established
appellant
subsidiaries
consensus
process
appellant
management
involved
subsidiaries
business
decisions
sometimes
uncompensated
technical
assistance
provided
appellant
point
precisely
sort
operational
role
found
lacking
woolworth
first
weight
given
three
factors
essentially
arbitrary
second
payroll
property
sales
still
exhaust
entire
set
factors
arguably
relevant
production
income
finally
relationship
factors
income
means
exact
formula
applied
horizontally
linked
enterprises
based
part
rough
economic
assumption
rates
return
property
payroll
rates
return
measured
ideal
accounting
method
took
transfers
value
account
roughly
different
taxing
jurisdictions
assumption
powerful
basis
economic
theory
true
rates
return
radically
different
different
jurisdictions
one
might
expect
significant
shift
investment
resources
take
advantage
difference
hand
assumption
admitted
weaknesses
enterprise
willingness
invest
simultaneously
two
jurisdictions
different
true
rates
return
might
adequately
explained
example
difficulty
shifting
resources
decreasing
marginal
value
additional
investment
considerations
approach
also
often
applied
geographically
distinct
divisions
single
corporation
stipulation
facts
indicates
tax
returns
filed
appellant
subsidiaries
foreign
domiciles
took
account
applicable
income
deductions
incurred
subsidiary
subsidiaries
country
income
deductions
appellant
subsidiaries
operating
countries
app
conclusively
demonstrate
existence
double
taxation
appellant
produced
foreign
tax
returns
entirely
possible
deductions
exemptions
adjustments
returns
eliminated
whatever
overlap
taxable
income
resulted
application
california
apportionment
method
nevertheless
appellee
seriously
dispute
existence
actual
double
taxation
defined
brief
appellee
cf
tr
oral
arg
assume
existence
purposes
analysis
cf
japan
line
see
infra
discussing
whether
state
scheme
federal
law
note
deliberately
emphasized
japan
line
narrowness
question
presented
whether
instrumentalities
commerce
owned
based
registered
abroad
used
exclusively
international
commerce
may
subjected
apportioned
ad
valorem
property
taxation
state
indeed
chicago
bridge
iron
caterpillar
tractor
argued
last
term
carried
term
application
worldwide
combined
apportionment
resulted
refund
taxpayer
amount
paid
tax
return
included
neither
foreign
income
foreign
apportionment
factors
need
address
opinion
constitutionality
combined
apportionment
respect
state
taxation
domestic
corporations
foreign
parents
foreign
corporations
either
foreign
parents
foreign
subsidiaries
see
also
infra
cf
treasury
department
model
income
tax
treaty
june
art
reprinted
cch
tax
treaties
hereinafter
model
treaty
enterprise
contracting
state
participates
directly
indirectly
management
control
capital
enterprise
contracting
state
conditions
made
imposed
two
enterprises
commercial
financial
relations
differ
made
independent
enterprises
profits
conditions
accrued
one
enterprises
reason
conditions
accrued
may
included
profits
enterprise
taxed
accordingly
bischel
income
tax
treaties
hereinafter
bischel
see
generally
harley
international
division
income
tax
base
multinational
enterprise
hereinafter
harley
madere
international
pricing
allocation
guidelines
relief
double
taxation
tex
see
surrey
reflections
allocation
income
expenses
among
national
tax
jurisdictions
policy
bus
bischel
bittker
eustice
federal
income
taxation
corporations
shareholders
ed
harley
another
problem
arises
treatment
intercorporate
dividends
formula
apportionment
practiced
california
intercorporate
dividends
attributable
unitary
business
like
many
intercorporate
transactions
considered
essentially
irrelevant
included
taxable
income
see
supra
method
entirely
consistent
tax
intercorporate
dividends
occur
investment
income
taxed
state
dividend
taxed
particularly
important
since
issue
international
rather
interstate
double
taxation
see
mobil
also
argued
strictly
speaking
result
double
taxation
since
income
taxed
income
parent
rather
income
subsidiary
effect
however
often
penalize
enterprise
simply
adopted
particular
corporate
structure
practice
therefore
jurisdictions
allow
tax
credits
outright
exemptions
intercorporate
dividends
among
closely
tied
corporations
provision
credits
exemptions
often
included
tax
treaties
see
generally
model
treaty
art
bischel
suggestion
made
appellant
dividends
subsidiaries
exempt
entirely
domestic
state
