Franchise Tax

Useful Resources for Franchise Tax

Recent Rulings on Franchise Tax

101-125 of 1781 results

AUGUSTO GAMBOA VS T&T TRUCKING GROUP, ET AL.

Defendant Maravillas Trucking LLC (“Maravilla”) is under a Franchise Tax Board suspension 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.) Maravilla’s insurance carrier, American Sentinel Insurance Company seeks to intervene in this action in order to protect its own interests.

  • Hearing

    Sep 10, 2020

LYDIA HARRIS VS KEVIN GILLIAM

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Lydia Harris OPPOSITION: Defendant Wasserman, Comden, & Casselman, LLP This Action: In February 2002, Plaintiff Lydia Harris sued defendants Marion Knight (“Knight”) and the music label Death Row Records alleging that she owned fifty percent of Death Row Records. In March 2005, the court entered a judgment in favor o...

  • Hearing

    Sep 09, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

BETH BOGAERTS VS THOMAS SCHOENBERGER, ET AL.

In support, Plaintiff presents the following pieces of evidence: An Annual Franchise Tax Report for ShadowBox, the company which the parties allegedly formed (Compl. ¶¶ 13-20). (Pl. Decl. Ex. B.) The tax report is dated October 2017. (Ibid.) The report lists ShadowBox’s principal place of business as 4415 Westchester Drive, Woodland Hills, CA 91364 and lists Schoenberger as the company’s president and director. (Ibid.) Address information from Schoenberger’s PayPal account. (Pl. Decl. Ex. C.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 09, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

HIT SONG PRODUCTIONS LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS LARRY WILCOX, ET AL.

., a California corporation which is currently suspended by the California Franchise Tax Board and Secretary of State. (Boris Decl. ¶8.) He also currently works with Saratoga Entertainment, Inc., a California corporation which is a production and digital distribution company. (Boris Decl. ¶8.) Plaintiff also provides a copy of Debtor’s IMDb page, an internet movie database. (Boris Decl. ¶8, Exh. E.) In addition, Debtor continues to act and produce content.

  • Hearing

    Sep 08, 2020

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Promisory Note

  • Judge

    Paul A. Bacigalupo or Virginia Keeny

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

INTERMEDIA FILM DISTRIBUTION, LTD. VS NBC UNIVERSAL MEDIA, LLC

He states that he is the sole shareholder of LEI, which is currently suspended by the Franchise Tax Board. (Id., ¶5.) The claims in Plaintiff’s complaint show that the causes of action against Defendants are dependent upon or inextricably intertwined with the underlying obligations of the Asset Purchase Agreement. For example, in the fraud cause of action, Plaintiff alleges that Mr.

  • Hearing

    Sep 04, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MARIA DE JESUS DOMINGUEZ VS DOES 1 THROUGH 100

As of August 28, 1991, Citronix was suspended by the Franchise Tax Board. (Id.) This document does not establish that Citronix purposefully availed itself of the benefits of operating in California with respect to the matter in controversy. It fails to shed any light on Citronix’s activities in California concerning its acetone product plaintiff purportedly used and, indeed, suggests Citronix has conducted no business activity in the state for at least three decades.

  • Hearing

    Sep 04, 2020

SWANSON VS FRANCHISE TAX BOARD

The Court will conduct a hearing on Attorney Joe Alfred Izen's application to appear pro hac vice. At the hearing, the Court will invite the applicant to address: (1) Attorney Izen's residence address (California Rules of Court, Rule 9.40(d)(1); and (2) whether Attorney Izen has paid the fee to the State Bar of California required by Rule 9.40(e). ...

  • Hearing

    Sep 03, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

SWANSON VS FRANCHISE TAX BOARD

The Court will conduct a hearing on Attorney Joe Alfred Izen's application to appear pro hac vice. At the hearing, the Court will invite the applicant to address: (1) Attorney Izen's residence address (California Rules of Court, Rule 9.40(d)(1); and (2) whether Attorney Izen has paid the fee to the State Bar of California required by Rule 9.40(e). ...

