Container Corporation of America v. Franchise Tax Board

Decision Date27 June 1983
Docket NumberNo. 81-523,81-523
Citation463 U.S. 159,103 S.Ct. 2933,77 L.Ed.2d 545
PartiesCONTAINER CORPORATION OF AMERICA, Appellant v. FRANCHISE TAX BOARD
CourtU.S. Supreme Court
Syllabus

California imposes a corporate franchise tax geared to income. It employs the "unitary business" principle and formula apportionment in applying that tax to corporations doing business both inside and outside the State. The formula used—commonly called the "three-factor" formula—is based, in equal parts, on the proportion of a unitary business' total payroll, property, and sales that are located in the State. Appellant paperboard packaging manufacturer is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Illinois and doing business in California and elsewhere. It also has a number of overseas subsidiaries incorporated in the countries in which they operate. In calculating for the tax years in question in this case the share of its net income that was apportionable to California under the three-factor formula, appellant omitted all of its subsidiaries' payroll, property, and sales. Appellee Franchise Tax Board issued notices of additional assessments, the gravamen of which was that appellant should have treated its overseas subsidiaries as part of its unitary business rather than as a passive investment. After paying the additional assessments under protest, appellant brought an action for a refund in California Superior Court, which upheld the additional assessments. The California Court f Appeal affirmed.

Held:

1. California's application of the unitary business principle to appellant and its foreign subsidiaries was proper. Pp. 175-180.

(a) The taxpayer has the burden of showing by "clear and convincing evidence" that the state tax results in extra-territorial values being taxed. This Court will, if reasonably possible, defer to the judgment of state courts in deciding whether a particular set of activities constitutes a "unitary business." The Court's task is to determine whether the state court applied the correct standards to the case, and, if it did, whether its judgment was within the realm of a permissible judgment. Pp. 175-176.

(b) Here, there is no merit to appellant's argument that the Court of Appeal in important part analyzed the case under the incorrect legal standard. Rather, the factors relied upon by the court in holding that appellant and its foreign subsidiaries constituted a unitary business— which factors included appellant's assistance to its subsidiaries in obtaining equipment, in filling personnel needs that could not be met locally, the substantial role played by appellant in loaning funds to the subsidiaries and guaranteeing loans provided by others, the considerable interplay between appellant and its subsidiaries in the area of corporate expansion, the substantial technical assistance provided by appellant to the subsidiaries, and the supervisory role played by appellant's officers in providing general guidance to the subsidiaries—taken in combination clearly demonstrate that the court reached a conclusion "within the realm of permissible judgment." Pp. 177-180.

2. California's use of the three-factor formula to apportion the income of the unitary business consisting of appellant and its foreign subsidiaries was fair. Appellant had the burden of proving that the income apportioned to California was out of all appropriate proportions to the business transacted in the State. This burden was not met by offering various statistics that appeared to demonstrate not only that wage rates are generally lower in the foreign countries in which appellant's subsidiaries operate but also that those lower wage rates are not offset by lower levels of productivity. It may well be that in addition to the foreign payroll going into the production of any given corrugated container by a foreign subsidiary, there is a California payroll, as well as other California factors, contributing to the same production. The mere fact that this possibility is not reflected in appellant's accounting does not disturb the underlying premises of the formula apportionment method. Pp. 180-184.

3. California had no obligation under the Foreign Commerce Clause to employ the "arm's-length" analysis used by the Federal Government and most foreign nations in evaluating the tax consequences of intercorporate relationships. Japan Line, Ltd. v. County of Los Angeles, 441 U.S. 434, 99 S.Ct. 1813, 60 L.Ed.2d 336, distinguished. Pp. 184-197.

(a) The double taxation occasioned by the California scheme is not impermissible. Due in part to the difference between a tax on income and a tax on tangible property, California would have trouble avoiding double taxation of corporations subject to its franchise tax even if it adopted the arm's-length approach. Moreover, the California tax does not result in "inevitable" double taxation. It would be perverse, simply for the sake of avoiding double taxation, to require California to give up one allocation method that sometimes results in double taxation in favor of another allocation method that sometimes has the same result. Pp. 189-193.

(b) The California tax does not violate the "one voice" standard established in Japan Line, supra, under which a state tax at variance with federal policy will be struck down if it either implicates foreign policy issues which must be left to the Federal Government or violates a clear federal directive. Three factors weigh strongly against the conclusion that the tax might lead to significant foreign retaliation. The tax does not create an automatic "asymmetry" in international taxation, it is imposed on a domestic corporation and not on a foreign entity, and even if foreign nations had a legitimate interest in reducing the tax burden of domestic corporations, appellant is amenable to be taxed in California one way or another and the tax it pays is more the function of California's tax rate than of its allocation method. Moreover, the California tax is not pre-empted by federal law or fatally inconsistent with federal policy. There is no claim that the federal tax statutes themselves provide the necessary pre-emptive force. The requirement of some tax treaties that the Federal Government adopt some form of arm's-length analysis in taxing the domestic income of multinational enterprises is generally waived as to taxes imposed by each of the contracting nations on its own domestic corporations. Tax treaties do not cover the taxing activities of States. And Congress has never enacted legislation designed to regulate state taxation of income. Pp. 193-197.

