| | In '''''Franchise Tax Bd. v. Alcan Aluminium''''', 493 U.S. 331 (1990), the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] held that the [[Tax Injunction Act]] | | In '''''Franchise Tax Bd. v. Alcan Aluminium''''', 493 U.S. 331 (1990), the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] held that the [[Tax Injunction Act]] |
| − | :This case presented two questions. First, whether a foreign company, sole shareholder of an American subsidiary, has standing to challenge in federal court, on Foreign [[Commerce Clause]] grounds, the accounting method by which the State of [[California]] determines the locally taxable income of that subsidiary. Second, whether such a federal action for injunctive and declaratory relief is barred by the [[Tax Injunction Act]], 28 U.S.C. § 1341 (1982 ed.). | + | :This case presented two questions. First, whether a foreign company, sole shareholder of an [[American]] subsidiary, has standing to challenge in federal court, on Foreign [[Commerce Clause]] grounds, the accounting method by which the State of [[California]] determines the locally taxable income of that subsidiary. Second, whether such a federal action for injunctive and declaratory relief is barred by the [[Tax Injunction Act]], 28 U.S.C. § 1341 (1982 ed.). |
| | The Court of Appeals for the [[Seventh Circuit]] held that the foreign companies involved in this case had alleged injuries sufficiently direct and independent of the injuries to their subsidiaries to confer both Article III and stockholder standing, and that their federal actions were not barred by the [[Tax Injunction Act]] or the principle of comity that underlies that Act. 860 F.2d 688 (1988). | | The Court of Appeals for the [[Seventh Circuit]] held that the foreign companies involved in this case had alleged injuries sufficiently direct and independent of the injuries to their subsidiaries to confer both Article III and stockholder standing, and that their federal actions were not barred by the [[Tax Injunction Act]] or the principle of comity that underlies that Act. 860 F.2d 688 (1988). |