Privileged Tax Returns in California

When Are Tax Returns Privileged?

Purpose and Scope of the Privilege

In California, state and federal tax returns are privileged.

Tax records, both state and federal, are privileged to facilitate disclosure and payment of taxes. (See Schnabel v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 704, 718-721; Weingarten v. Superior Court (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 268, 274; Webb v. Standard Oil Co. (1957) 49 Cal. 2d 509, 513 to 514; Sav-on Drugs, Inc. v. Superior Court (1975) 15 Cal.3d 1, 6.) Tax returns regarding income taxes, employment taxes, sales taxes, and estate taxes, are all covered by this privilege. (Sav-on Drugs, Inc., 15 Cal.3d at 6.) There is “a clear legislative intent that disclosures made in tax returns shall not be indiscriminately exposed to public scrutiny.” (Id. at 6.)

The privilege is judicially created and stems from the California Supreme Court’s holding in Web v. Standard Oil Co. of Calif. (1957) 49 Cal.2d 509, 513-514. In that case, the defendants in a tort case moved the trial court to order the production of the plaintiffs’ state and federal income tax returns. The trial court denied the motion and the California Supreme Court affirmed. In reaching its decision, the California Supreme Court relied upon former Revenue and Taxation Code § 19282, now codified at § 19542, which makes it a misdemeanor for public officials to reveal contents of tax returns. (Id.) Based upon that section, the Court held that an implied statutory privilege exists prohibiting forced disclosure in civil proceedings of a party’s tax returns. (Id.) The purpose of the privilege is to facilitate collection of taxes. (See Sav-On Drugs, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (1975) 15 Cal.3d 1, 6 [allowing discovery could discourage taxpayers from making full and truthful tax returns, out of concern their returns could be used against them for other purposes].)

The privilege, however, is not absolute. (Schnabel v. Super. Ct. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 704, 721 (Schnabel).) According to our state Supreme Court, “the privilege is waived or does not apply in three situations:

  1. there is 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, or
  3. a public policy greater than that of confidentiality of tax returns is involved.”

(Schnabel, supra, 5 Cal.4th at 721; see also Wilson v. Superior Court (1976) 63 Cal.App.3d 825, 830-831.) These exceptions are to be narrowly construed. (Id. at 721-722.).)

Taxpayer Privilege and Financial Privacy

The tax return privilege and the right to financial privacy are distinct. Taxpayers are privileged to withhold copies of both their tax returns and related tax return information, which privilege is implied from statutes requiring state taxing authorities to keep all filed tax returns and reports confidential and making unauthorized disclosure a misdemeanor offense. (CA Rev. & Tax Code §§ 19542, 7056; Schnabel v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 704, 719-720; Webb v. Standard Oil Co. (1957) 49 Cal.2d 509.)

The privilege applies to both state and federal tax returns, whether personal or corporate, including income, employment, estate, payroll and sales tax returns. (Schnabel, supra at 720-721.) The privilege also protects information made in the returns (Sav-On Drugs, Inc. v. Superior Court (1975) 15 Cal.3d 1, 7), and other documents forming an “integral part” of the tax return, such as W-2 forms (Brown v. Superior Court (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 141, 143-144).

Public Policy

The trial court has discretionary authority to order production of tax returns in the rare instance where public policy against disclosure is outweighed by other compelling, legislatively-declared public policies. (Schnabel, supra, 5 Cal.4th at 721; Deary v. Super. Ct. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1072, 1080)

Public policy favoring discovery in civil litigation is not a sufficient basis to outweigh the privilege. (Fortunato v. Super. Ct. (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 475 at 483.) “The fact that financial records are difficult to obtain or that a tax return would be helpful, enlightening or the most efficient way to establish financial worth is not enough.” (Weingarten v. Super. Ct. (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 268, 276 (Weingarten).)

For example, in Weingarten, the trial court weighed public policy against the necessity to maintain confidentiality of tax returns. It considered the policies of the judicial system’s ability to ensure an ordered discovery process and the ability of a plaintiff to establish punitive damages and weighed them against the right to claim a tax return privilege. (Weingarten, supra, 102 Cal.App.4th at 276.) The taxpayer in Weingarten repeatedly refused to produce relevant financial information in a business fraud case and did not comply in good faith with discovery requests. She intentionally interfered with plaintiff’s ability to obtain relevant information through legitimate means and then “sought to hide behind the tax return privilege to ensure no relevant information would be revealed.” (Id. at 275.)

The Court of Appeal held a trial court can properly consider whether:

  1. the defendant refused to produce relevant financial records;
  2. the defendant has engaged in a pattern of obstructing efforts to obtain financial records and there is evidence the pattern will continue; and
  3. less intrusive methods to obtain the financial records have been unsuccessful.

(Id. at 276-277.)

In Deary, litigants seeking damages from the estate of a decedent claimed their entitlement to discovery outweighed the privilege against disclosing the estate tax returns. (Deary, supra, 87 Cal.App.4th at 1076.) The appellate court found that plaintiffs had failed to identify a legislatively-declared public policy (id. at p. 1080) and found no evidence of a legislative intent to withdraw the privilege against disclosure. (Id. at 1081.) As a consequence, the appellate court ordered the trial court to vacate its order granting a motion to compel production of a tax return.

Finally, the public-policy exception to the tax-return privilege is narrow and only applies when warranted by a legislatively declared public policy. (Deary, supra, 87 Cal.App.4th at 1080.) Moreover, the public policy must be a compelling one, and exceptions on this ground will be declared only rarely. (Weingarten, supra, 102 Cal.App.4th at 276.)

Rulings for Tax Returns and Privilege in California

The tax payer privilege is waived or does not apply in three situations: (1) there is 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, or (3) a public policy greater than that of confidentiality of tax returns is involved (Schnabel v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 704, 721.) These exceptions are to be narrowly construed. (Id. at 721-722.)

  • Name

    LONGEVITY FITNESS INC. VS. COMPLETE CONTROLLER

  • Case No.

