When are tax returns privileged?

Useful Rulings on Tax Returns and Privilege

Recent Rulings on Tax Returns and Privilege

NAZARYAN V. FEMTOMETRIX

There are three situations where the privilege does not apply: (1) an intentional relinquishment, (2) the gravamen of the lawsuit is so inconsistent with the continued assertion of the taxpayer’s privilege as to compel the conclusion that the privilege has in fact been waived, and (3) a public policy greater than that of confidentiality of tax returns is involved. Id.

  • Hearing

JANE DOE VS SKANSKA USA CIVIL WEST CALIFORNIA DISTRICT, INC., ET AL.

Tax Return Privilege: “Tax returns are privileged from disclosure.” (Strawn v. Morris, Polich & Purdy, LLP (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1087, 1098.) Even so, “[t]he tax return privilege ‘is not absolute’ and ‘will not be upheld when (1) the circumstances indicate an intentional waiver of the privilege; (2) the gravamen of the lawsuit is inconsistent with the privilege; or (3) a public policy greater than that of the confidentiality of tax returns is involved.’ ” (Ibid.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

BAYFRONT HOLDINGS, LP V DART CONTAINER OF MICHIGAN, LLC

No further responses as to Special interrogatories Nos. 55 and 56 are required as the court determines the plaintiff properly asserted the tax payer privilege. No additional sanctions shall be awarded as it appears plaintiff’s opposition was copied and pasted from the opposition to Motion no. 3 and no significant additional expense would have been incurred. Plaintiff to give notice on all motions.

  • Hearing

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

Mecay responds by arguing that the documents are protected by the right of privacy and that the tax return privilege applies. Specifically, Mecay argues that he has not put his tax returns at issue and the gravamen of plaintiffs’ claims is not inconsistent with the assertion of the privilege. “In Webb v. Standard Oil Co., 49 Cal.2d 509, 512 …, we construed former Revenue and Taxation Code section 19282.

  • Hearing

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

BARRAGAN VS TAILGATE PRINTING INC.

., the tax return privilege), the Court finds any such privileges were waived by exchanging the documents with Plaintiffs outside the context of mediation. If Defendant wishes these documents to remain sealed, it must follow the requirements of CRC 2.551.

  • Hearing

510PACIFICAVE VS GINA M LA PIANA

Defendant’s motion is brought on the grounds that: (1) the subpoena unreasonably invades the right of privacy of Defendant and third parties; (2) the subpoena seeks documents subject to a tax return privilege and is overbroad; (3) the subpoena is not reasonably particularized; and (4) disclosure to third parties or members of the public unreasonably infringes upon the right of privacy of Defendant and of third parties.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

KALJIAN SANTA BARBARA LLC V. DR. R. GREG LOWRY, DDS, INC.

After further examination, counsel advised that he intended to seek a ruling from the Court regarding the tax return privilege objection. (Hudgens decl., ¶ 7.) The procedure adopted to brief this issue is the instant motion for a protective order by Lowry Inc. Lowry Inc. argues that the tax returns are privileged and need not be produced. Kaljian LLC oppose the motion.

  • Hearing

JOY SLAGEL VS LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY ET AL

A trial court has “broad discretion” in determining whether the tax return privilege applies. (Ibid.) Here, Govind directly seeks Prashant’s tax returns and related documents form Prashant’s accountant, Accuretta, Inc. Thus, the tax return privilege is clearly implicated. However, the tax return privilege is not absolute. (Schnabel v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 704, 721.) As explained in Sammut v.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

CHRISTOPHER DUNBAR VS SHELLY MARIE TRIGG

But this statutory tax return privilege is not absolute. The privilege will not be upheld when (1) the circumstances indicate an intentional waiver of the privilege; (2) the gravamen of the lawsuit is inconsistent with the privilege; or (3) a public policy greater than that of the confidentiality of tax returns is involved. This latter exception is narrow and applies only when warranted by a legislatively declared public policy.

  • Hearing

NEEBLE-DIAMOND V. HOTEL CALIFORNIA BY THE SEA, LLC

She objected to production of these documents based on the right to privacy in her financial information and the tax return privilege. (Moorhead Decl., at ¶¶ 19, 20.) Plaintiff waived all objections by not timely serving responses. But even if her objections had not been waived, the right to privacy is not absolute.

  • Hearing

FCMT, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS DOT DOT SMILE, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

But this statutory tax return privilege is not absolute. The privilege will not be upheld when (1) the circumstances indicate an intentional waiver of the privilege; (2) the gravamen of the lawsuit is inconsistent with the privilege; or (3) a public policy greater than that of the confidentiality of tax returns is involved. This latter exception is narrow and applies only when warranted by a legislatively declared public policy.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

SCHLOMO SCHMUEL D.P.M., INC. VS. ISRAEL BASHAREL, ET AL

The tax-related documents sought by way of the subpoena are protected by the California tax-return privilege and the constitutional right to privacy without the application of any of the recognized exceptions. The Basharels have not tried to secure the tax-related information through alternative, less burdensome means nor requested the information directly from Plaintiffs themselves who have not previously prevented disclosure of sensitive documents. 2.

  • Hearing

IVANIA C. LOPEZ GOMEZ VS ASMIK BABLOYAN, ET AL.

“The tax return privilege ‘is not absolute’ and ‘will not be upheld when (1) the circumstances indicate an intentional waiver of the privilege; (2) the gravamen of the lawsuit is inconsistent with the privilege; or (3) a public policy greater than that of the confidentiality of tax returns is involved.’ ” (Strawn v. Morris, Polich & Purdy, LLP (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1087, 1098.) The gravamen of this lawsuit, as illustrated ante, is inconsistent with this privilege.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

LO VS. GOTMORTGAGE.COM

But this statutory tax return privilege is not absolute. The privilege will not be upheld when (1) the circumstances indicate an intentional waiver of the privilege; (2) the gravamen of the lawsuit is inconsistent with the privilege; or (3) a public policy greater than that of the confidentiality of tax returns is involved. (Schnabel v. Superior Court, 5 Cal.4th at 721.) The latter exception is narrow and applies only “when warranted by a legislatively declared public policy.” (Id.)

