State Taxes - Judicial Interpretation

Useful Rulings on State Taxes

Recent Rulings on State Taxes

SCHLOMO SCHMUEL VS. CASPAR MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC

Through their deposition testimony Caspar learned that Plaintiffs received benefits of property ownership in the Highland property, including depreciation and other expenses off their federal and state tax returns. (Isaacs declaration, ¶ 3.) Schmuel disclaimed any knowledge of such benefits, but Caspar also received Plaintiffs’ 2016 and 2017 tax returns evidencing such benefits.

  • Hearing

RAMON MCNEAL VS RAYMOND L. JENKINS, AN INDIVIDUAL

tax document, filed as confidential documents only with the court and not served upon or available to the plaintiff.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

  • Judge

    Maurice A. Leiter or Salvatore Sirna

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

The Preliminary Injunction The preliminary injunction enjoined (1) Defendant Choi from using Church’s name, website, telephone number, fax number, federal and state tax identification numbers, and federal employer identification number and (2) all Defendants from interfering with Church’s possession, control, and management of its Property, entering onto the Property without permission, and disrupting and/or interfering with Church’s meetings, events, and activities on the Property.

  • Hearing

BAYFRONT HOLDINGS, LP V DART CONTAINER OF MICHIGAN, LLC

RFP Nos. 88 and 89 seek federal and state tax returns from 2011 to present. Plaintiff objected based on the taxpayer privilege. Preliminary instructions: Plaintiff objected on the ground the preliminary instructions in the request was improper, citing CCP § 2030.060. That section applies to interrogatories. Therefore, that objection is invalid. Relevance: Under CCP § 2031.050, a party may make supplemental demands and may seek court permission, for good cause shown, for additional supplemental demands.

  • Hearing

INSTANT FINANCING, INC. VS WILSHIRE COMMERCIAL CAPITAL, LLC

Gentino, and file notice that the withheld amount has been remitted (which it has not been at this time), having done the same as to the state tax withholding. (Reply, at p. 3.) At that point, Respondent is correct that Mr. Gentino would be expected to file a full satisfaction of judgment. If he did not, Respondent would have a strong basis for a motion for full satisfaction of judgment.

  • Hearing

AKOP SOGOMONYAN, ET AL. VS HAMAZASP KIRAMIJYAN, ET AL.

Additionally, the requested documents involve voluminous responses, including federal and state tax returns from 2013 to present, and documents concerning various assets and debts from 2014 to present.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

JOY SLAGEL VS LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY ET AL

Merits The subpoena at issue requests the following from nonparty Accuretta, Inc.: (1) “All individual federal and state tax returns that YOU filed on behalf of PRASHANT”; (2) All corporate federal and state tax returns that YOU filed on behalf of any corporation, LLC, partnership, business, or sole proprietorship in which PRASHANT is an owner or officer, director, or manager”; (3) All DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS relating to PRASHANT’S ownership interest in any real estate”; (4) All COMMUNICATIONS between

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

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

Additional claim for funds of $3,055.33 (as of December 20, 2019) which claim was not secured by a Notice of State Tax Lien. (Grand total = $55,955.61) Kimberly Kennedy: Answer to Petition filed December 26, 2019-- Claim pursuant to lis pendens $176,385.66 Bill Frank Chandler: Claims and answers have been filed on behalf of this claimant in this action by three separate law firms.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

THE WOLF FIRM, A LAW CORPORATION VS ALL CLAIMANTS TO SURPLUS FUNDS AFTER TRUSTEE?S SALE OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT

Government Code section 7170(a) states that "a state tax lien attaches to all property and rights to property whether real or personal, tangible or intangible, including all after-acquired property and rights to property, belonging to the taxpayer and located in this state." Government Code section 7171(a) allows the EDD to record a Notice of State Tax Lien with the county recorder in the same county where the real property is located.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

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

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

WORDEN V. DEWYKE

., whether the defendant paid the business income that “passes through” to the defendant’s individual federal and state tax returns. The defendant states the question is asking whether he paid his personal taxes on the income that came through—which may be an overly restrictive view of the question. The defendant’s objections that the question is vague, ambiguous, and the information sought is confidential are sustained. Deposition Question No. 2 Deny.

  • Hearing

MONTE VAN VLEET, ET AL. VS ETHAN KENNEDY INVESTMENTS, ET AL.

Such documents include: complete federal and state tax returns, financial statements (i.e., income, profit and loss, sources and uses, balance sheet and asset lists); bank accounts (i.e., checking, savings, equity, with account numbers, name of the banking institution and location) and a list of all persons who have “invested” or “financed” any of Defendants’ business projects for the last 10 years.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

BRIAN S FORSTER VS ANTHONY MICHAEL PRINCIPE, ET AL.