taxation
grant
credit
approach
taken
federal
law
see
et
fact
entirely
eliminate
effective
double
taxation
income
still
taxed
twice
although
credit
insures
total
tax
greater
paid
higher
two
tax
rates
involved
moreover
federal
government
allowed
credit
foreign
taxes
particular
intercorporate
dividend
persuaded
logical
matter
state
grant
another
credit
since
federal
credit
already
vindicated
goal
subjecting
taxpayer
higher
tax
burden
bear
subsidiary
income
taxed
abroad
federal
level
double
taxation
sometimes
mitigated
provisions
tax
treaties
providing
intergovernmental
negotiations
resolve
differences
approaches
respective
taxing
authorities
see
generally
model
treaty
art
new
york
university
proceedings
fortieth
annual
institute
federal
taxation
hereinafter
institute
cf
owens
income
tax
treaties
role
relieving
double
taxation
rutgers
rev
role
provisions
procedural
rather
substantive
california
however
position
negotiate
foreign
governments
neither
tax
treaties
federal
law
provides
mechanism
federal
government
negotiate
double
taxation
arising
state
tax
systems
event
negotiations
always
occur
occur
always
succeed
recognize
fact
legal
incidence
tax
falls
corporation
whose
formal
corporate
domicile
domestic
might
less
significant
case
domestic
corporation
owned
foreign
interests
need
decide
whether
case
require
us
alter
analysis
solicitor
general
submit
memorandum
opposing
worldwide
formula
apportionment
state
chicago
bridge
iron
caterpillar
tractor
case
argued
last
term
carried
term
although
need
us
speculate
reasons
solicitor
general
decision
submit
similar
memorandum
brief
case
cf
brief
national
governors
association
et
al
amici
curiae
indication
position
taken
government
chicago
bridge
iron
still
represents
views
regard
brief
case
applying
case
see
generally
model
treaty
art
bischel
see
model
treaty
art
bischel
institute
see
bischel
see
cong
rec
pending
one
bill
aware
see
sess
justice
powell
chief
justice
justice
join
dissenting
opinion
addresses
several
questions
presented
case
commendable
thoroughness
view
however
california
tax
clearly
violates
foreign
commerce
clause
tax
japan
line
county
los
angeles
therefore
consider
whether
appellant
foreign
subsidiaries
constitute
unitary
business
whether
state
apportionment
formula
fair
respect
foreign
commerce
clause
issue
candidly
concedes
double
taxation
constitutionally
disfavored
state
affairs
particularly
international
context
ante
ii
like
tax
imposed
japan
line
california
tax
resulted
actual
double
taxation
ante
therefore
iii
tax
deserves
receive
close
scrutiny
ante
also
concedes
case
similar
japan
line
number
important
respects
ante
federal
government
seems
prefer
taxing
method
adopted
international
community
ibid
identifies
several
distinctions
case
japan
line
however
sustains
validity
california
tax
despite
inevitable
double
taxation
incompatibility
method
taxation
accepted
international
community
reaching
result
fails
apply
close
scrutiny
manner
meets
requirements
exacting
standard
review
although
facts
japan
line
differ
respects
identical
critical
questions
double
taxation
federal
uniformity
principles
enunciated
case
controlling
state
tax
unconstitutional
either
creates
substantial
risk
international
multiple
taxation
prevents
federal
government
speaking
one
voice
regulating
commercial
relations
foreign
governments
undisputed
california
tax
creates
substantial
risk
international
multiple
taxation
also
resulted
actual
double
taxation
case
see
ante
explains
double
taxation
occurs
california
adopted
taxing
system
serious
ly
diverge
internationally
accepted
taxing
methods
adopted
foreign
taxing
authorities
ibid
nevertheless
upholds
tax
ground
california
necessarily
reduce
double
taxation
conforming
accepted
international
practice
ante
argument
fails
recognize
fundamental
difference
current
double
taxation
risk
remain
system
conclude
california
tax
violates
first
principle
enunciated
japan
line
present
double
taxation
exists
california
uses
allocation
method
different
basic
assumptions
method
used
countries
appellant
subsidiaries
operate
state
formula
necessary
relationship
amount
income
earned
given
jurisdiction
calculated
method
contrary
formula
allocates
higher
proportion
income
jurisdictions
wage
rates
property
values
sales
prices
higher
see
hellerstein
hellerstein
state
local
taxation
ed
extent
california
jurisdiction
formula
inherently
leads
double
taxation
