Title

Analysis of the Bank and Corporation Franchise Tax Act, Part Two of Two

Authors

Roger J. Traynor
Frank M. Keesling

Document Type

Article

Publication Date

1-1933

Abstract

Contents:

The Real Estate Tax Offset is Probably Invalid and Should be Abolished

The Personal Property Tax Offset Should be Abolished

The Present Definition of “Doing Business” is Unsatisfactory

Are Holding Companies Taxable Under the Act?

Are Holding Companies Business Corporations?

Are Nonprofit Corporations Taxable Under the Act?

Stock Dividends; Subscription Rights

Why Discriminate Against Oil Wells?

Corporations Whose First Taxable Year is a Period of Less Than Twelve Months Not Properly Provided For

Consolidated Returns Provision Ambiguous and Probably Invalid

Consolidated Returns Provision Probably Invalid as Applied to National Banks

Section 19

Section 21

Franchise Tax Commissioner Is Without Authority to Extend Time of Payment of Second Installment

The Lien Provisions of the Statute Create a very Confused and Undesirable Situation

Summary of Recommended Amendments to the Bank and Corporation Franchise Tax Act

Summary of Alternative Amendments If Some of the Above Amendments are Not Adopted

Comments

Submitted to the California Tax Research Bureau in the office of the State Board of Equalization January 1933

Recommended Citation

Roger J. Traynor and Frank M. Keesling, Analysis of the Bank and Corporation Franchise Tax Act, Part Two of Two (1933).
Available at: https://repository.uclawsf.edu/tax/4