    30-2017-00936271-CU-CO-CJC

  • Hearing

    Dec 17, 2018

“[T]he [tax return] privilege is waived or does not apply where (1) there is 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, or (3) a public policy greater than that of confidentiality of tax returns is involved.” ( Sammut v. Sammut (1980) 103 Cal.App.3d 557, 560, internal quotations and citations omitted.)

  • Name

    PIERRE NASNAS, AN INDIVIDUAL VS AVIS RENT A CAR SYSTEM INC. A BUSINESS ENTITY, EXACT FORM UNKNOWN, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV25312

  • Hearing

    Aug 05, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

Ct . (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 475, 482 (potential relevance alone does not render the tax-return privilege inapplicable); Weingarten v. Sup. Ct . (2002) 102 Cal. App. 4th 268, 274; Deary v. Sup. Ct. (2001) 87 Cal. App. 4th 1072, 1079 (tax return privilege is derived from Revenue and Taxation Code and is inaccurately referred to as a constitutional right of privacy); Schnabel v. Sup. Ct . (1993) 5 Cal.4th 704, 721; Wilson v. Sup. Ct. (1976) 63 Cal.

  • Name

    GARDASH LLC VS PENN-STAR INSURANCE COMPANY, AN EXCHANGE OF THE GLOBAL INDEMNITY GROUP INSURANCE COMPANIES, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV30390

  • Hearing

    Sep 02, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Insurance

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

First, the court already ordered that Namvar produce his tax returns and that the tax return privilege does not apply. Second, Namvar’s tax returns shows that he reported K-1 losses/income from Equimax Mortgage 7 Loan and Foutain Equity Advisors, LLC. The tax returns therefore contradict Namvar’s sworn testimony that he has no interest in these entities.

  • Name

    NADER & SONS, ET.AL. VS. HOMAYOUN NAMVAR

  • Case No.

    SS018783

  • Hearing

    Apr 26, 2017

The documents requested are subject to the tax return privilege. Despite Plaintiff’s contention, he has not shown any of the Defendants waived the tax return privilege. The allegations in the Cross-Complaint do not take a position inconsistent with Defendants’ assertion of the taxpayer privilege. Plaintiff has not shown a public policy greater than that of confidentiality of tax returns is involved.

  • Name

    CARRILLO V. ESQUEDA, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    30-2018-00982500-CU-CO-CJC

  • Hearing

    May 31, 2019

Is there a tax return privilege, and is it waived by assertion of a lost earnings claim? The first issue is whether tax returns are privileged and, if so, under what circumstances they should be produced. The taxpayer’s privilege protects all tax returns, whether personal or corporate, including income, employment, estate, payroll and sales tax returns. (Schnabel v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 704, 720-721.) It also covers business (corporate and partnership) tax returns. (Webb v.

  • Name

    AMIR SAEED ASIL ET AL VS VIVIAN BIRNDORF

  • Case No.

    BC682982

  • Hearing

    Apr 18, 2019

To the extent any correspondence does not reflect an amount entered into the tax return, it is not covered by the tax return privilege. Even if it does, there is some question about the application of the privilege, particularly given that the return privilege does not apply to underlying records and data upon which returns are based.

  • Name

    MARY MORRIS VS MANSOUR ROFEH

  • Case No.

    1416561

  • Hearing

    Feb 10, 2014

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.

  • Name

    JOY SLAGEL VS LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC648246

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

The tax return privilege is not absolute.

  • Name

    FCS057779 - PEOPLE OF THE STATE V DHILLON, PARAM; ET AL. (DMS)

  • Case No.

    FCS057779

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2022

  • County

    Solano County, CA

The tax return privilege is not absolute.

  • Name

    FCS057779 - PEOPLE OF THE STATE V DHILLON, PARAM; ET AL. (DMS)

  • Case No.

    FCS057779

  • Hearing

    Dec 05, 2022

  • County

    Solano County, CA

The tax return privilege is not absolute.

  • Name

    FCS057779 - PEOPLE OF THE STATE V DHILLON, PARAM; ET AL. (DMS)

  • Case No.

    FCS057779

  • Hearing

    Nov 30, 2022

  • County

    Solano County, CA

The tax return privilege is not absolute.

  • Name

    FCS057779 - PEOPLE OF THE STATE V DHILLON, PARAM; ET AL. (DMS)

  • Case No.

    FCS057779

  • Hearing

    Dec 02, 2022

  • County

    Solano County, CA

The tax return privilege is not absolute.

  • Name

    FCS057779 - PEOPLE OF THE STATE V DHILLON, PARAM; ET AL. (DMS)

  • Case No.

    FCS057779

  • Hearing

    Dec 06, 2022

  • County

    Solano County, CA

The tax return privilege is not absolute.

  • Name

    FCS057779 - PEOPLE OF THE STATE V DHILLON, PARAM; ET AL. (DMS)

  • Case No.

    FCS057779

  • Hearing

    Dec 01, 2022

  • County

    Solano County, CA

The tax return privilege is not absolute.

  • Name

    FCS057779 - PEOPLE OF THE STATE V DHILLON, PARAM; ET AL. (DMS)

  • Case No.

    FCS057779

  • Hearing

    Dec 07, 2022

  • County

    Solano County, CA

The tax return privilege is not absolute.

  • Name

    FCS057779 - PEOPLE OF THE STATE V DHILLON, PARAM; ET AL. (DMS)

  • Case No.

    FCS057779

  • Hearing

    Dec 04, 2022

  • County

    Solano County, CA

With this stipulation, there is no danger that the requested information will compromise the tax payer privilege. The motion to compel further production is therefore granted. Counsel are ordered to meet and confer to determine a mechanism by which the information can be produced without implicating the tax payer privilege. RPD 15 RPD 15 seeks production of each settlement statement Chien provided to Plaintiff during the relevant period.

  • Name

    CURTIS NUTALL VS MOON LIGHTING LOGISTICS INC., ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19LBCV00434

  • Hearing

    Dec 08, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

“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.” (Id. at 375.) Defendant contends that all three exceptions apply to this action.