  • Hearing

SHAH VS. SHAH

B-G); (2) when Defendant did serve unverified responses, Defendant did not include the assertion of a tax return privilege (Id., at ¶ 6, Exh. C); and (3) Defendant did not raise the tax return privilege in the opposing papers (Opposition [ROA 135].) · Further, even assuming the privilege for tax returns and/or privacy rights of others were not waived, it appears they are outweighed by the need for discovery this case.

  • Hearing

BRUCE GORDON ET AL VS ERVIN COHEN & JESSUP LLP ET AL

This statutory tax return privilege is not absolute. The privilege will not be upheld when (1) the circumstances indicate an intentional waiver of the privilege; (2) the gravamen of the lawsuit is inconsistent with the privilege; or (3) a public policy greater than that of the confidentiality of tax returns is involved. (Ibid.) The third exception is narrow and applies only when warranted by a legislatively declared public policy. (Ibid.)

  • Hearing

ABIGAIL BOLDE VS NAVISTAR INC ET AL

Navistar argues that EGS “intentionally relinquished” the tax return privilege by providing the returns to the lender in negotiations regarding the debt. Navistar’s argument fails. In Fortunato v. Superior Court (2003) 114 Cal. App. 4th 475, the Court held that a taxpayer does not waive the privilege simply by providing its tax returns to a lender in order to obtain a loan.

  • Hearing

ROUGHAN & ASSOCIATES AT LINC, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS DEBORAH PERLMAN

Plaintiff argues that “Defendants are abusing the tax return privilege so that they may thwart discovery related to revenues earned by Perlman’s competing business and limit that category of damages.” (Id. at p. 12:1-2.) The deposition subpoena for production of business records seeks the following documents: “Document Request No. 11: All 1099's YOU issued to PERLMAN for years 2015-2018. Document Request No. 12: All 1099's YOU issued to RICHARDSON for years 2015-2018.” (Osborn Decl., Ex.

  • Hearing

ROUGHAN & ASSOCIATES AT LINC, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS DEBORAH PERLMAN

Plaintiff argues that “Defendants are abusing the tax return privilege so that they may thwart discovery related to revenues earned by Perlman’s competing business and limit that category of damages.” (Id. at p. 12:1-2.) The deposition subpoena for production of business records seeks the following documents: “Document Request No. 11: All 1099's YOU issued to PERLMAN for years 2015-2018. Document Request No. 12: All 1099's YOU issued to RICHARDSON for years 2015-2018.” (Osborn Decl., Ex.

  • Hearing

JENSEN V. VAN NOORD

The filing of an action seeking financial damages as alleged in this case amounts to circumstances indicating plaintiff intentionally waived the tax return privilege and the gravamen of the lawsuit is inconsistent with the privilege. Therefore, the claim of tax return privilege is overruled. When limited to the period of May 22, 2015 to the current date, the requests are not overbroad. In addition the requests are not vague and ambiguous and are not uncertain.

  • Hearing

CP MARGUERITE MV, LLC VS. O’NEILL

The 11-22-2019 “meet and confer” letter of Attorney Kay (See Decl. of Kay¶8, Ex.7) does not address the objections and responses raised in the original objections (See Decl. of Kay, Ex. 2) such as Civil Code §3295(c), tax payer privilege, and attorney work product. Therefore, because there is an insufficient showing of good cause and an insufficient meet and confer prior to filing this motion, the motion is DENIED. The requests for sanctions by each party are DENIED. Defendants to give notice.

  • Hearing

ARRIETA V. ASAS GROUP, INC.

In addition, the tax return privilege applies to corporations. Sav-On Drugs, 15 Cal.3d at 6-7. Plaintiff has shown her need for discovery to establish alter ego liability outweighs ASAS’ right to privacy in its financial records. ASAS’ privacy interest is protected through the parties’ stipulated protective order. With respect to the remaining requests, the Court orders that the motion is denied with respect to the edited requests set forth below.

  • Hearing

JEREMIAH CASAS VS THE HOPS LLC, ET AL.

Plaintiff argues that tax returns are not discoverable subject to the taxpayer’s privilege. As Plaintiff has alleged lost wages, he is required to produce records reflecting his income for the years sought. However, his tax returns, and related tax documents (W-2s) are subject to the taxpayer’s privilege.

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

BANK OF HOPE AS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST BY WAY OF MERGER TO CENTER BANK AND BBCN BANK VS SHAHRAM RAY GOLBARI, ET AL.

This statutory tax return privilege is not absolute. The privilege will not be upheld when (1) the circumstances indicate an intentional waiver of the privilege; (2) the gravamen of the lawsuit is inconsistent with the privilege; or (3) a public policy greater than that of the confidentiality of tax returns is involved. (Ibid.) The third exception is narrow and applies only when warranted by a legislatively declared public policy. (Ibid.)

  • Hearing

COTTONE V. COTTONE

As to RFP No. 4, Defendant has asserted the tax return privilege. Weingarten v. Superior Court (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 268, 274, states, “But this statutory tax return privilege is not absolute. The privilege will not be upheld when (1) the circumstances indicate an intentional waiver of the privilege; (2) the gravamen of the lawsuit is inconsistent with the privilege; or (3) a public policy greater than that of the confidentiality of tax returns is involved. [Citation.]”

  • Hearing

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.