appellant
case
good
illustration
problem
overwhelming
majority
overseas
income
earned
latin
american
subsidiaries
see
app
since
wage
rates
property
values
sales
prices
much
lower
latin
america
california
state
apportionment
formula
systematically
allocates
much
lower
proportion
income
latin
america
internationally
accepted
method
correspondingly
formula
allocates
higher
proportion
income
california
subject
state
tax
long
three
factors
remain
higher
california
inevitable
state
tax
income
formula
already
taxed
another
country
accepted
international
practice
tax
years
question
example
appellant
worldwide
income
earned
latin
america
taxed
latin
american
countries
method
see
ibid
latin
american
wages
however
represented
worldwide
total
latin
american
property
worldwide
total
latin
american
sales
less
worldwide
total
see
result
roughly
appellant
worldwide
income
less
half
total
allocated
latin
america
california
formula
words
half
income
appellant
largest
group
subsidiaries
allocated
elsewhere
state
formula
accordance
international
practice
income
taxed
latin
america
california
system
allow
income
taxed
second
time
california
jurisdictions
problem
double
taxation
eliminated
without
either
california
international
community
changing
basic
tax
practices
california
adopted
method
double
taxation
still
exist
differences
application
california
colombia
example
might
apply
different
accounting
principles
given
intracorporate
transfer
types
differences
although
presently
tolerated
international
practice
inherent
system
moreover
reason
suppose
consistently
favor
one
jurisdiction
another
international
practice
becomes
refined
differences
likely
resolved
double
taxation
eliminated
sum
risk
double
taxation
arise
two
ways
present
system
arises
california
rejected
accepted
international
practice
favor
tax
structure
fundamentally
different
basic
assumptions
uniform
system
double
taxation
also
arise
different
jurisdictions
despite
agreement
basic
principles
may
differ
application
system
two
risks
fundamentally
different
former
double
taxation
inevitable
avoided
without
changing
system
latter
double
taxation
exists
result
disagreements
application
disagreements
may
unavoidable
view
need
make
individual
judgments
problems
kind
likely
resolved
international
negotiation
face
present
double
taxation
violates
foreign
commerce
clause
reject
solution
constitutional
violation
simply
international
system
based
principle
uniformity
necessarily
uniform
details
operation
ii
acknowledges
decision
contrary
federal
government
prefer
ence
taxing
method
adopted
international
community
ante
also
appropriate
standard
assessing
state
rejection
preference
state
tax
variance
federal
policy
violate
one
voice
standard
either
implicates
foreign
policy
issues
must
left
federal
government
violates
clear
federal
directive
ante
emphasis
original
concludes
however
california
tax
prevent
federal
government
speaking
one
voice
perceives
relevant
factual
distinctions
case
japan
line
conclude
california
taxing
plan
violates
second
principle
enunciated
japan
line
despite
factual
distinctions
seriously
implicates
foreign
policy
issues
must
left
federal
government
first
contends
tax
create
automatic
asymmetry
ante
emphasis
original
quoting
japan
line
seems
mean
california
tax
result
double
taxation
every
case
fundamental
inconsistency
two
methods
apportionment
means
double
taxation
inevitable
since
california
jurisdiction
wage
rates
property
values
sales
prices
relatively
high
double
taxation
logical
expectation
large
proportion
cases
moreover
recognized
japan
line
ven
slight
overlapping
tax
problem
might
deemed
de
minimis
domestic
context
assumes
importance
sensitive
matters
foreign
relations
national
sovereignty
concerned
also
relies
fact
taxpayer
technically
domestic
corporation
see
ante
several
problems
argument
although
appellant
may
taxpayer
technical
sense
unquestioned
california
taxing
income
foreign
subsidiaries
even
foreign
governments
indifferent
overall
tax
burden
american
corporation
legitimate
grounds
complain
heavier
tax
calculated
basis
income
corporations
domiciled
countries
nothing
else
tax
effect
discouraging
american
investment
countries
argument
even
difficult
accept
one
considers
dilemma
creates
cases
involving
foreign
corporations
california
attempts
tax
american
subsidiary
overseas
company
basis
parent
worldwide
income
result
double
taxation