  • Name

    MADELINE8, LLC VS. ALVARADOSMITH, APC

  • Case No.

    30-2020-01124146

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2021

Moreover, with respect to Plaintiff’s tax returns, Defendants utterly fail to overcome the taxpayer’s privilege.

  • Name

    CARLOS GOMEZ VS ANITA-BOND SALAMA, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19NWCV00829

  • Hearing

    Apr 22, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

With respect to the damages arising out of the missing K-1, Seay argues that only the 2010 tax return is even potentially implicated, and so requests for other tax returns are barred by the tax return privilege. Even as to the 2010 tax return, however, Seay argues that the tax return privilege has not been waived because the K-1 is the only document that reflects the amount of loss that could have been claimed by Seay. (Opposition re RFP, p. 8.)

  • Name

    BRIEN SEAY VS CRUNCHIES FOOD COMPANY LLC

  • Case No.

    1415449

  • Hearing

    Mar 17, 2014

Still, the tax return privilege is not absolute. There are 3 exceptions: (1) intentional relinquishment; (2) when the gravemen of the lawsuit is so inconsistent with the taxpayer’s privilege as to compel the assertion that the privilege has been waived; and (3) when legislatively declared public policy favoring disclosure is greater than the confidentiality of tax return policy. Schnabel v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 704, 721.

  • Name

    PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA V. PONG MARKETING AND

  • Case No.

    FCS047090

  • Hearing

    Feb 07, 2020

  • Judge

    E. BRADLEY NELSON

  • County

    Solano County, CA

However, “…the tax return privilege is not absolute, and may be lost where, for example, there is an intentional relinquishment, or the gravamen of the underlying action is inconsistent with the assertion of the privilege, or ‘a public policy greater than that of confidentiality of tax returns is involved.’” Id. at 1080 [citation omitted]. Ann argues that unlike the claimant against the estate in Deary, she is a beneficiary.

  • Name

    ESTATE OF RICHARD T PERRY

  • Case No.

    1264725

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2010

The Supreme Court did not state that the tax return privilege was abrogated only if one had an ownership interest in the tax paying entity. Rather, it concluded that the important public policy favoring adequate support and fair property division overcame the privacy interests supporting the tax return privilege.

  • Name

    MARNIE LEIGH GRACEY VS MARWAN AHMAD MOHAMMED ALBAWARDI

  • Case No.

    23STCP01941

  • Hearing

    Oct 06, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

In the motions regarding the tax documents, Defendant additionally argues any tax return privilege is outweighed by the relevancy of the tax information, which goes to the gravamen of this lawsuit. Defendant asserts that the tax privilege has also been waived by Plaintiffs instituting this action and claiming Defendant owes Plaintiffs unpaid wages.

  • Name

    SONG OK MIN ET AL VS KIM KYUNG

  • Case No.

    BC641383

  • Hearing

    Oct 18, 2018

With respect to the tax return privilege, based on lack of any defense based on a conditional donation agreement, plaintiff fails to show defendant either intentionally relinquished the tax return privilege or that defendants defense is inconsistent with assertion of the privilege. Because the interrogatories are not relevant to defendants asserted defenses, plaintiff fails to show any need for the charitable contribution information which could possibly override the tax return privilege.

  • Name

    WESTERN DIOCESE OF THE ARMENIAN CHURCH OF NORTH AMERICA, ET AL. VS PETROS TAGLYAN

  • Case No.

    19STCV38577

  • Hearing

    Apr 19, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

In light of the purpose of the tax return privilege, to encourage full and truthful declarations of the taxpayer in the returns (Webb, supra), documents actually prepared by the taxpayer such as Schedule C should be entitled to greater protection than tax documents prepared by a third party employer. Further, Plaintiff's Second Supplemental Response to RFPD No. 25 expressly reserves Plaintiff's right to assert the tax return privilege with respect to Schedule C while agreeing to provide Forms W-2 and 1099.

  • Name

    ORAGE VS AMWAY CORP.

  • Case No.

    RG20049773

  • Hearing

    May 24, 2021

Submission of one’s tax returns to a bank as part of a loan application does not qualify as the intentional relinquishment of the tax return privilege. See Fortunato v. Supr. Ct.

  • Name

    HP GROUP G.C. INC. VS SHAHAB BINAFARD, ET AL

  • Case No.

    SC129418

  • Hearing

    Jul 20, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

However, the tax return privilege cannot be asserted where a public policy greater than that of confidentiality of tax returns is involved, such as between spouses where public policy favors full disclosure between spouses and fair division of community property where Family Code §§2100, 2120(a) outweighs any interest in confidentiality of tax returns.. Schnabel v. Superior Court (Schnabel) (1993) 5 Cal.4th 704, 720-721.

  • Name

    FOOTE V NIELSEN

  • Case No.

    PSC 1702401

  • Hearing

    Sep 26, 2018

Defendant objected to requests 35 and 36 on the grounds that the documents are irrelevant, overbroad, privileged, and confidential due to tax payer privilege. As for numbers 35-36, the requests are relevant because they could lead to the discovery of a material witness or potential other parties.

  • Name

    ALEJANDRO BANUELOS VS PATRIOT HYUNDAI OF EL MONTE LLC

  • Case No.

    21STCV17301

  • Hearing

    Oct 24, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

As to W2s and 1099s, which subject to a tax payer privilege, given that salary, commission, payroll, employee benefit and performance evaluations are being compelled, and considering the privileged nature of tax documents, plaintiff’s motion to quash as to W2’s and 1099’s is GRANTED as a compelling need for such tax related documents is not shown.

  • Name

    CARTWRIGHT VS ANDERSON CHARNESKY STRUCTURAL STEEL

  • Case No.

    30-2017-00961141-CU-WT-CJC

  • Hearing

    Aug 02, 2018

T he taxpayer’s privilege protects all tax returns, whether personal or corporate, including income, employment, estate, payroll and sales tax returns. ( Schnabel v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 704, 720 721.) The privilege protects all entries made on tax returns, the content of the return, as well as production of the returns themselves. ( Sav On Drugs, Inc. v. Superior Court (1975) 15 Cal.3d 1, 7.)

