Franchise Tax

Useful Rulings on Franchise Tax

Recent Rulings on Franchise Tax

RE: STATUS REPORT OF ADMINISTRATION

Verified declaration by petitioner to show that notice of administration was given to the Franchise Tax Board. PrC § 9202©(1) 4. Verified declaration by petitioner to provide information requested in PrC §12201(a) 5. Proof of mailing Notice of Hearing with required advisement under PrC §12201(b) 6. Verified declaration to add names and addresses of all parties entitled to notice At the1-9-20 hearing Atty Hass requested a 3rd party administrator be appointed.

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

RE: PET’N FOR ORDER ACCEPTING RESIGNATION OF TRUSTEE

Verified declaration by petitioner to show that notice of administration was given to the Franchise Tax Board. PrC § 9202©(1) 4. Verified declaration by petitioner to provide information requested in PrC §12201(a) 5. Proof of mailing Notice of Hearing with required advisement under PrC §12201(b) 6. Verified declaration to add names and addresses of all parties entitled to notice At the1-9-20 hearing Atty Hass requested a 3rd party administrator be appointed.

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

RICHARD WEGER ET AL VS MARY ALICE MEDINA

Franchise Tax Bd., 38 Cal.4th 897, 912 (2006) [citation omitted]. “While we may take judicial notice of court records and official acts of state agencies (Evid. Code, § 452, subds. (c), (d)), the truth of matters asserted in such documents is not subject to judicial notice ….” Arce v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., 181 Cal.App.4th 471, 482 (2010). Even if the court could take judicial notice of the record, it would just be a piece of paper.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

FILIPPINI WEALTH MANAGEMENT INC ET AL VS MEISTER & NUNES PC ET AL

Plaintiffs are ordered to produce, without objections (which were waived), all responsive documents, including all documents related to the IRS and Franchise Tax Board audits of plaintiffs during the period January 1, 2016 through the present, as well as all documents supporting or evidencing plaintiffs’ claims in the case and/or their alleged damages.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

MARY STILES VS EVEREADY BONDS INC

Petitioner attempted to contact respondent to demand removal of the lien, but learned after conducting a business entity search using the California Secretary of State Business Portal website that respondent’s business had been “suspended” by the Franchise Tax Board. (Stiles Supp. Dec., ¶7, Ex. B.) The Secretary of State’s website identified Eugene L. Steckly as respondent’s agent for service of process with a last known address at 60 N. Rancho Road, Suite 5, Thousand Oaks, California 91360. (Stiles Supp.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

NORTHWEST TRUSTEE SERVICES, INC. VS 24340 RIMFORD PLACE DIAMOND BAR CA 91765

On July 16, 2019, the court awarded $25,406.88 of the $224,729.15 in surplus proceeds to the State of California Franchise Tax Board pursuant to its claim filed on March 29, 2019. The July 16, 2019 minute order states that “[t]he remaining surplus proceeds in the amount of $199,322.27 are to escheat to the State of California as prescribed by law;” counsel for Claimant State of California Franchise Tax Board was ordered to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

ANI BALABANIAN VS BLAIR STOVER ET AL

Balabanian moves for further response to Request No. 8, which asked about representation of Balabanian and her husband’s interests before the franchise tax board, to which Kawana objected on grounds of intelligibility and compound questions. (Motion at p. 9.) This request is reasonably clear and is supported by good cause, and the motion is GRANTED as to Request No. 8.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

YOUNES ABRISHAMCHI VS HAMIDREZA ALIASHRAFLOO ET AL

Here, no evidence has been presented on this motion to establish that a Certificate of Revivor regarding the corporate status of Healthy Clad has been issued by the California Franchise Tax Board. Therefore, the court denies Healthy Clad’s motion to quash the May 7, 2019 deposition subpoena for production of business records because it lacked capacity to file the motion and lacks capacity to maintain the motion.

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

CELSO FERNANDEZ VS HO SOUNG WON, ET AL.

