ARTICLE
24 June 2026

GeTtin’ SALTy Episode 78 | Smithfield, Apportionment, And The Limits Of Single Sales Factor: A Discussion Of California’s Most-Watched SALT Cases (Podcast)

GT
Greenberg Traurig, LLP

Contributor

Greenberg Traurig, LLP has more than 3,100 lawyers across 51 locations in the United States, Europe, the Middle East, Latin America, and Asia. The firm’s broad geographic and practice range enables the delivery of innovative and strategic legal services across borders and industries. Recognized as a 2025 BTI “Best of the Best Recommended Law Firm” by general counsel for trust and relationship management, Greenberg Traurig is consistently ranked among the top firms on the Am Law Global 100, NLJ 500, and Law360 400. Greenberg Traurig is also known for its philanthropic giving, culture, innovation, and pro bono work. Web: www.gtlaw.com.

In a detailed discussion of California tax apportionment law, tax practitioners examine the landmark Smithfield Foods case and its implications for agricultural business classification and alternative apportionment methods.
United States California Tax
Nikki E. Dobay’s articles from Greenberg Traurig, LLP are most popular:
  • in Asia

In the latest GeTtin’ SALTy podcast episode, host Nikki Dobay welcomes new Greenberg Traurig colleague John Ormonde, a shareholder in the firm’s State & Local Tax Practice.

The centerpiece of the episode is a detailed inside look at the Smithfield Foods case, which John identifies as one of the most significant California apportionment decisions in recent memory — and which observers at the Federation of Tax Administrators have called perhaps the single most important case on apportionment for the foreseeable future. John breaks down the two distinct issues before the court.

The first issue concerns whether Smithfield qualified as an agricultural business under California Revenue and Taxation Code Section 25128, entitling it to three-factor apportionment rather than single sales factor apportionment. The second and more broadly applicable issue involves alternative apportionment under Section 25137, California’s codification of Section 18 of UDITPA, which has counterparts in more than twenty states.

Nikki and John also preview two additional pending California matters: the NTU case, which is currently on appeal, challenges the retroactive application of Revenue and Taxation Code Section 25128.9, which modified the apportionment factors in ways that effectively eliminated the use of gross receipts as historically understood, and Garcia-Rojas v. Franchise Tax Board, in which the California Court of Appeal held that a sole proprietor performing services for a California customer was not engaged in a unitary business and therefore could not be subjected to market-based sourcing under the UDITPA-derived regulation — a decision now before the California Supreme Court on FTB's petition for review.

The episode closes with a lightly competitive debate over World Cup allegiances, with both Nikki and John ultimately landing on Mexico.

Tune in!

Attachments

Transcript

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

[View Source]

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More