  • Name

    SUTHA SACHAR VS JESSICA CARDINES ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC703914

  • Hearing

    Apr 15, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

She intentionally interfered with plaintiff’s ability to obtain relevant information through legitimate means and then “sought to hide behind the tax return privilege to ensure no relevant information would be revealed.” (Id. at p. 275.)

  • Name

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

  • Case No.

    2016-CV-304278

  • Hearing

    Jan 16, 2020

  • Judge

    Presiding

  • County

    Santa Clara County, CA

Defendant has filed no opposition to put forth any argument for waiver or inapplicability of the tax return privilege. The subpoena appears facially improper, and the motion to quash the subpoena to Jasmine Hoa Nguyen is GRANTED. Plaintiff to give notice

  • Name

    TRAN VS. NGUYEN

  • Case No.

    30-2016-00871054-CU-BC-CJC

  • Hearing

    Nov 29, 2018

Request for Production No. 19 seeks information protected by the right to financial privacy and the tax return privilege. The Court also finds that Plaintiff did not waive the tax return privilege by filing this action and that Defendant did not meet his burden of establishing that any privilege is outweighed by the need for relevant discovery. Whether or not Plaintiff filed the IRS Form 8594 is irrelevant to the issues asserted in this action.

  • Name

    CBIZ BENEFITS & INSURANCE SERVICES, INC. V. RUBIN

  • Case No.

    30-2017-00917777

  • Hearing

    Apr 01, 2021

TENTATIVE RULING These motions were continued from 2/21/2018 to rule on the remaining disputed issue, application of the tax return privilege to the 1099 forms and commission statements, after further briefing. Having considered the new briefs, the court now rules as follows: the tax return privilege applies to the 1099 forms but it does not apply to the commission statements.

  • Name

    KENNETH D RICKEL VS MARTIN W. ENRIGHT ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC595770

  • Hearing

    Mar 14, 2018

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.

  • Name

    SHAH VS. SHAH

  • Case No.

    30-2018-01011349

  • Hearing

    Aug 26, 2020

Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 704 concluded that the tax return privilege generally applies to the kinds of tax returns involved in that case – the case involved corporate tax returns relevant in a dissolution case. (Schnabel v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 704, 720–721.) The Court held the tax return privilege discussed in Webb v. Standard Oil Co. of Cal. (1957) 49 Cal.2d 509 applied. However, the Court explained: The [tax return] privilege is not absolute... As explained in Sammut v.

  • Name

    WON VS. VAULT BIOVENTURES INC

  • Case No.

    37-2015-00001387-CU-FR-CTL

  • Hearing

    Feb 08, 2018

Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 704 concluded that the tax return privilege generally applies to the kinds of tax returns involved in that case – the case involved corporate tax returns relevant in a dissolution case. (Schnabel v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 704, 720–721.) The Court held the tax return privilege discussed in Webb v. Standard Oil Co. of Cal. (1957) 49 Cal.2d 509 applied. However, the Court explained: The [tax return] privilege is not absolute... As explained in Sammut v.

  • Name

    CHEAP EASY ONLINE TRAFFIC SCHOOL VS PETER L HUNTTING & CO INC

  • Case No.

    37-2019-00042558-CU-NP-CTL

  • Hearing

    Aug 26, 2021

Plaintiff objected based on relevancy and on the grounds that it seeks privileged information pursuant to the tax return privilege set forth in Webb y. Standard Oil Company of California (1957) 49 Cal.2d. 509, 513. The Court need not determine whether the tax return privilege applies to the yes or no question of whether one files. Plaintiff has sued Defendants for damages based on alleged failure to comply with several provisions of the Labor Code regarding wages and hours, overtime, etc.

  • Case No.

    CV2101242

  • Hearing

    Feb 20, 2022

  • County

    Marin County, CA

Plaintiff objected based on relevancy and on the grounds that it seeks privileged information pursuant to the tax return privilege set forth in Webb y. Standard Oil Company of California (1957) 49 Cal.2d. 509, 513. The Court need not determine whether the tax return privilege applies to the yes or no question of whether one files. Plaintiff has sued Defendants for damages based on alleged failure to comply with several provisions of the Labor Code regarding wages and hours, overtime, etc.

  • Case No.

    CV2101242

  • Hearing

    Feb 18, 2022

  • County

    Marin County, CA

Plaintiff objected based on relevancy and on the grounds that it seeks privileged information pursuant to the tax return privilege set forth in Webb y. Standard Oil Company of California (1957) 49 Cal.2d. 509, 513. The Court need not determine whether the tax return privilege applies to the yes or no question of whether one files. Plaintiff has sued Defendants for damages based on alleged failure to comply with several provisions of the Labor Code regarding wages and hours, overtime, etc.

  • Case No.

    CV2101242

  • Hearing

    Feb 21, 2022

  • County

    Marin County, CA

Plaintiff objected based on relevancy and on the grounds that it seeks privileged information pursuant to the tax return privilege set forth in Webb y. Standard Oil Company of California (1957) 49 Cal.2d. 509, 513. The Court need not determine whether the tax return privilege applies to the yes or no question of whether one files. Plaintiff has sued Defendants for damages based on alleged failure to comply with several provisions of the Labor Code regarding wages and hours, overtime, etc.

  • Case No.

    CV2101242

  • Hearing

    Feb 17, 2022

  • County

    Marin County, CA

Plaintiff objected based on relevancy and on the grounds that it seeks privileged information pursuant to the tax return privilege set forth in Webb y. Standard Oil Company of California (1957) 49 Cal.2d. 509, 513. The Court need not determine whether the tax return privilege applies to the yes or no question of whether one files. Plaintiff has sued Defendants for damages based on alleged failure to comply with several provisions of the Labor Code regarding wages and hours, overtime, etc.

  • Case No.