117 Cal.App.3d 988, 173 Cal.Rptr. 121, affirmed.

Franklin C. Latcham, San Francisco, Cal., for appellant.

Neal J. Gobar, San Diego, Cal., for appellee.

Justice BRENNAN delivered the opinion of the Court.

This is another appeal claiming that the application of a State taxing scheme violates the Due Process and Commerce Clauses of the Federal Constitution. California imposes a corporate franchise tax geared to income. In common with a large number of other States, it employs the "unitary busi- ness" principle and formula apportionment in applying that tax to corporations doing business both inside and outside the State. Appellant is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Illinois and doing business in California and elsewhere. It also has a number of overseas subsidiaries incorporated in the countries in which they operate. Appellee is the California authority charged with administering the state's franchise tax. This appeal presents three questions for review: (1) Was it improper for appellee and the state courts to find that appellant and its overseas subsidiaries constituted a "unitary business" for purposes of the state tax? (2) Even if the unitary business finding was proper, do certain salient differences among national economies render the standard three-factor apportionment formula used by California so inaccurate as applied to the multinational enterprise consisting of appellant and its subsidiaries as to violate the constitutional requirement of "fair apportionment"? (3) In any event, did California have an obligation under the Foreign Commerce Clause, U.S. Const., Art. I, § 8, cl. 3, to employ the "arm's-length" analysis used by the federal government and most foreign nations in evaluating the tax consequences of inter-corporate relationships?

I And

Various aspects of state tax systems based on the "unitary business" principle and formula apportionment have pro- voked repeated constitutional litigation in this Court. See, e.g., ASARCO, Inc. v. Idaho State Tax Comm'n, 458 U.S. ----, 102 S.Ct. 3103, 73 L.Ed.2d 787 (1982); F.W. Woolworth Co. v. Taxation and Revenue Dept., 458 U.S. ----, 102 S.Ct. 3128, 73 L.Ed.2d 819 (1982); Exxon Corp. v. Wisconsin Dept. of Revenue, 447 U.S. 207, 100 S.Ct. 2109, 65 L.Ed.2d 66 (1980); Mobil Oil Corp. v. Commissioner of Taxes, 445 U.S. 425, 100 S.Ct. 1223, 63 L.Ed.2d 510 (1980); Moorman Mfg. Co. v. Bair, 437 U.S. 267, 98 S.Ct. 2340, 57 L.Ed.2d 197 (1978); General Motors Corp. v. Washington, 377 U.S. 436, 84 S.Ct. 1564, 12 L.Ed.2d 430 (1964); Butler Bros. v. McColgan, 315 U.S. 501, 62 S.Ct. 701, 86 L.Ed. 991 (1942); Bass, Ratcliff & Gretton, Ltd. v. State Tax Comm'n, 266 U.S. 271, 45 S.Ct. 82, 69 L.Ed. 282 (1924); Underwood Typewriter Co. v. Chamberlain, 254 U.S. 113, 41 S.Ct. 45, 65 L.Ed. 165 (1920).

