From our private database of 34,000+ case briefs...
Franchise Tax Board v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust
United States Supreme Court
463 U.S. 1 (1983)
Construction Laborers Vacation Trust (CLVT) (defendant) was a trust established through an agreement between four associations of construction-industry employers and district and local labor unions in Southern California. Because union members typically worked for more than one construction employer in a year, the plan administered by CLVT ensured that union members received their guaranteed annual vacation pay by allowing each employer to pay money to CLVT as part of the employee's hourly wages. CLVT then put the money in an account for each employee and distributed the money to the employee once a year. This plan was an employee welfare benefit plan within the meaning of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. The California Franchise Tax Board (Board) (plaintiff) was the state agency in charge of enforcing California's income-tax law. Among other things, California law required anyone in possession of a taxpayer's personal property or other valuable items to withhold any unpaid taxes, interest, or penalties due from the taxpayer and transmit those amounts to the Board. The Board filed a complaint against CLVT in California state court, alleging that CLVT had failed to transmit $380.56 in unpaid tax, penalties, and interest to the Board as required by the California law. The Board requested monetary damages and a declaration that CLVT was legally obligated to comply with all future tax levies issued by the Board. CLVT removed the action to federal district court, and the district court denied the Board's motion to remand to state court. The district court rejected CLVT's argument that ERISA preempted the Board's ability to levy funds held in trust by CLVT, but the appellate court reversed. The Board petitioned the appellate court for rehearing and renewed its argument that the federal courts lacked jurisdiction over the matter. The appellate court denied the petition for rehearing, and the Board appealed to the United States Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Brennan, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 607,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 607,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 34,000 briefs, keyed to 984 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.