    CV2101242

  • Hearing

    Feb 22, 2022

  • County

    Marin County, CA

Plaintiff objected based on relevancy and on the grounds that it seeks privileged information pursuant to the tax return privilege set forth in Webb y. Standard Oil Company of California (1957) 49 Cal.2d. 509, 513. The Court need not determine whether the tax return privilege applies to the yes or no question of whether one files. Plaintiff has sued Defendants for damages based on alleged failure to comply with several provisions of the Labor Code regarding wages and hours, overtime, etc.

  • Case No.

    CV2101242

  • Hearing

    Feb 16, 2022

  • County

    Marin County, CA

Plaintiff objected based on relevancy and on the grounds that it seeks privileged information pursuant to the tax return privilege set forth in Webb y. Standard Oil Company of California (1957) 49 Cal.2d. 509, 513. The Court need not determine whether the tax return privilege applies to the yes or no question of whether one files. Plaintiff has sued Defendants for damages based on alleged failure to comply with several provisions of the Labor Code regarding wages and hours, overtime, etc.

  • Case No.

    CV2101242

  • Hearing

    Feb 19, 2022

  • County

    Marin County, CA

The Court finds that Plaintiff John Rice has sufficiently preserved the tax return privilege to raise it in future proceedings as an objection to the admissibility of any evidence obtained from Inman. The Court declines to make any order determining the merits of an objection based on taxpayer privilege at this point in the proceedings.

  • Name

    JOHN RICE VS. ROBERT RICE

  • Case No.

    56-2017-00498970-CU-FR-VTA

  • Hearing

    Mar 16, 2018

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.)

  • Name

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

  • Case No.

    19STCV33834

  • Hearing

    Nov 13, 2020

The “statutory 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. This latter exception is narrow and applies only ‘when warranted by a legislatively declared public policy.’

  • Name

    BENNETT KOO VS JAI JUNE RHEE ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC580540

  • Hearing

    Mar 27, 2017

Request nos. 23, 24, 29: Plaintiff Union Square Investments did not waive the tax return privilege as to its federal and state tax returns. Request nos. 58-61, 73: The discovery pertaining to non-party 1275 Calhoun, LLC is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Request nos. 64 and 67: The requests are overbroad.

  • Name

    SABEER BHATIA, ET. AL. VS. EAST WEST BANK, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, A ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC10496945

  • Hearing

    Dec 20, 2011

Defendant is directed to serve further responses, without objections other than the tax return privilege, within twenty (20) days of the hearing of this Motion. Defendant is directed to produce the requested materials within twenty five (25) days of the hearing of this Motion. Plaintiff's request for sanctions will be HEARD. Defendant's objections have been, in part, SUSTAINED; however, the Court is not clear whether Defendant has yet produced any documents.

  • Name

    TYNAN VS. KIMZEY

  • Case No.

    37-2015-00017070-CU-OR-CTL

  • Hearing

    Mar 13, 2017

These subpoenas also seek W-2 forms and 1099s, which are covered by the income tax return privilege. Brown v. Superior Court (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 141, 143-144.

  • Name

    BOWMAN VS. ZIMMERMAN

  • Case No.

    MCC1601087

  • Hearing

    Apr 24, 2018

  • Judge

    Raquel A. Marquez

  • County

    Riverside County, CA

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.

  • Name

    CP MARGUERITE MV, LLC VS. O’NEILL

  • Case No.

    30-2016-00877038-CU-BT-CJC

  • Hearing

    Mar 05, 2020

Further, Plaintiff argues that the subpoena seeks materials that violates the tax-payer privilege, and also violates Plaintiffs constitutional right to privacy. Defendants argue that Plaintiff has put her employment records at issue because she claims loss of earnings and therefore, she has waived her right to privacy. Further, Defendants argue that it can be inferred that Plaintiff has only worked at the employer for 5 years.

  • Name

    MARGARET ASTEN VS BARRY COLMAN,, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEE OF THE BARRY AND MARIE COLMAN LIVING TRUST, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21STCV09389

  • Hearing

    Nov 30, 2021

The Weingarten court stated that "that a finding a defendant is liable for punitive damages is insufficient, by itself, to establish the tax return privilege is inapplicable.

  • Name

    MRAZEK VS QUIROGA

  • Case No.

    37-2018-00037257-CU-BC-CTL

  • Hearing

    Apr 25, 2019

While Plaintiff asserts various objections, including tax return privilege, it appears that Plaintiff has impliedly and expressly waived any privilege by seeking claim for wage loss and producing the responsive documents from 2010-2016.

  • Name

    GARZA VS. WHITWORTH

  • Case No.

    30-2017-00902452-CU-PA-CJC

  • Hearing

    May 08, 2018

DENY as to Request for Production Nos. 2-24 (privacy rights) and 25 to 28 (tax return privilege and privacy rights). GRANT sanctions against defendant and her counsel in the amount of $1,250.00 in attorney’s fees and $60.00 in costs, for a total of $1,310.00. Admissions: GRANT the motion to compel further responses to Request for Admissions as to Request Nos. 2 to 5, 6, 7, 10, and 16. DENY as to Nos. 8, 9, 11 to 14, and 16 to 20, within 20 days. No sanctions on the motion regarding admissions.

  • Name

    PHILLIPS VS MORALES

  • Case No.

    MCC1901556

  • Hearing

    May 12, 2021

  • Judge

    Raquel A. Marquez

  • County

    Riverside County, CA

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.

  • Name

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

  • Case No.

    19CV01434

  • Hearing

    Oct 30, 2020

Tax Return Privilege The first issue raised is whether the tax returns are protected by a privilege. Tax returns are privileged from disclosure. [Citation.] The purpose of the privilege is to encourage voluntary filing of tax returns and truthful reporting of income, and thus to facilitate tax collection. [Citation.]

  • Name

    SHELDON RABINOWITZ VS ISAAC BENJAMIN PAZ, BENJAMIN PAZ, M.D., ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV44112

  • Hearing

    Oct 17, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

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.]”

  • Name

    COTTONE V. COTTONE

  • Case No.