Under both the Due Process and the Commerce Clauses of the Constitution, a state may not, when imposing an income-based tax, "tax value earned outside its borders." ASARCO, supra, 458 U.S., at ----, 102 S.Ct., at 3109. In the case of a more-or-less integrated business enterprise operating in more than one State, however, arriving at precise territorial allocations of "value" is often an elusive goal, both in theory and in practice. See Mobil Oil Corp. v. Commissioner of Taxes, 445 U.S., at 438, 100 S.Ct., at 1232; Butler Bros. v. McColgan, 315 U.S., at 507-509, 62 S.Ct., at 704-705; ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
480 cases
  • Star-Kist Foods, Inc. v. County of Los Angeles
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • 30 de junho de 1986
    ...not support the proposition that any state tax on foreign commerce is per se invalid. In fact, in Container Corp. v. Franchise Tax Bd. (1983) 463 U.S. 159, 103 S.Ct. 2933, 77 L.Ed.2d 545, in which the court upheld California's "three-factor" formula for unitary tax assessments against a com......
  • Portland Pipe Line Corp. v. City of S. Portland
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maine
    • 29 de dezembro de 2017
    ...Line, Ltd. v. Los Angeles Cty. , 441 U.S. 434, 449, 99 S.Ct. 1813, 60 L.Ed.2d 336 (1979) ; Container Corp. of Am. v. Franchise Tax Bd. , 463 U.S. 159, 193–97, 103 S.Ct. 2933, 77 L.Ed.2d 545 (1983) ; Wardair Canada, Inc. v. Florida Dep't of Revenue , 477 U.S. 1, 7–13, 106 S.Ct. 2369, 91 L.Ed......
  • MAYO COLLABOR. SERVICES v. COM'R OF REVENUE, No. A04-2190.
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • 30 de junho de 2005
    ...challenging the constitutionality of a state tax statute bears a heavy burden." Id.; see also Container Corp. of Am. v. Franchise Tax Bd., 463 U.S. 159, 164, 103 S.Ct. 2933, 77 L.Ed.2d 545 (1983) (citing precedent indicating that taxpayer bears "distinct burden" of proof by "clear and cogen......
  • Hewlett-Packard Co. v. State, Dept. of Revenue
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • 11 de janeiro de 1988
    ...L.Ed.2d 510 (1980), and California's taxation of a Delaware corporation's overseas subsidiaries, Container Corp. of America v. Franchise Tax Bd., 463 U.S. 159, 103 S.Ct. 2933, 77 L.Ed.2d 545, reh'g denied, 464 U.S. 909, 104 S.Ct. 265, 78 L.Ed.2d 248 (1983). Consistent themes running through......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
21 firm's commentaries
  • U.S. Supreme Court Holds Lack Of County Personal Income Tax Credit For Taxes Paid To Other States Violates Commerce Clause
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • 28 de maio de 2015
    ...15 305 U.S. 434 (1939). 16 334 U.S. 653 (1948). 17 Jefferson Lines, Inc., 514 U.S. 175. 18 See Container Corp. v. Franchise Tax Board, 463 U.S. 159 19 See American Trucking Assns., Inc. v. Michigan Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 545 U.S. 429 (2005); Jefferson Lines, Inc., 514 U.S. 175; Goldberg v. Swee......
  • State And Local Tax Insights: Spring 2013
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • 15 de maio de 2013
    ...that Vermont's apportionment formula was fair"). 10 Id. at 461 (Stevens, J., dissenting). 11 Container Corp. of Am. v. Franchise Tax Bd., 463 U.S. 159, 168 n.5 12 Id. at 169-70 (citations omitted). 13 Id. 14 Id. at 169. 15 Id. 16 Id. at 169-70. 17 Id. at 170-71. 18 Id. at 170 (quoting Hans ......
  • Maryland's Tax Scheme Ruled Unconstitutional
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • 18 de junho de 2015
    ...Dept. of Revenue, 483 U.S. 232 (1987); Armco Inc. v. Hardesty, 467 U.S. 638 (1984); Container Corp. of America v. Franchise Tax Bd., 463 U.S. 159 5 Slip. Op. at 22. The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought a......
  • Focus On Tax Controversy And Litigation - June 2015
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • 18 de junho de 2015
    ...Dept. of Revenue, 483 U.S. 232 (1987); Armco Inc. v. Hardesty, 467 U.S. 638 (1984); Container Corp. of America v. Franchise Tax Bd., 463 U.S. 159 5 Slip. Op. at 22. 6 See Bank of New York Mellon Corp. v. Commissioner, 140 T.C. 15 (2013); American International Group, Inc. v. United States, ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
28 books & journal articles
  • Congress and the reconstruction of foreign affairs federalism.
    • United States
    • Michigan Law Review Vol. 115 No. 1, October 2016
    • 1 de outubro de 2016
    ...for the United States as Amicus Curiae at 7, Japan Line, 441 U.S. at 434. (75.) Japan Line, 441 U.S. at 451-53. (76.) Id. at 452-54. (77.) 463 U.S. 159 (78.) Container Corp., 463 U.S. at 187 ("[S]ome of the income taxed without apportionment by foreign nations as attributable to appellant's......
  • The Validity of Washington's Antitakeover Act Under the Commerce and Supremacy Clauses
    • United States
    • Seattle University School of Law Seattle University Law Review No. 13-01, September 1989
    • Invalid date
    ...443 (1980) (upholding apportioned tax of New York corporation by Vermont). See also Container Corp. of America v. Franchise Tax Board, 463 U.S. 159 (1983) (upholding California's method of taxing corporate taxpayer with foreign 76. Whether the view that hostile takeovers are harmful to the ......
  • The ABCs of Florida Corporate Income Tax.
    • United States
    • Florida Bar Journal Vol. 76 No. 11, December 2002
    • 1 de dezembro de 2002
    ...income. (16) See Allied Signal, Inc. v. Director of Revenue, 504 U.S. 768 (1992); Container Corp. of America v. Franchise Tax Board, 463 U.S. 159 (1983), reh'g denied, 464 U.S. 909 (1983); F.W. Woolworth Co. v. Taxation and Revenue Department of New Mexico, 458 U.S. 354 (1982); ASARCO, Inc.......
  • The unconstitutionality of state and local enactments in the United States restricting business ties with Burma (Myanmar).
    • United States
    • Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law Vol. 30 No. 2, March 1997
    • 1 de março de 1997
    ...Inc., 397 U.S 137 (1970). (96.) Id. at 142 (emphasis added). (97.) Id. at 143, 146. (98.) Container Corp. of America v. Franchise Tax Bd., 463 U.S. 159 (99.) Id. at 194; see also Southern Pac. Co. v. Arizona, 325 U.S. 761, 768-69 (1945), which talks of the "regulation of local matters [that......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT