Hall v. Franchise Tax Board

6 Citing cases

  1. Paine v. State Bd. of Equalization

    137 Cal.App.3d 438 (Cal. Ct. App. 1982)   Cited 13 times

    The taxpayer must affirmatively establish the right to a refund of the taxes by a preponderance of the evidence ( Maganini v. Quinn (1950) 99 Cal.App.2d 1, 8 [ 221 P.2d 241]), and cannot simply assert error and shift to the state the burden of justifying the tax. ( Hall v. Franchise Tax Board (1966) 244 Cal.App.2d 843, 848 [ 53 Cal.Rptr. 597].) The sales tax is imposed upon retailers.

  2. Toys "R" US v. Franchise Tax

    138 Cal.App.4th 339 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 1 times

    The FTB's determinations are presumptively correct and the taxpayer bears the burden of proving them incorrect. ( Hall v. Franchise Tax Board (1966) 244 Cal.App.2d 843, 848 [ 53 Cal.Rptr. 597].) II. APPORTIONMENT UNDER SECTION 25120, SUBDIVISION (e)

  3. Wertin v. Franchise Tax Bd.

    68 Cal.App.4th 961 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 18 times
    In Wertin, the FTB issued an assessment based on federal adjustments to the Wertins' tax returns without reviewing the state return the Wertins filed. (Wertin, supra, 68 Cal.App.4th at pp. 965-966.)

             On appeal, the FTB argues its position was substantially justified because it was based upon published California legal rulings permitting the FTB to rely on a federal audit in issuing a deficiency notice. (See, e.g., Montgomery Wards&sCo. v. Franchise Tax Bd., supra, 6 Cal.App.3d at p. 170; Hall v. Franchise Tax Board (1966) 244 Cal.App.2d 843, 848 [53 Cal.Rptr. 597].) The FTB also argues the Wertins failed to exhaust their administrative remedies before filing suit, and thus are not entitled to attorneys' fees. (§ 19717, subd. (b) (1).)

  4. Capitol Records, Inc. v. State Bd. of Equalization

    158 Cal.App.3d 582 (Cal. Ct. App. 1984)   Cited 8 times
    In Capitol Records, Inc. v. State Bd. of Equalization,supra, 158 Cal.App.3d 582, the Court of Appeals held that master sound tapes used in the production of phonograph records were taxable because they were "useful in the manufacturing process" and were not furnished incidental to a service.

    In an action for refund, `the taxpayer has the burden of proof to show that he is entitled to his claim. He cannot assert error and thus shift to the state the burden to justify the tax. . . .' ( Hall v. Franchise Tax Board (1966) 244 Cal.App.2d 843, 848 [ 53 Cal.Rptr. 597].)" ( Honeywell, Inc. v. State Bd. of Equalization (1982) 128 Cal.App.3d 739, 744 [ 180 Cal.Rptr. 479]; see Paine v. State Bd. of Equalization (1982) 137 Cal.App.3d 438, 442 [ 187 Cal.Rptr. 47].) B

  5. Honeywell, Inc. v. State Bd. of Equalization

    128 Cal.App.3d 739 (Cal. Ct. App. 1982)   Cited 15 times

    He cannot assert error and thus shift to the state the burden to justify the tax. . . ." ( Hall v. Franchise Tax Board (1966) 244 Cal.App.2d 843, 848 [ 53 Cal.Rptr. 597].) (1b) Second, there are specific provisions of the Sales and Use Tax Law which place the burden of establishing nontaxability on the taxpayer.

  6. National Film Laboratories, Inc. v. California State Bd. of Equalization

    No. D049006 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 4, 2007)

    (McDonnell Douglas, supra, 10 Cal.App.4th at p. 1420.) It cannot assert error and shift the burden to the state to justify the tax. (Consolidated Accessories Corp. v. Franchise Tax Board, supra, 161 Cal.App.3d at p. 1039; Hall v. Franchise Tax Bd. (1966) 244 Cal.App.2d 843, 848.) Under this principle and general tenets of statutory construction, our de novo resolution of Crest's claim to the section 6396 exemption is simple.