Plaintiff alleges a claim for unpaid overtime (FAC, ¶¶ 229-235); unpaid commissions (id. at ¶¶ 236-238); unpaid and improperly assessed franchise tax board taxes (id. at ¶¶ 239-242); and unpaid employee wage/withholding taxes (id. at ¶¶ 243-250).

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

CITY OF RIVERSIDE VS SUBSIDIARIA DE SAN TIMOTEO

Franchise Tax Bd. (2015) 1 Cal.App.5th 247, 256.) Here, based on the plain language of the relevant code sections, the City does not have standing to file a petition for writ of mandate. Code Civ.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

  • Judge

    David E. Gregory

  • County

    Riverside County, CA

CONSERVATORSHIP OF WILMA WALKER

The escrow statement submitted to account for the sale of the real property interest in this estate shows two unexplained items: 1) “Property Expenses” of $35,200.50 and 2) Franchise Tax Board withholding of $17,066.25. Both items must be explained in the fourth accounting, when that accounting is due, and the first item must be identified in detail as to explain the source of the liability and whether payment of it during escrow was reasonable. Error in Balance on Hand at End of Account.

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

CONSERVATORSHIP OF WILMA WALKER

The escrow statement submitted to account for the sale of the real property interest in this estate shows two unexplained items: 1) “Property Expenses” of $35,200.50 and 2) Franchise Tax Board withholding of $17,066.25. Both items must be explained and the first item must be identified in detail as to explain the source of the liability and whether payment of it during escrow was reasonable. Discrepancy no. 6: Error in Balance on Hand at End of Account.

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

CONSERVATORSHIP OF WILMA WALKER

The escrow statement submitted to account for the sale of the real property interest in this estate shows two unexplained items: 1) “Property Expenses” of $35,200.50 and 2) Franchise Tax Board withholding of $17,066.25. Both items must be explained in the fourth accounting, when that accounting is due, and the first item must be identified in detail as to explain the source of the liability and whether payment of it during escrow was reasonable. Error in Balance on Hand at End of Account.

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

ESTATE OF JOEL WAYNE ROBBINS

No such document was filed. 2) Notice to Franchise Tax Board. Notice MUST have been given to the Franchise Tax Board not later than 90 days after the date letters are first issued. (Prob. Code, § 9202, subd. (c)(1).) 3) Accounting or Waivers. The final account does not comply with Probate Code in the following ways: - Total Charges do not equal Total Credits. (Prob. Code, § 1061(c).) - The summary is not supported by detailed schedules. (Prob. Code, §1062.

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2020

  • Judge Jed Beebe
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

REGINALD W. LATHAN, ET AL. VS ENERGY TRANSPORT AND LOGISTIC, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

Code §23301 (nonpayment of franchise tax), Rev. & Tax. Code §23301.5 (failure to file franchise tax return), Rev. & Tax. Code §23775 (failure of exempt corporation to file return or pay amount due). “A corporation which has its powers suspended pursuant to these sections lacks the legal capacity to prosecute or defend a civil action during its suspension.” Sade Shoe Co. v. Oschin & Snyder (1990) 217 Cal. App. 3d 1509, 1512 (citation omitted).

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

SIERRACONSTELLATION PARTNERS LLC VS SPHERE 3D CORPORATION, ET AL.

., ¶ 11 [“Sphere has been suspended by the California Franchise Tax Board (“FTB”) because its tax preparer neglected to provide its tax returns to the FTB in a timely manner.”].) Moreover, Plaintiff presents evidence that as of April 8, 2020, Sphere 3D was in suspended status.[1] (Kovalsky Decl., ¶ 4, Ex. A.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2020

JOSHUA M RODIN VS WESTBOURNE TOWNHOUSES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, A CALIFORNIA NONPROFIT MUTUAL BENEFIT CORPORATION, ET AL.

