Franchise Tax

Useful Resources for Franchise Tax

Recent Rulings on Franchise Tax

51-75 of 1778 results

REVIEW RE: STATUS OF ATTORNEY FEES REQUEST (SET BY D15).

Verified declaration by petitioner to show that notice of administration was given to the Franchise Tax Board. PrC § 9202(c)(1) 4. Identification of and waivers of accounting from presumptive contingent remainder beneficiaries of the trust. The Trustee has a fiduciary duty to protect their interests, and cannot use his/her fiduciary position to relieve her/himself of the obligation to provide an accounting in this proceeding. Trustee and personal representative are the same person. 5.

  • Hearing

    Nov 05, 2020

  • Judge

    Fenstermacher

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

GUNNLAUGER PETUR ERLENDSSON VS DAVID GLASSER ET AL

However, the same evidence demonstrates that David’s income is being garnished by the Franchise Tax Board and that the IRS is trying to liquidate all his properties. This is hardly a picture of robust financial health.

  • Hearing

    Nov 04, 2020

ZHIKUI JIANG, ET AL. VS PURE LOGIC ESCROW, INC.

Escrow Defendant obtained written permission and consent from Plaintiffs to use the current sale proceeds of the Second Escrow to pay the necessary IRS tax and Franchise Tax Board withholdings due from the sale of Property 1. (Brennan Decl. ¶ 5, Ex. C.) In opposition, Plaintiffs contend that the exhibits were prepared in English, and never translated or explained to Plaintiffs. However, Plaintiffs fail to cite any legal authority a translation was required.

  • Hearing

    Nov 04, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

EDDIE WASHINGTON VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY, ET AL.

Franchise Tax Bd. (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 367, 383). Another administrative exhaustion process applies to FEHA claims. The County concedes that Plaintiff complied with the FEHA administrative exhaustion process (at least in part) by filing a claim with DFEH on January 10, 2019. (See Dem. at 19.) The GCA required Plaintiff to file a government claim within six months of the accrual of his whistleblower claim. (Gov. Code § 911.2(a).)

  • Hearing

    Nov 02, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

ROBERT MECAY ET AL VS SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA ET AL

This section provided in part that, except in tax enforcement proceedings, ‘… it is a misdemeanor for the Franchise Tax Board, any deputy, agent, clerk, or other officer or employee, to disclose in any manner information as to the amount of income or any particulars set forth or disclosed in any report or return required under this part.’ (Although § 19282 has since been amended, the language of the present statute is substantially the same.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 30, 2020

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

THE MORTGAGE LAW FIRM, PLC VS ALL CLAIMANTS TO SURPLUS PROCEEDS AFTER THE TRUSTEE'S SALE OF THE REAL PROPERTY

At the hearing on September 25, 2020, the court considered the further declarations and briefs that had been submitted and ruled that surplus funds in the sum of $52,900.28, plus interest in the sum of $4,046.00, were to be distributed to the State of California Franchise Tax Board, for a total distribution of $56,946.28 to the Franchise Tax Board on its claim.

  • Hearing

    Oct 30, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

RE: 1ST ACCT & RPT OF TEMP TRUSTEE, PET’N FOR ITS SETTLEMENT, SUSPENDED TRUSTEE,

Verified declaration by petitioner to show that notice of administration was given to the Franchise Tax Board. PrC § 9202(c)(1) 5. Declaration to state when action under IAEA (with Notice of Proposed Action) was taken, when and to whom notice was given, whether notice was waived by anyone and whether any objections were received. CRC § 7.250 6. Identification of and waivers of accounting from presumptive contingent remainder beneficiaries of the trust.

  • Hearing

    Oct 29, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

GRAB VS THE CALIFORNIA FRANCHISE TAX BOARD

Grab's demurrer to the answer of defendant California Franchise Tax Board ("FTB") is overruled. Plaintiff is seeking recovery of less than $25,000. In limited civil actions, such as this, special demurrers are not allowed. (Code Civ. Proc.§ 92, subd. (c).) A demurrer to an answer on grounds that it is uncertain is a special demurrer. (Johnson v. Mead (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 156, 160.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 29, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

PB COMPANIES, LLC V. TAYLOR JUDKINS, ET AL.

Defendants argue that since the execution of the Agreement, Plaintiff has been suspended by the State of California Franchise Tax Board and is no longer a legal entity. (Raftery Decl., Ex. B.) Despite this, Defendants allege that Plaintiff improperly filed this action in the wrong forum and the wrong county, and therefore must be ordered to comply with the ADR provisions in the Agreement and proceed to mediation and/or arbitration in Bakersfield rather than litigate in this Court.

