Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T17:18:47.507Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Unitary Taxation in the United States of America

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2016

J.-G. Castel
J.-G. Castel*
Affiliation:
Osgoode Hall Law School, York University, Toronto
Get access

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Notes and Comments / Notes et commentaires
Information
Canadian Yearbook of International Law/Annuaire canadien de droit international , Volume 25 , 1988 , pp. 369 - 377
Copyright
Copyright © The Canadian Council on International Law / Conseil Canadien de Droit International, representing the Board of Editors, Canadian Yearbook of International Law / Comité de Rédaction, Annuaire Canadien de Droit International 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 O’Connel, D. P., International Law 787–88 (1965),Google Scholar citing George W. Cook (U.S.) v. United Mexican States, IV UNRIAA 593, at 595 (1930). Also see Albrecht, A.R., “The Enforcement of Taxation under International Law,” (1953) 30 Br. Y.B. Int’l L. 454.Google Scholar

2 See Uniform Division of Income for Tax Purposes Act, 7A U.L.A. 331. For an up to date list, see West’s Annotated California Codes, Revenue and Taxation Code, ss. 23001–28000 (1988 Cumulative Pocket Part, at 172).

3 Uniform Division of Income for Tax Purposes Act, West’s Annotated California Codes, ss. 25120–39 and Regulations promulgated thereunder. For a good analysis, see Steven Spears, L., “Application of the Unitary Business Concept to Diverse Business: Light at the End of the Tunnel or the Impossible Dream?” (1987), 18 Pac. L.J. 1161.Google Scholar

4 S. 25128.

5 S. 25129.

6 S. 25132.

7 S. 25134.

8 See Mobil Oil Corp. v. Commissioners of Taxes of Vermont, 100 S. Ct. 1223, 445 U.S. 425; 63 L.Ed. 2d 510 ( 1980), where it was held that it is permissible for a state to include foreign source dividends in a multinational corporation’s apportionable tax so long as there is a unitary relationship between the payor foreign corporation and the recipient domestic corporation.

9 That is, the arm’s-length standard of allocation whereby is taxed only the income that would have resulted to the taxpayer corporation had it dealt with the other members of the group at arm’s-length in the conduct of its business.

10 Convention with respect to taxes on income and property with exchange of notes, July 28, 1967, 719 U.N.T.S. 31 and Protocols of 1970, 1978 and 1984: 23 U.S.T. 20, 30 U.S.T. 5109.

11 Convention for Avoidance of Double Taxation, March 8, 1971, 23 U.S.T. 967, T.I.A.S. No. 7365.

12 See argument of Plaintiff-Appellant in Shell Petroleum N.V. v. Graves et al., 709 F. 2d 593 (9th Cir., 1983) certiorari den., 104 S. Ct. 537, 464 U.S. 1012, 78L.Ed. ad 717 (1983).

13 See Foreign Commerce Clause, U.S. Constitution, Art. I, s. 8, cl. 3. The power to regulate foreign commerce is reserved exclusively to the United States.

14 Since the Federal Executive possesses the sole and exclusive authority to conduct and control foreign affairs between the United States and foreign nations, state statutes that conflict with the constitutional exercise by the United States of its authority to conduct and control the foreign relations of the United States are void under the Supremacy Clause.

15 See Due Process Clause, U.S. Constitution, 14th Amendment, para. 1.

16 441 U.S. 434 (1979).

17 103 S. Ct. 2933, 463 U.S. 159, 77 L.Ed. 2d 545 (1983) reh. den. 104 S. Ct. 265,464 U.S. 909, 78 L.Ed. 2d 248 ( 1980).

18 558 F- Supp. 624 (S.D.N.Y., 1983).

19 See also EMI, Ltd. v. Bennett, 560 F.Supp. 134 (D.C. 1982), aff’d 738 F. 2d 994 (gthCir., 1984) certiorari den., 464 U.S. 1073, 83 L. Ed. ad 508 (1984) ; Alean Aluminum Ltd. v. Department of Revenue of State of Oregon, 724 F. 2d 1294 (7tn Gir., 1984); Shell Petroleum N.V. v. Graves, supra, note 12. And Brief as amicus curiae of the United States in Alean Aluminum Ltd. v. Franchise Tax Board of Cal. and Imperial Chemical Industries v. Franchise Tax Board of Cal., reported in (1986) 25 Int’l Leg. Mat. 683. Also Alean Aluminum, Ltd. v. Department of Revenue of State of Oregon, 734 F. ad 1294 (7thCir., 1984).

20 See (1986), 35 Int’l Leg. Mat. 705.

21 Finance Act, 1985, c. 54, s. 54 (1986), 35 Int’l Leg. Mat. 734. This section is to take effect after an order has been before the House of Commons and approved by a resolution.

22 See Draft Legislation preventing Unitary Taxation by States (1985). (1986), 25 Int’l Leg. Mat. 739 et seq., Dec. 16, 1985, 99th Congress, ist Sess., Unitary Tax Repeal Act, Bill S. 1974.