    30-2010-00335370-CU-PO-CJC

  • Hearing

    Feb 11, 2020

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. “Attempts to avoid the application of the privilege by indirect means could not be tolerated. . . .

  • Name

    CHAVEZ VS. CHAVEZ

  • Case No.

    30-2020-01148474

  • Hearing

    Apr 19, 2021

After agreeing to produce those documents, Defendant belatedly invoked the tax-return privilege. Generally speaking, a party cannot raise in a supplement response a new objection not asserted in the original response. (See Stadish v Superior Court (1999) 71 Cal.App.4 th 1130, 1140.) But a waiver of the tax-return privilege must be voluntary which necessarily means a knowing waiver not one of inadvertence or oversight. ( Fortunato v. Superior Court (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 475, 481-482.)

  • Name

    SOCAL DIESEL INC VS EXTRASENSORY SOFTWARE INC

  • Case No.

    BC597857

  • Hearing

    Mar 01, 2024

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

The “statutory 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. This latter exception is narrow and applies only ‘when warranted by a legislatively declared public policy.’

  • Name

    BENNETT KOO VS JAI JUNE RHEE ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC580540

  • Hearing

    Oct 05, 2016

The Court is not persuaded by Plaintiff's argument that Defendant waived her tax return privilege by not objecting to production of her tax returns until the conclusion of the judgment debtor examination. Plaintiff cites former CCP § 2025(m)(1) [now CCP § 2025.460(a) as amended 2005] governing depositions and former CCP § 2031(l) [now CCP § 2031.300(a) as amended 2005] governing requests for production of documents. Neither statute applies here.

  • Name

    JOHN LEVIN, TRUSTEE OF THE JOHN LEVIN M.D. PENSION PLAN VS. GARY M. LEEDS

  • Case No.

    37-2010-00050332-CU-OR-NC

  • Hearing

    Feb 06, 2020

Tax Return Privilege: “California courts […] have interpreted state taxation statutes as creating a statutory privilege against disclosing tax returns… But this statutory tax return privilege is not absolute.

  • Name

    ARI MORENO GUTIERREZ VS. EXAMONE WORLD WIDE, INC.

  • Case No.

    20CECG02326

  • Hearing

    Feb 15, 2022

  • County

    Fresno County, CA

Here, the tax documents sought come with the tax return privilege. Defendants have not demonstrated that the information sought comes within the exceptions to the tax return privilege, as described in Weingarten, supra, 102 Cal.App.4th at 274. There is no indication that Plaintiff has intentionally waived the tax privilege. Nor is the gravamen of the lawsuit pleading that Defendants embezzled from Plaintiff inconsistent with the privilege.

  • Name

    PHILLIPS STEEL COMPANY VS GREG PHILLIPS ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC712946

  • Hearing

    Jan 29, 2019

Nor have they demonstrated that they have standing to assert the tax return privilege. As to Request Nos. 34-41, the Motion is GRANTED, and the requests are MODIFIED as follows: · Limited in time from 2012 to present · Limited to communications referring to or regarding Central Partners Parent Group, Inc., CMX Distribution, Inc., Purple Mountain Holdings, Inc., ECS Laboratories, Inc., Brand Pack, LLC, and/or Toronto Way Partners, Inc. No sanctions.

  • Name

    HILLSBORO BROWN CAPITAL, LLC VS. TAFT

  • Case No.

    30-2019-01087702

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2020

Superior Court (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 475, 481 (any financial documents submitted with a loan are privileged)) and the tax return privilege (Rev. & Tax C. §19542.) Taxpayers are privileged to withhold disclosure of copies of both their federal and state returns. (Webb v. Standard Oil Co. (1957) 49 Cal.2d 509, 513-514.) The tax return privilege is not absolute and cannot be asserted where a public policy greater than that of confidentiality of tax returns is involved. (Schnabel v.

  • Name

    BERUMEN VS LOS MAGUELLES INC

  • Case No.

    PSC2004142

  • Hearing

    Sep 12, 2023

  • County

    Riverside County, CA

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, supra, 5 Cal. 4th at p. 721.) This latter exception is narrow and applies only "when warranted by a legislatively declared public policy." (Ibid.)

  • Name

    SYED ALI HUSAIN ET AL VS WAUSAU BUSINESS INSURANCE COMPANY

  • Case No.

    BC691736

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2019

As to RFP 75, defendant admits that plaintiffs already have his tax return so he fails to justify the application of the tax return privilege. Nor does he offer any facts to support any privacy privilege or a finding that the RFP is unduly burdensome or overly broad. Specifically as to RFP 77, defendant makes no showing information would otherwise be protected from disclosure by a claim of privilege, and therefore support the application of the common interest doctrine.

  • Name

    CARDINAL COLLECTION VS MUSEUM OF GLOBAL

  • Case No.

    56-2016-00482534-CU-CO-VTA

  • Hearing

    Jan 31, 2020

Superior Court (1965) 62 Cal. 2d 274, 278), 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’ (Wilson v. Superior Court, supra, 63 Cal. App. 3d at p. 830), or (3) a public policy greater than that of confidentiality of tax returns is involved.” (Schnabel v.

  • Name

    WALTER H O'ROURKE ET AL VS NAYYER Z ALI M D ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC514989

  • Hearing

    Jul 25, 2017

Superior Court (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1072, 1082 [declining to hold that tax return privilege applied to “related” documents when party made “no effort to identify the allegedly protected documents, or explain with legal argument and pertinent authority why the tax return privilege should be extended to those materials”].)

  • Name

    SANDRA BUTCHER VS THE CROSSROADS SCHOOL FOR ARTS AND SCIENCE

  • Case No.

    BC684186

  • Hearing

    Dec 11, 2019

The court here determines that the tax return privilege has been appropriately asserted by plaintiff, except as to tax return documents already produced and disclosed in this litigation, and that the moving parties have failed to establish that the privilege has been waived with respect to any other tax materials, or otherwise should not be considered absolute under the circumstances.

  • Name

    JASON STEGER VS CSJ PROVIDENCE ST JOSEPH MEDICAL CENTER ET A

  • Case No.

