In Boykin, Division One of this District held that the plaintiff taxpayers could not maintain a claim against their accountant for expenses flowing from an audit because there was no way to establish why the IRS chose their return for review or attribute it to any negligence on the part of the accountant.
Summary of this case from Curtis v. Kellogg AndlesonREVIEW GRANTED
In Boykin, Division One of this District held that the plaintiff taxpayers could not maintain a claim against their accountant for expenses flowing from an audit because there was no way to establish why the IRS chose their return for review or attribute it to any negligence on the part of the accountant.
Summary of this case from Curtis v. Kellogg AndlesonFull title:Boykin v. Cobin
Court:California Court of Appeals, Second District, First Division
Date published: May 31, 1994
They further contended that only the trustee had the power to assert the Corporation's claims. The court…
Boykin v. CobinREVIEW GRANTED Reprinted without change in 30 Cal.App.4th 1038, to permit tracking pending review by the…