Scott M. Reiber

Associate

San Francisco, (415) 268-7630

Download vCard

Education

University of Alberta (B.Comm., 2003)
;
Columbia Law School (J.D., 2006)

Practices

State + Local Tax

Bar Admissions

California

Scott Reiber focuses his practice primarily upon the resolution of state and local tax controversies through negotiation and litigation. He has represented clients in various states and local jurisdictions at all levels of administrative review and before trial and appellate courts. He also advises clients regarding the state and local tax consequences of business transactions.

Mr. Reiber’s experience includes matters involving franchise and income taxes, sales and use taxes, tobacco taxes, property taxes, gross receipts taxes, and insurance taxes, among others. He also regularly litigates constitutional issues such as discrimination against interstate commerce, apportionment, nexus, remedies for unconstitutional taxes, and unitary combination.

Mr. Reiber is the former co-chair of the Tax Section of the San Francisco Barristers Club and is the former co-editor of the firm’s State and Local Tax Insights newsletter. He has also spoke and authored articles on state and local tax issues.

Mr. Reiber received his J.D. in 2006 from Columba Law School, where he was a Kent Scholar. He received his B.Comm., with great distinction, in International Business from the University of Alberta in 2003.

General Mills v. Franchise Tax Board

Represent General Mills in a closely watched case involving the calculation of the sales factor for apportioning interstate income for a company involved in hedging operations. On April 15, 2009, the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, decided General Mills v. Franchise Tax Board. The decision became final on July 30, 2009, following the California Supreme Court's denial of the Franchise Tax Board's petition for review. The court agreed with General Mills in holding that “[the full sales price of General Mills’ hedging futures sales contracts are ‘gross receipts’ to be included in the calculation of the UDITPA sales factor.” The Court of Appeal, therefore, reversed the trial court’s conclusion to the contrary, and remanded the case to the trial court for a ruling on “whether the Franchise Tax Board met its burden of proving that the apportionment formula does not ‘fairly represent’ General Mills’ business activity within California, thus warranting imposition of an alternative formula pursuant to section 25137.”