  • Hearing

    Oct 28, 2020

MICHAEL LE VS ALAIN MONTOYA ARBOLEDA, ET AL.

(“UCT”) has been suspended by the California Secretary of State for nonpayment of franchise tax and thus is not permitted to defend itself in this action. (Palm Valley Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v. Design MTC (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 553, 556.) UCT’s insurer A-One Commercial Insurance Risk Retention Group, Inc. (“A-One”) seeks to intervene in this action in order to protect its own interests.

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2020

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE FOR THE REGISTERED HOLDERS OF ML-CFC COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE TRUST 2006-4 COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES SERIES 2006-4 VS. 1025 PROPECT LIMITED PARTNERSHIP [EFILE]

s status as a corporate entity has been forfeited by the California Franchise Tax Board. As such, it does not have the legal capacity to sue. (Friends of Shingle Springs Interchange, Inc. v. County of El Dorado (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1470, 1486;(Timberline, Inc. v. Jaisinghani (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 1361, 1368; see also City of San Diego v. San Diegans for Open Government (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 568, 578, as modified on denial of reh'g (Oct. 17, 2016))

  • Hearing

    Oct 22, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

MICHAEL LE VS ALAIN MONTOYA ARBOLEDA, ET AL.

(“UCT”) has been suspended by the California Secretary of State for nonpayment of franchise tax and thus is not permitted to defend itself in this action. (Palm Valley Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v. Design MTC (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 553, 556.) UCT’s insurer A-One Commercial Insurance Risk Retention Group, Inc. (“A-One”) seeks to intervene in this action in order to protect its own interests.

  • Hearing

    Oct 22, 2020

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE FOR THE REGISTERED HOLDERS OF ML-CFC COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE TRUST 2006-4 COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES SERIES 2006-4 VS. 1025 PROPECT LIMITED PARTNERSHIP [EFILE]

s status as a corporate entity has been forfeited by the California Franchise Tax Board. As such, it does not have the legal capacity to sue. (Friends of Shingle Springs Interchange, Inc. v. County of El Dorado (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1470, 1486;(Timberline, Inc. v. Jaisinghani (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 1361, 1368; see also City of San Diego v. San Diegans for Open Government (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 568, 578, as modified on denial of reh'g (Oct. 17, 2016))

  • Hearing

    Oct 22, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE FOR THE REGISTERED HOLDERS OF ML-CFC COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE TRUST 2006-4 COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES SERIES 2006-4 VS. 1025 PROPECT LIMITED PARTNERSHIP [EFILE]

s status as a corporate entity has been forfeited by the California Franchise Tax Board. As such, it does not have the legal capacity to sue. (Friends of Shingle Springs Interchange, Inc. v. County of El Dorado (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1470, 1486;(Timberline, Inc. v. Jaisinghani (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 1361, 1368; see also City of San Diego v. San Diegans for Open Government (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 568, 578, as modified on denial of reh'g (Oct. 17, 2016))

  • Hearing

    Oct 22, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

RE: TRIAL SETTING RE: PET’N RETURN ASSETS TO EST & FOR DETERMINATION

Verified declaration by petitioner to show that notice of administration was given to the Franchise Tax Board. PrC § 9202(c)(1) 5. Compliance with CRC 7.250 regarding any acts taken under IAEA w/notice of proposed action. (Specifics needed or statement that no action was taken) 6. Waiver of Accounting by petitioner or Accounting that complies with PrC § 1060 et seq. 7.

  • Hearing

    Oct 20, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

RE: TRIAL SETTING RE: PET’N RETURN ASSETS TO EST & FOR DETERMINATION

Verified declaration by petitioner to show that notice of administration was given to the Franchise Tax Board. PrC § 9202(c)(1) 5. Compliance with CRC 7.250 regarding any acts taken under IAEA w/notice of proposed action. (Specifics needed or statement that no action was taken) 6. Waiver of Accounting by petitioner or Accounting that complies with PrC § 1060 et seq. 7.

  • Hearing

    Oct 20, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

IN RE: 85462 DEEPCLIFF DRIVE, HUNTINGTON BEACH

To date, the claims asserted against the surplus include: § Tracy Do as vested owner of record; § $2,851.16 as an unlawful detainer judgment against Tracy Do in favor of claimant Pacific Woods LLC; § $139,841.51 in unpaid state taxes owed by David Nguyen in favor of the California Franchise Tax Board. To determine the viability of the claims, it has been necessary to trace record ownership and recordations. Above all, it is also important to do equity in this matter.