    BC691050

  • Hearing

    Jul 26, 2019

Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 557, the burden is on “the party asserting a privacy interest to establish its extent and the seriousness of the prospective invasion, and against that showing must weigh the countervailing interests the opposing party identifies…” Courts have held that “confidential financial information given to a bank by its customers is protected by the right to privacy that became a part of the California Constitution after the judicial formulation of the tax-return privilege.”

  • Name

    ETC BAR INC. VS. PATHOMRIT

  • Case No.

    30-2018-01032126-CU-FR-CJC

  • Hearing

    Aug 29, 2019

As to RFP 37, DENY; information is protected by tax return privilege. As to RFP 38, DENY; this request is overbroad and seeks interest in real property ownership which information is private and not outweighed by the need for relevant discovery. As to RFP 43, DENY; Saul Delgado’s employment records in the possession of Cesar Delgado might be relevant since Saul Delgado is identified as DELGADO’s project manager; however as propounded it is overbroad and subject to the right of privacy.

  • Name

    DELGADO VS. FOUR BOYS HOLDINGS, LLC AS TRUSTEE OF FOUR BOYS TRUST

  • Case No.

    30-2017-00952968-CU-BC-CJC

  • Hearing

    Feb 04, 2019

There is no authority that extends the tax return privilege beyond the actual return and the specific entries on the return. Nor does Plaintiff cite any such authority. Accordingly, the court declines to add the CPA prepared balance sheet to be covered by the court’s protective order covering the tax returns and the specific contents contained therein.

  • Name

    TOWZ INC VS DIAFERIO

  • Case No.

    PSC 1605775

  • Hearing

    Sep 12, 2018

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.

  • Name

    ABIGAIL BOLDE VS NAVISTAR INC ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC674305

  • Hearing

    Aug 18, 2020

Accordingly, the court determines that the requested information is not an integral part of a tax return and does not fall within the scope of the Tax Return Privilege. iii.

  • Name

    MICKIE WONG VS SRIUBON SAWASDITHEP, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    23NWCV00400

  • Hearing

    Jan 02, 2024

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

To override the tax return privilege, the Court must find the tax returns in question relevant and find a compelling need for the returns because the requested information is otherwise not readily obtainable. ( A. Farber , 234 F.R.D. 186, 190191.) a.

  • Name

    TERESA MEZA VS SIMON'S CATERERS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV20168

  • Hearing

    Apr 11, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Under the "tax return privilege", a California citizen is protected from turning over tax returns in the course of litigation. (Save-on Drugs Inc. at 6.) Accordingly, the Court finds that based on Plaintiff’s admissions (RFA No. 7, 8, 10, 11) and representations in her opposition, Plaintiff concedes factor C of the Dynamex test and as such Defendant has not provided good cause especially in light of the applicable tax return privilege.

  • Name

    SUMER CAMPA VS SLV INVESTMENT COMPANY LLC ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC705481

  • Hearing

    Apr 12, 2019

Second, Plaintiffs assert the tax return privilege. "California statutes [] generally prohibit California tax authorities from disclosing tax return information, subject to certain exceptions." (Firestone v. Hoffman (2006) 140 Cal. App. 4th 1408, 1419.)

  • Name

    MAGDALENO VS AMETEK, INC.

  • Case No.

    RG19046904

  • Hearing

    Jun 28, 2021

  • Judge

    Jo-Lynne Lee

  • County

    Alameda County, CA

Second, Plaintiffs assert the tax return privilege. "California statutes [] generally prohibit California tax authorities from disclosing tax return information, subject to certain exceptions." (Firestone v. Hoffman (2006) 140 Cal. App. 4th 1408, 1419.)

  • Name

    MAGDALENO VS AMETEK, INC.

  • Case No.

    RG19046904

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2021

  • Judge

    Jo-Lynne Lee

  • County

    Alameda County, CA

Defendant's assertion of the tax return privilege is SUSTAINED. Defendant's assertion of the attorney client privilege and attorney work product doctrine is SUSTAINED subject to the provision of a privilege log as described below. Defendant's objections to requests that seek "ALL ... DOCUMENTS and DATA ... (or) COMMUNICATIONS ..." as overbroad are SUSTAINED. The balance of Defendant's objections are OVERRULED.

  • Name

    BECK VS POINT LOMA PATIENTS CONSUMER COOPERATIVE CORPORATION [E-FILE]

  • Case No.

    37-2017-00037524-CU-BT-CTL

  • Hearing

    May 15, 2018

Superior Court, supra, 20 Cal. 3d at 859) The purpose of the tax-return privilege is to encourage voluntary filing of tax returns and truthful reporting of income, and thus facilitate tax collection. (Webb v. Standard Oil, supra, 49 Cal. 2d at 513) It does this by assuring the taxpayer that such voluntary filing and truthful reporting will not result in a loss of confidentiality. (Deary v. Superior Court (2001) 87 Cal.

  • Name

    JAIPAL DHIMAN VS. DARSHAN DHIMAN

  • Case No.

    PC056907

  • Hearing

    Jul 27, 2017

Thus, the gravamen of this lawsuit is the wrongful conversion by defendants of assets belonging to plaintiffs, which is inconsistent with the assertion of the taxpayer’s privilege. The purpose of the privilege is to encourage a taxpayer to make full and truthful declarations in his return. It is not to facilitate the tax payer in perpetrating a fraud, which would be inconsistent with public policy. Thus, the Court finds that any such privilege does not apply in this instance.

  • Name

    WINJET TRADING INC., VS JIM YUEH HSIEH

  • Case No.

    KC069703

  • Hearing

    Jan 09, 2019

But this statutory tax return privilege is not absolute.

  • Case No.

    22STCV14915

  • Hearing

    Jun 12, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

The gravamen of the lawsuit, personal injury, is not inconsistent with the tax return privilege. The request for sanctions is denied. Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to pcc@manningllp.com with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number.

