Barclays Bank PLC v. Franchise Tax Board
United States Supreme Court
512 U.S. 298 (1994)
- Written by Haley Gintis, JD
Facts
Barclays Bank PLC (Barclays) and Colgate-Palmolive Co. (Colgate) (plaintiffs), two multinational enterprises, were subjected to California’s corporate franchise taxing scheme because the companies had operations in California. Under the scheme, a portion of the companies’ worldwide income was attributed to California operations and the companies were required to pay a state tax for the property and sales located within California. The companies filed suit against California’s Franchise Tax Board (defendant) on the grounds that the scheme was violative of the Commerce Clause and the Due Process Clause by burdening foreign-based, multinational companies and resulted in double international taxation. The court of appeals upheld the taxing scheme, finding that the scheme was not violative of the United States Constitution. Although the United States Supreme Court had previously upheld the scheme as applied to businesses domiciled in the United States in Container Corp. of America v. Franchise Tax Board, 463 U.S. 159 (1983), the Court had not previously addressed the constitutionality of the scheme as applied to domestic corporations with foreign parents or foreign corporations with foreign parents that had enterprises in California. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Ginsburg, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.