McColgan

Edison California Stores, Inc. v. McColgan

Good Law
1947 Cal. LEXIS 182·30 Cal. 2d 472·183 P.2d 16
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJuly 15, 1947L. A. 19603, 19604California4,588 words

Opinion

Opinion

Shenk, J.

On rehearing, counsel for the plaintiff have expressed great concern lest the tax laws be misapplied by an adherence to our former opinion. However, accepting as we must, the application of the law to unincorporated wholly-controlled branches or businesses located in other jurisdictions as set forth in Butler Brothers v. McColgan, 17 Cal.2d 664 [ 111 P.2d 334 ], 315 U.S. 501 [ 62 S.Ct. 701 , 86 L.Ed. 991 ], the conclusion is irresistible that the same rule should apply to incorporated wholly-controlled branches or businesses so located. This is demonstrated by the following portions of our former opinion dealing with that subject.

The plaintiff, a California corporation, brought these two actions to recover franchise taxes paid under protest for the taxable years 1937 and 1938. The trial court rendered judgment for the plaintiff in both actions and the defendant appealed. The appeals are presented on a single set of briefs.

Prior to 1929, Edison Brothers engaged as partners in the retail shoe business in Atlanta, Georgia. They, expanded their operations to include stores in Louisiana, Alabama and Tennessee. In 1926, the business was organized as a corporation under the laws of…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.