occurs
see
acceptable
solution
problem
created
analysis
inapplicable
case
little
doubt
parent
government
offended
state
action
international
disputes
even
retaliation
american
corporations
might
expected
thus
seems
inevitable
tax
found
unconstitutional
least
extent
applied
foreign
companies
view
invalidating
tax
limited
extent
also
unacceptable
leave
california
free
discriminate
delaware
corporation
favor
overseas
corporation
permit
discrimination
without
explicit
congressional
authorization
suggests
california
impose
tax
burden
appellant
system
simply
raising
general
tax
rate
see
ante
although
may
true
theory
argument
ignores
political
restraints
make
course
infeasible
appellant
tax
rate
increased
state
forced
raise
rate
corporations
california
wishes
follow
course
see
constitutional
objection
must
accomplished
political
process
corporations
business
california
free
voice
objections
finally
attaches
weight
fact
executive
branch
decided
file
amicus
curiae
brief
opposition
state
tax
ibid
dismisses
solicitor
general
memorandum
chicago
bridge
iron
caterpillar
tractor
despite
fact
directly
point
case
currently
pending
see
ante
memorandum
solicitor
general
makes
clear
beyond
question
executive
branch
believes
imposition
state
tax
apportioned
combined
worldwide
business
income
unitary
group
related
corporations
including
foreign
corporations
impairs
federal
uniformity
area
uniformity
essential
memorandum
amicus
curiae
chicago
bridge
iron
caterpillar
tractor
recognize
government
may
change
position
time
time
see
reason
ignore
view
one
case
currently
pending
considering
another
case
raises
exactly
issue
solicitor
general
withdrawn
memorandum
supplemented
anything
taking
contrary
position
long
chicago
bridge
iron
remains
us
must
conclude
government
views
accurately
reflected
solicitor
general
memorandum
pending
case
sum
none
distinctions
relies
convincing
california
imposes
tax
flatly
inconsistent
federal
policy
prevents
federal
government
speaking
one
voice
field
left
federal
government
intrusion
national
policy
foreign
affairs
permitted
constitution
iii
japan
line
identified
two
constraints
state
tax
international
business
must
satisfy
comply
foreign
commerce
clause
explicitly
declared
state
tax
contravenes
either
precepts
unconstitutional
view
california
tax
us
today
violates
requirements
declare
unconstitutional
also
appears
attach
weight
view
california
unable
simply
adher
one
rule
eliminate
double
taxation
see
ante
california
perspective
however
rule
avoids
foreign
commerce
clause
problems
clearly
exists
state
simply
base
apportionment
calculations
appellant
income
reported
federal
return
sum
calculated
method
thus
consistent
international
practice
federal
policy
double
taxation
avoided
extent
possible
international
negotiation
conducted
federal
government
california
need
concern
details
international
allocation
apportion
american
income
using
formula
although
foreign
countries
wage
rates
property
values
sales
prices
higher
california
appellant
principal
subsidiaries
operate
countries
similarly
double
taxation
entire
international
community
adopted
california
method
formula
apportionment
different
jurisdictions
might
apply
different
accounting
principles
determine
wages
property
values
sales
indeed
system
calls
exercise
judgment
leaves
possibility
double
taxation
well
illustrated
protests
federal
government
already
received
principal
trading
partners
several
reprinted
discussed
papers
see
app
brief
committee
unitary
tax
amicus
curiae
canada
france
kingdom
european
economic
community
app
brief
international
bankers
association
california
et
al
amici
curiae
chicago
bridge
iron
caterpillar
tractor
pp
japan
memorandum
amicus
curiae
chicago
bridge
iron
caterpillar
tractor
number
foreign
governments
complained
officially
unofficially
apportioned
combined
method
creates
irritant
commercial
relations
retaliatory
taxation
may
ensue
app
kingdom
canada
california
course
free
tax
corporations
heavily
taxes
corporations
state
raise
tax
rate
appellant
alone
even
corporations
engaged
foreign
commerce
without
facing
constitutional
challenges
equal
protection
commerce
clause
chicago
bridge
iron
might
noted
case
state
tax
imposed
american
parent
corporation
relies
absence
clear
federal
directive
see
ante
light
government
position
stated
solicitor
general
memorandum
see
supra
absence
formal
statement
view
entitled
little
weight