# Beamer v. Franchise Tax Board

> California Supreme Court · May 10, 1977 · 19 Cal. 3d 467

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9852042

## Case

- **Full name:** SCOTT BEAMER Et Al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. FRANCHISE TAX BOARD, Defendant and Appellant
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** May 10, 1977
- **Citations:** 19 Cal. 3d 467; 138 Cal. Rptr. 199; 563 P.2d 238; 57 Oil & Gas Rep. 309; 1977 Cal. LEXIS 142
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Sims
- **Judges:** Mosk, Sims
- **Cited by:** 7 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9852042

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that Texas gas and oil production taxes were not taxes on "gross income" because they did not include any deduction for expenses

## Opinion text

SIMS, J. †
I concur with part II of the opinion and the decision that the judgment must be affirmed.
I am of the conviction that the Legislature intended that state and local, and foreign, taxes not described in the first four numbered categories of subdivision (a) of section 17204 should be allowed as a deduction whenever they are paid or accrued within the taxable year as an expense of carrying on a trade or business, or as an expense of an activity producing income. I believe that the restriction of paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of the section is strictly limited to taxes on or according to or measured by net income or profits after the deduction of taxes related tó the expenses of carrying on the trade or business or activity, even though such a tax is measured by gross income. I therefore refrain from joining in part I of the opinion and decision. Since I agree with the principles set forth in part II, which is determinative of the case, I refrain ' from elaborating on my views at this time.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9852042. Public record. Not legal advice.