On August 10, 2019, Rodin also checked the Franchise Tax Board’s website, including the Revoked Entities List, which indicated and indicates presently that the suspension of Defendant HOA’s corporate powers and revocation of its exempt status by the Franchise Tax Board occurred on April 2, 2019. Rodin Decl. ¶8. Since purchasing the Property in 2003, Rodin has not participated in, nor received notice of, any meetings of the members of Defendant HOA to elect a board of directors or appoint officers.

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

DESI VON DE LA CRUZ SUMMERVILLE VS THE LIONS LIMOS INC

Garland, supra, at p. 850, 168 P.2d 5; Franchise Tax Board v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. (1978) 87 Cal.App.3d 878, 884, 151 Cal.Rptr. 460; Childs v. Eltinge, supra, 29 Cal.App.3d at p. 848, 105 Cal.Rptr. 864.)” (Id.) The court sustained the demurrers to the above causes of action for failure to state a claim, and therefore, the City’s demurrer is moot with respect to lack of capacity or another action pending between the same parties and on the same cause of action.

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

MICHAEL PUCCI VS DEBORAH L UNDERWOOD ET AL

Tax Board on April 29, 2019.

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

CRAIG ROSS, ET AL., VS BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF CAL. STATE UNIV.

Franchise Tax Bd. (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 247, 259. Where a party seeks to assert res judicata based on a federal judgment, there is a split in California authority as to whether the federal “transactional” test applies to determine the issue or whether California’s primary rights test applies.

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • Judge

    H. Jay Ford

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ESTATE OF JOSEPHINE FRANCES CARLENTINE

Nature of Proceedings: Petition for Final Distribution The following defects must be corrected before the petition may be granted: 1) Notice to Franchise Tax Board. Notice MUST have been given to the Franchise Tax Board. (Prob. Code, § 9202, subd. (c)(1).) The petition does not allege (at paragraph 7) that any notice was given.

  • Hearing

    Jun 22, 2020

  • Judge Jed Beebe
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

ESTATE OF JOSEPHINE FRANCES CARLENTINE

Nature of Proceedings: Petition for Final Distribution The following defects must be corrected before the petition may be granted: 1) Notice to Franchise Tax Board. Notice MUST have been given to the Franchise Tax Board. (Prob. Code, § 9202, subd. (c)(1).) The petition does not allege (at paragraph 7) that any notice was given.

  • Hearing

    Jun 22, 2020

  • Judge Jed Beebe
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

CRUZ VS THE ASNY COMPANY HEARING RE: MOTION TO/FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS FEES PURSUANT TO GENERAL ORDER 2020-15 BY THE ASNY COMPANY LLC, TAHITI VILLAGE VACATION CLUB, SOLEIL MANAGEMENT LLC

California Franchise Tax Bd. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1207, 1234 [“prevailing party” determination under CCP § 1021.5 is different from determination of prevailing party for recovery of costs under § 1032].) In their 06/01/20 supplemental brief Defendants focus on the word “merit” in the court’s original tentative and cite several cases that a determination on the merits is not a prerequisite to a determination that one is a prevailing party.

  • Hearing

    Jun 18, 2020

CITY OF TRACY, A CALIFORNIA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION VS BONNY CARTER ET AL.

Plaintiff City of Tracy has filed a Motion for Order of Possession set for 6/23/20 at 9:00 AM in Dept. 10C: The Motion for Order of Possession is GRANTED. No opposition was filed. Plaintiff is to prepare the Order after hearing in accordance with CRC 3.1312. Jayne Lee Judge of the Superior Court Directions for Contesting or Arguing th...

  • Hearing

    Jun 15, 2020

  • Judge Jayne Lee
  • County

    San Joaquin County, CA

SRCT HOLDINGS LLC VS US REAL ESTTE CREDIT HOLDINGS III-A, L.P.

Franchise Tax Board (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 1180, 1188-1189 (“substantial justification” means that reasonable minds could differ). This court has already ruled that SRCT is entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and costs when it granted its application to expunge the lis pendens. The court does not find, however, that U.S.

  • Hearing

    Jun 12, 2020

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 63     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.