From our private database of 35,600+ case briefs...
Microsoft Corporation v. Franchise Tax Board
California Supreme Court
139 P.3d 1169, 39 Cal. 4th 750, 47 Cal. Rptr. 3d 216 (2006)
Microsoft Corporation (plaintiff) was a software company based in the state of Washington that did business in California. Microsoft invested its excess revenue in short-term marketable securities, some of which it redeemed upon maturity. On its 1991 California income-tax return, Microsoft included the amount of money it received by redeeming its marketable securities in its gross receipts. The California Franchise Tax Board (the board) (defendant) disallowed Microsoft from including the full redemption amount in its gross receipts, instead only allowing Microsoft to include the difference between the redemption amount and the purchase price of the securities. California had adopted the Uniform Division of Income for Tax Purposes Act (the uniform tax act) and used a three-factor apportionment formula—which considered property, payroll, and sales—to calculate a company’s income assignable to the state. When Microsoft included the full redemption amount in its gross receipts, Microsoft’s total sales increased, and its proportion of sales attributable to California fell from 11 percent to 3 percent. This cut Microsoft’s California income-tax liability in half. Microsoft filed a lawsuit in California state court seeking a tax refund and arguing that it should be allowed to include the full redemption amount in its gross receipts. The trial court held that Microsoft could include the full redemption amount in its gross receipts. The court of appeals reversed, holding that the board was authorized to exclude Microsoft’s redemption amount in excess of its gain from its gross receipts under § 25137 of California’s tax code. That section, which codified the uniform tax act’s relief provision, authorized the board to use an alternate formula for calculating a company’s tax liability if applying the standard three-factor apportionment formula would produce unreasonable results. Microsoft appealed.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Werdegar, 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 618,000 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 618,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 35,600 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.