Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc. v. Commonwealth, Aplt.

Summary

Justice Brobson dissents, arguing that the majority’s reliance on outdated prospectivity doctrines wrongly denies Alcatel‑Lucent relief for a Pennsylvania net‑loss‑carryover deduction found unconstitutional under the state Uniformity Clause. The dissent adopts the U.S. Supreme Court’s Harper rule that federal constitutional rulings apply retroactively, and contends that Alcatel is entitled to a refund. It also critiques the majority’s use of Oz Gas and McNulty precedent.