  • Hearing

    Oct 16, 2020

IN THE MATTER OF ERIC ROSENBERG

The Court needs proof that a notice of hearing has been sent to the three heirs and the Franchise Tax Board, which filed a request for special notice on 6/10/20. (Prob. C. § 11601.) The petition for final distribution is not verified by Petitioner Daniel Cutright. (Prob. C. § 1021.) Absent verification, it will be denied. Supplement required Letters of general administration first issued in this case on 7/13/18. The inventory and appraisal was untimely filed on 11/22/19.

  • Hearing

    Oct 15, 2020

  • Type

    Probate

  • Sub Type

    Trust

IN THE MATTER OF ERIC ROSENBERG

The Court needs proof that a notice of hearing has been sent to the three heirs and the Franchise Tax Board, which filed a request for special notice on 6/10/20. (Prob. C. § 11601.) The petition for final distribution is not verified by Petitioner Daniel Cutright. (Prob. C. § 1021.) Absent verification, it will be denied. Supplement required Letters of general administration first issued in this case on 7/13/18. The inventory and appraisal was untimely filed on 11/22/19.

  • Hearing

    Oct 15, 2020

  • Type

    Probate

  • Sub Type

    Trust

JANE ROSSO VS ALHAMBRA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Franchise Tax Bd. (2006) 38 Cal.4th 897, 912.) Requests Nos. 6 -13 are GRANTED per Evid. Code § 452(d)(court records). Plaintiff’s Evidentiary Objections Pursuant to CCP § 437c(q), the Court only rules upon the following objections to evidence which the Court deems to be material to the disposition of this motion: No. 7: OVERRULED. Goes to weight. Also, Plaintiff testified at Page 104:20-25 that she was told in an email that Principal Richardson instructed McQuay not to come to the cafeteria.

  • Hearing

    Oct 15, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

ESTATE OF JACK P. BLAKEMORE

Nature of Proceedings: Petition for Final Distribution The following must be submitted: 1) 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).) The Petition at paragraph 8c does not indicate notice was given. 2) Accounting or Waivers. Each person entitled to distribution from the estate may waive a final account by 1) filing a written waiver of account (Pob.

  • Hearing

    Oct 14, 2020

BAILEY FOOD AND BEVERAGE GROUP, LLC VS. CLIFFORD

California Franchise Tax Bd. (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 841, 879-82; Graciano v. Robinson Ford Sales, Inc. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 140, 154.) The court is not required to impose a multiplier; the decision is discretionary. (Galbiso, 167 Cal.App.4th at 1089; Nichols v. City of Taft (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1233, 1241.) Defendant has not requested the application of a multiplier, and the court finds that no multiplier is warranted here.

  • Hearing

    Oct 09, 2020

IN THE MATTER OF NORMAN ARTHUR WIEKAMP

Notice was sent to the Franchise Tax Board on 8/7/20. The Court will grant the petition for final distribution. The proposed final distribution of the estate equally to Petitioner and Betty Bethers is consistent with the terms of the will. Proposed Order to be lodged prior to hearing per Local Rule 10.00.D.1. __________________ The court discourages in-person appearances in Department J6 during the COVID-19 pandemic period.

  • Hearing

    Oct 08, 2020

  • Type

    Probate

  • Sub Type

    Trust

ESTATE OF JACK P. BLAKEMORE

Nature of Proceedings: Petition for Final Distribution The following must be submitted: 1) 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).) The Petition at paragraph 8c does not indicate notice was given. 2) Accounting or Waivers. Each person entitled to distribution from the estate may waive a final account by 1) filing a written waiver of account (Pob.

  • Hearing

    Oct 07, 2020

RE: FIRST AND FNL RPT ON WVR OF ACCT, FOR COMPENSATION, FINAL DIST

Verified declaration by petitioner to clarify statement ¶ 19 that Franchise Tax Board filed a Creditor’s Claim. It appears no claim was filed. 3. Verified declaration by petitioner to specify plan of distribution, including approximate amount of cash to be distributed to each beneficiary. LR 7.301 4. Verified declaration by petitioner to include sale price of each asset sold so court can determine whether there were any losses on sale that should be included in statutory fee calculation 5.

  • Hearing

    Oct 06, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

  « first    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 72     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.