<p><b>MICROSOFT CORPORATION v. FRANCHISE TAX BOARD</b></p> <br /> <p><b> </b></p> <br /> <p>Filed 8/17/06 (This opinion precedes companion case, S127086, also filed 8/17/06)</p> <br /> <p><b> </b></p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center"><b>IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA</b></p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p><a name="plaintiff"></a>MICROSOFT CORPORATION, )</p> <br /> <p> )</p> <br /> <p> <a name="LD"></a>Plaintiff and Respondent, )</p> <br /> <p> ) S<a name="casenum"></a>133343</p> <br /> <p> v. )</p> <br /> <p> ) <a name="appealnum"></a>Ct.App. 1/3 A105312</p> <br /> <p><a name="defendant"></a>FRANCHISE TAX BOARD, )</p> <br /> <p> )<a name="county"></a> City and County of San Francisco</p> <br /> <p> <a name="VD"></a>Defendant and Appellant. ) <a name="supernum"></a>Super. Ct. No. 400444</p> <br /> <p>__________________________________ )<u></u></p> <br /> <p><a name="mainstory"></a>Ours is a global economy. In contrast, government, and the taxing authority used to fund it, is national and local. This <a href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">geographic disparity</a> generates difficulties when each jurisdiction seeks its <a href="http://www.sandiegohealthdirectory.com/">piece of the economic pie</a>, a pie generated by economic activity that knows no borders.</p> <br /> <p><a href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.us/">The Uniform Division of Income for Tax Purposes Act</a> (UDITPA)<a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1">^[1]</a> attempts to address these problems and fairly assess corporate taxes. Adopted by the District of Columbia and 22 states, including California, it seeks to establish uniform rules for the attribution of corporate income, rules that in theory will result in an equitable taxation scheme--equitable to each jurisdiction, seeking its own fair share, and equitable to the taxpayer, who in the <a href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">absence of uniform rules</a> faces the prospect of having the same income taxed by two, three, or more different states.</p> <br /> <p>The UDITPA's application is not always clear.<a href="#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2">^[2]</a> This case requires us to resolve how the UDITPA should apply to income arising from the redemption of marketable securities, a critical aspect of the operations of the treasury departments of many large corporations, including plaintiff <a href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.us/">Microsoft Corporation</a> (Microsoft). We conclude (1) the redemption of marketable securities at maturity generates â€