  • Hearing

    Sep 03, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

IN RE THE ESTATE OF JOLANTA CANADA, DECEASED

Petition, page 4, Item 20: The petition states that the creditor’s claim from Franchise Tax Board was paid and the claim withdrawn on April 4, 2019. However, the petitioner has not filed the mandatory Judicial Council Allowance or Rejection of Creditor’s Claim (form DE-174) as required by Probate Code section 9250. 3. Petition, page 4, Item 24: The fee calculation does not include the losses on sale for the real property. Court staff calculates the statutory fee at $9,208.80, not $10,328.05. 4.

  • Hearing

    Sep 01, 2020

SCHWARTZ VS. GHC OF NEWPORT BEACH, LLC

YOUR involvement in filing taxes on behalf of the FACILITY, both to the Internal Revenue Service and the Franchise Tax Board. Mr. Gerken testified that he was not involved in filing taxes on behalf of the facility and that Generations Healthcare is responsible for that through its accounting department. Mr. Gerken is not required to review or approve any tax documents filed on behalf of Newport Nursing.

  • Hearing

    Sep 01, 2020

DALE HARMS VS. THE BANK OF NEW YORK

Franchise Tax Bd. (1978) 20 Cal.3d 881, 887 [“A federal judgment is as final in California courts as it would be in federal courts.”].) While it does not appear that res judicata applies specifically to the claims against Anchor raised in this case because Anchor was not a party litigant in the previous cases, Plaintiff does appear to be collaterally estopped from asserting his claims for wrongful foreclosure, slander of title, and quiet title.

  • Hearing

    Aug 31, 2020

  • Judge

    Burch

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

CREDITORS ADJUSTMENT BUREAU, INC. VS BRITE LITE ENTERPRISES, A CORPORATION, ET AL.

The Shamoeil declaration indicates defendant only became aware of the suspension in March 2020 and has been diligently trying to contact the Franchise Tax Board to resolve its suspension since that date, but was unable to do so until late July 2020, when it was informed that it would take a minimum of 6-8 weeks to reverse the suspension. Shamoeil decl., ¶¶2-5.

  • Hearing

    Aug 21, 2020

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Promisory Note

LISA M. JONES VS RANDALL WHITAKER MAXEY, ET AL.

that was retrieved on April 1, 2020 (Exhibit 2) The “Entity Status Letter” dated April 1, 2020 for Biometrics Corporation, entity ID number 3873858 that was retrieved from the California Franchise Tax Board’s website (Exhibit 3).

  • Hearing

    Aug 21, 2020

IN THE MATTER OF JOHN RUDOLPH DICKERSON

RECOMMENDATION Has the notice to the Franchise Tax Board been given as required under Prob. C. 9202(c)? Discuss payment of attorney fees in absence of liquidity in estate. Subject to such notice, a final account is waived. (Prob. C. § 10954.) Approve $23,065 in statutory attorney fees to Petitioners' counsel. Petitioners waive their fees.

  • Hearing

    Aug 20, 2020

ESTATE OF MARY ALEXANDRA LOPEZ

Claims were filed by Ascension and Franchise Tax Board on 11-21-16 and 1-17-17, respectively. 3. Verified declaration by petitioner to state whether notice was given, or needed, to the Director of the California Victim Compensation Board, i.e., does petitioner have any reason to believe any heir has previously been confined in any prison or other correctional facility. PrC §§ 216, 9202(b) 4.

  • Hearing

    Aug 20, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

RE: PET’N FOR FINAL DISTRIBUTION

Claims were filed by Ascension and Franchise Tax Board on 11-21-16 and 1-17-17, respectively. 3. Verified declaration by petitioner to state whether notice was given, or needed, to the Director of the California Victim Compensation Board, i.e., does petitioner have any reason to believe any heir has previously been confined in any prison or other correctional facility. PrC §§ 216, 9202(b) 4.

  • Hearing

    Aug 20, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

SANSANAYE LEONG ARSENESCU VS COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF

Franchise Tax Bd. (2006) 38 Cal.4th 897, 912.) Requests Nos. 2 and 3 are GRANTED per Evid. Code § 452(d)(court records). Plaintiff requests that the Court take judicial notice of the following: (1) Defendant’s demurrer to Complaint; (2) Notice of Ruling on Demurrer; (3) First Amended Complaint; (4) Defendant’s motion for summary judgment; (5) Minute Order granting and denying motion for summary judgment tin part. Requests Nos. 1 – 5 are GRANTED per Evid. Code § 452(d)(court records).

