Hunt-Wesson, Inc. v. Franchise Tax Board of California

Media Items
Oral Argument
Get Adobe Flash Player
Opinion Announcement
Get Adobe Flash Player
Advocates
Walter Hellerstein (Argued the cause for the petitioner)
David Lew (Oakland, California, argued the cause for the respondent)
Case Basics
Docket No.: 
98-2043
Petitioner: 
Hunt-Wesson, Inc.
Respondent: 
Franchise Tax Board of California
Opinion: 
528 U.S. 458 (2000)

Cite this page
The Oyez Project, Hunt-Wesson, Inc. v. Franchise Tax Board of California , 528 U.S. 458 (2000)
available at: (http://oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1999/1999_98_2043)
Facts of the Case: 

California's "unitary business" income-calculation system for determining the State's taxable share of a multistate corporation's business income authorizes a deduction for interest expense. The system, however, permits use of that deduction only to the extent that the amount exceeds certain out-of-state income arising from the unrelated business activity of a discrete business enterprise. Hunt-Wesson, Inc. is a successor in interest to a nondomiciliary corporation that incurred interest expense. California disallowed a deduction for the expense insofar as it had received nonunitary dividend and interest income. Hunt-Wesson challenged the validity of the disallowance. The California Court of Appeal found the disallowance constitutional. The California Supreme Court denied review.

Question: 

Does California's exception to its interest expense deduction, which it measures by the amount of nonunitary dividend and interest income that a nondomiciliary corporation has received, violate the Due Process and Commerce Clauses?

Conclusion: 

Yes. In a unanimous opinion delivered by Justice Stephen G. Breyer, the Court held that the provision violates the Due Process and Commerce Clauses. "California's statute does not directly impose a tax on nonunitary income. Rather, it simply denies the taxpayer use of a portion of a deduction from unitary income..., income which does bear a 'rational relationship' or 'nexus' to California," wrote Justice Breyer. "Because California's offset provision is not a reasonable allocation of expense deductions to the income that the expense generates, it constitutes impermissible taxation of income outside its jurisdictional reach," concluded Justice Breyer.

Decisions

Decision: 9 votes for Hunt-Wesson, Inc., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

Sort by Seniority

Voted with the majority
Stevens
Voted with the majority
Ginsburg
Voted with the majority
Souter
Wrote the majority opinion
Breyer
Voted with the majority
O'Connor
Voted with the majority
Kennedy
Voted with the majority
Rehnquist
Voted with the majority
Scalia
Voted with the majority
Thomas

Full Opinion by Justice Stephen G. Breyer