As the company’s CPA, Principe prepared Told’s federal and state tax returns and, consequently, owed fiduciary duties to Told. Each fiscal year, Principe prepared a schedule K-1 for Plaintiff in relation to his ownership interest in Told. (Id. at ¶ 28.) Principe worked with Hall and Told’s office manager, Sheree Fauci (Fauci), to falsify Told’s tax returns. This scheme was meant to conceal from Plaintiff Hall and Fauci’s embezzlement of money from Told to pay for personal expenses. (Id. at ¶ 28.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

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

Additional claim for funds of $3,055.33 (as of December 20, 2019) which claim was not secured by a Notice of State Tax Lien. (Grand total = $55,955.61) Bill Frank Chandler: Claims and answers have been filed on behalf of this claimant in this action by three separate law firms. Chandler claims that he is the vested owner of record at the time of the trustee’s sale, and is entitled to all of the surplus funds.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

ABC CONSTRUCTION & RESTORATION SERVICES INC. VS EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT OF THE STATE CALIFORNIA

If an employer fails to pay the amount by the date the assessment is final, the amount shall be a perfected and enforceable state tax lien. UIC §1703. No injunction or writ of mandate or other legal or equitable process shall issue in any suit, action or proceeding, in any court against this State or against any officer thereof to prevent or enjoin the collection of any contribution sought to be collected under this division. UIC §1851. D.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

GLOBAL DISCOVERIES VS. CCC

State Bd, of Equalization, the California Supreme Court discussed the role of the administrative agency in implementing statutes, in that case the State Board of Equalization and the state tax laws, and the Court’s role in reviewing the agency’s interpretation of the statute and adoption of rules and regulations: The Legislature has delegated to the Board the duty of enforcing the sales tax law and the authority to prescribe and adopt rules and regulations. [Citations omitted.]

  • Hearing

SHAPERY ENTERPRISES VS SEARS

Further, Defendants previously had federal and state tax liens of over $100,000 recorded against their home. It is hard to see the distinction being made with Doyka. Even so, the problem is that cases that allow for the injunctive relief require that the money be readily identifiable and separately held. W. Coast Const. Co. v. Oceano Sanitary Dist., 17 Cal. App. 3d 693 (1971), Lenard v. Edmonds, 151 Cal.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

VANESSA MORALES VS WAG LABS, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION

The Settlement Administrator shall be responsible for (a) processing the data provided by Defendant to be used in calculating Individual Settlement Payments; (b) preparing, printing, and mailing to Aggrieved Employees the PAGA Payment Letter (attached hereto as Exhibit 1), as well as following up with reasonable skip tracing; (c) calculating and mailing Individual Settlement Payments to Aggrieved Employees; (d) filing any required federal and state tax forms and related agency reporting; (e) filing any required

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

CARRIEN QIAN HE, AN INDIVIDUAL VS JAY MIN CHEN, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.

Request forty-three, asks for the corporation’s state tax records. (See id.) In response to each of the Requests, Defendant responded with the following statement: Responding party is unable to comply, Responding party affirms that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with that demand.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

CARRIEN QIAN HE, AN INDIVIDUAL VS JAY MIN CHEN, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.

Request forty-three, asks for the corporation’s state tax records. (See id.) In response to each of the Requests, Defendant responded with the following statement: Responding party is unable to comply, Responding party affirms that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with that demand.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA V. PONG MARKETING AND

Courts have also extended this California statutory protection to federal tax returns, reasoning that disclose of one’s federal tax return would reveal some of the same information as appears on the state tax return. Under the circumstances, forcing disclosure of the information in the federal tax return would be equivalent to forcing disclosure of the state returns and would operate to defeat the purposes of the state statute.

  • Hearing

GLOBAL DISCOVERIES VS. CCC

State Bd, of Equalization, the California Supreme Court discussed the role of the administrative agency in implementing statutes, in that case the State Board of Equalization and the state tax laws, and the Court’s role in reviewing the agency’s interpretation of the statute and adoption of rules and regulations: The Legislature has delegated to the Board the duty of enforcing the sales tax law and the authority to prescribe and adopt rules and regulations. [Citations omitted.]

  • Hearing

SINGH V. HAMID

Although defendant declares that his past problems with the state tax authorities has no bearing on his current accounting practices or financial condition of the station, he does not declare he has changed his bookkeeping/accounting process to avoid confusion about income reporting.

  • Hearing

LOUIS JONES, ET AL. V. CAPITAL ALLIANCE ADVISORS, INC., ET AL.

Indeed, as phrased, the deposition question does not request production of Jones’s federal or state tax returns. Rather, this is a “yes or no” question which does not seem to implicate the taxpayer privilege. In other words, plaintiff Jones can answer the question without producing his federal or state tax returns. As a consequence, defendant Capital is entitled to a response to the question. Accordingly, the motion to compel an answer to the deposition question is GRANTED.

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    Presiding

  • County

    Santa Clara County, CA

KOREAN WESTERN PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF LOS ANGELES VS JONG SUK CHOI, ET AL.

Defendant Choi will be enjoined from using Church’s name, website, telephone number, fax number, federal and state tax identification numbers, and federal employer identification number. All opposing Defendants will be enjoined from interfering with Church’s possession, control, and management of its Property, entering onto the Property without permission, and disrupting and/or interfering with Church’s meetings, events, and activities on the Property.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

1 2 3 4 5 6     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.