  • Hearing

    Aug 19, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

PERRONE VS BOB'S DISCOUNT FURNITURE HEARING RE: MOTION TO/FOR STRIKE PORTION OF PLFFS COMPLAINT / MPAS / DECLARATION BY BOB'S DISCOUNT FURNITURE LLC

Franchise Tax Bd. (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 1, 29.) “Section 1021.5 is intended as a ‘bounty’ for pursuing public interest litigation, not a reward for litigants motivated by their own interests who coincidentally serve the public.” (California Licensed Foresters Ass'n v. State Bd. of Forestry (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 562, 570; Ryan v. California Interscholastic Federation (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 1033, 1047.) Plaintiff seeks compensatory, general, special and punitive damages.

  • Hearing

    Aug 19, 2020

BRYAN MEDDERS VS WSI RECRUITING, INC. D/B/A JOBCLICK, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

On January 17, 2020, WSI filed an opposition WSI conceding it is not current in regard to the payment of its Franchise Tax obligations and is in the process of curing the deficiency. As such, WSI requested this court continue the matter for 60 days. In Reply, Plaintiff did not oppose a short continuance but requested this court continue only the portion of Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike regarding WSI’s suspension for 30 days as discovery is already ongoing in this matter.

  • Hearing

    Aug 18, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

  • Judge

    Paul A. Bacigalupo or Virginia Keeny

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

PETITION OF CNA FORECLOSURE SERVICE INC

First, the court disburses $1,704.80 to the Franchise Tax Board to satisfy its February 23, 2012 state tax lien against Ms. Kelly's interest in the Property. See Cal. Civ. Code § 2924k(a)(3). Second, the court disburses $5,225.48 to Christopher J. Barber to satisfy his June 8, 2015 judgment lien against the Property. See Cal. Civ. Code § 2924k(a)(3). Third, the court disburses $3,621.41 to Madrid Manor Inc. to satisfy its February 11, 2019 assessment lien against the Property. See Cal. Civ.

  • Hearing

    Aug 13, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY VS OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE COMPANY

Franchise Tax Bd. (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 193, 215-16. Moreover, even if R&S could not alter legal relations under its contract with the Zoo, this fact alone does not conclusively eliminate the potential for coverage under the policies. As such, Old Republic has not met its burden of proof. See Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(p)(1); see also Maryland Casualty, 48 Cal.App.4th at 1832. In sum, Zurich is entitled to summary adjudication of count one for declaratory relief.

  • Hearing

    Aug 12, 2020

  • Type

    Insurance

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

STOCKWELL, HARRIS, WOOLVERTON & HELPHREY VS UNIVERSAL FUNDING CORPORATION

A review of the Defendant’s motion reveals that it has evidence that it is now in good standing with the Secretary of State and Franchise Tax Board. This includes a Certificate of Revivor that relieves the Defendant from the forfeiture. However, until the Defendant obtains relief from the default, it is barred from opposing any motions.

  • Hearing

    Aug 12, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

SAM SEGAL ET AL VS BIDDING UNLIMITED INC ET AL

If any corporation, accepting the Constitution of this State and coming under Chapter 1 of this title, or any corporation which has heretofore filed or may hereafter file a certificate of incorporation under said chapter, neglects or refuses for 1 year to pay the State any franchise tax or taxes, which has or have been, or shall be assessed against it, or which it is required to pay under this chapter, or shall neglect or refuse to file a complete annual franchise tax report, the charter of the corporation shall

  • Hearing

    Aug 12, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

IN RE: 43 HOLLYHOCK LANE #236, ALISO VIEJO, CA 92656

CA Franchise Tax Board – claim withdrawn Claimant herein is the prior owner of record. He requests distribution of $43,201.67 – which represents – according to claimant, the balance of surplus funds after righteous claims are satisfied. While this is certainly altruistic of claimant, that is not entirely how this process works. The Court does not hold funds for prospective claimants who do not perfect their claims with court filings.

  • Hearing

    Aug 07, 2020

IN RE: 8462 DEEPCLIFF DRIVE HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92646

To date, the claims asserted against the surplus include: § $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 is necessary to trace record ownership and recordations. On or about 07/15/03, David Nguyen acquired the subject property with a loan of $500,000 owing to American Mortgage Network.

  • Hearing

    Aug 07, 2020

  « 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.