  • Name

    DOREEN J. HOROWITZ VS. CAFFE ROMA ROASTING COMPANY, LP ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC13532384

  • Hearing

    Aug 15, 2014

  • Judge

    Peter Catalanotti

  • County

    San Francisco County, CA

Plaintiffs now seek to quash the improperly served subpoena on the grounds that it seeks testimony and documents regarding information protected by the tax return privilege and the privacy privilege, it is unduly burdensome on Deponent, it seeks irrelevant information, and the source of information are readily available from another source. The deposition subpoena was not served on the deponent as required by the code of civil procedure. (Code Civ. Proc., §2020.010, 2025.280.)

  • Name

    ARTHUR S. HIRSCH, ET AL. VS RONALD FRIEDMAN, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21STCV37883

  • Hearing

    Mar 29, 2023

  • Judge

    day s

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

As to the subpoena, Plaintiffs waived their right to the protections of the tax return privilege on these grounds. (See Inabnit v. Berkson (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 1230, 1239 [finding that a failure to object to a subpoena seeking medical records waived the psychotherapist-patient privilege].) Plaintiffs have put the contents of the tax returns squarely at issue in this case. (Smith Decl.,¶ 9.) Plaintiffs are claiming damages for millions of dollars in lost capital and in lost contractual preferred returns.

  • Name

    CA RESIDENTIAL OPPORTUNITY FUND LP VS NELSON

  • Case No.

    37-2018-00040455-CU-BC-CTL

  • Hearing

    Dec 10, 2020

“While there is no “bank-customer privilege akin to the lawyer-client privilege” or other statutory privileges, confidential financial information given to a bank by its customers is protected by the right to privacy that became a part of the California Constitution after the judicial formulation of the tax-return privilege. . . .

  • Name

    STRADLING YOCCA CARLSON & RAUTH, P.C. VS. CONSUMERDIRECT, INC.

  • Case No.

    30-2016-00851144-CU-BC-CJC

  • Hearing

    Apr 10, 2017

In his supplemental responses, Defendant objects that the requests are irrelevant and invokes the tax-return privilege. Plaintiff also seeks further response to RFP Nos. 120 and 121, which target documents related to Defendants net worth. Last, Plaintiff seeks further response to RFP No. 122, which concerns documents related to payments Defendant received from ExtraSensory Software, Inc. from 2017 until the present.

  • Name

    SOCAL DIESEL INC VS EXTRASENSORY SOFTWARE INC

  • Case No.

    BC597857

  • Hearing

    Feb 28, 2024

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

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.

  • Name

    BAYFRONT HOLDINGS, LP V DART CONTAINER OF MICHIGAN, LLC

  • Case No.

    30-2019-01111420

  • Hearing

    Nov 01, 2020

The Supreme Court set out the very narrow standards under which the tax return privilege can be overcome: “The privilege is not absolute. In Sav-On Drugs, Inc. v.

  • Name

    N.Y. ENTERPRISES, INC VS. MARCUS JOHNS

  • Case No.

    EC063750

  • Hearing

    Jan 06, 2017

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Superior Court , the Court of Appeal extended the tax return privilege to apply to apply to documents which “constitute an integral part of the return and qualify as ‘information contained in the returns...’” ( Brown, supra , 71 Cal.App.3d at 143–144.)

  • Name

    DAVID AFZAL VS ROY YERUSHALMI ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC710143

  • Hearing

    Jan 11, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

Here, Plaintiff has not articulated a legitimate and countervailing interest in discovering tax returns of individuals or entities other than Global Valley which outweighs the statutory tax return privilege. Accordingly, this request is limited to Global Valley, LLC only[2] for the period May 2009 through the present. ¿ Request No. 30: GRANT in part. Kuo does not object to production of documents that specifically relate to Global Valley, LLC.

  • Name

    WEIJING ZHAO ET AL VS GLOBAL VALLEY LLC ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC597103

  • Hearing

    Jul 05, 2018

Moreover, although not addressed by the parties, there is no indication that the taxpayer’s privilege has been waived, or that there is a public policy greater than that of confidentiality of tax returns. (See Weingarten v. Superior Court (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 268, 274-275.) Given the Court’s mixed ruling, both parties’ requests for sanctions are denied.

  • Name

    ROMO & ASSOCIATES, INC. VS. AVR INVESTMENTS, LLC

  • Case No.

    VC066666

  • Hearing

    May 09, 2019

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.

  • Name

    JEREMIAH CASAS VS THE HOPS LLC, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV10021

  • Hearing

    Feb 27, 2020

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Thus, the gravamen of this lawsuit is the wrongful conversion by Defendants of assets belonging to Plaintiff, which is inconsistent with the assertion of the taxpayer’s privilege. The purpose of the privilege is to encourage a taxpayer to make full and truthful declarations in his return. It is not to facilitate the tax payer in perpetrating a fraud, which would be inconsistent with public policy. Thus, the court finds that any such privilege does not apply in this instance.

  • Name

    SHERRY K. LAGROU VS WILLIAM A. MORTON, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19NWCV00934

  • Hearing

    Feb 09, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

Swallow also moves to compel further testimony of Jerome Bellotti without objection based on tax return privilege. Discussion Swallow has two pending motions to compel further discovery. The Court addresses each in turn.

  • Name

    BRYAN J ROBERTS VS ERIC SWALLOW ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC603331

  • Hearing

    Oct 07, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Plaintiff has already provided the relevant income information via the Schedule K-1s and Defendant has not provided any reason why the tax returns should be produced in light of the tax return privilege.

  • Name

    MADRIGAL VS RAINCROSS PUB AND RESTAURANT, LLC

  • Case No.

    RIC2002182

  • Hearing

    Dec 29, 2022

Superior Court, the Court of Appeal extended the tax return privilege to apply to apply to documents which constitute an integral part of the return and qualify as information contained in the returns& (Brown, supra, 71 Cal.App.3d at 143144.)

  • Name

    YVETTE ORTIZ VS WESTFIELD, LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21STCV20203

  • Hearing

    Nov 29, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Please wait a moment while we load this page.

New Envelope