tax return privilege in California

2019Tax returns are privileged from disclosure. ( Webb v. Standard Oil Co. (1957) 49 Cal.2d 509 , 512-513, 319 P.2d 621 .) "The purpose of the privilege is to encourage voluntary filing of tax returns and truthful reporting of income, and thus to facilitate tax collection." ( Weingarten v. Superior Court (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 268 , 274, 125 Cal.Rptr.2d 371 ; Webb, at p. 513, 319 P.2d 621 .) 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

2019Tax returns are privileged from disclosure. ( Webb v. Standard Oil Co. (1957) 49 Cal.2d 509 , 512-513, 319 P.2d 621 .) "The purpose of the privilege is to encourage voluntary filing of tax returns and truthful reporting of income, and thus to facilitate tax collection." ( Weingarten v. Superior Court (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 268 , 274, 125 Cal.Rptr.2d 371 ; Webb, at p. 513, 319 P.2d 621 .) 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

2019Tax returns are privileged from disclosure. ( Webb v. Standard Oil Co. (1957) 49 Cal.2d 509 , 512-513, 319 P.2d 621 .) "The purpose of the privilege is to encourage voluntary filing of tax returns and truthful reporting of income, and thus to facilitate tax collection." ( Weingarten v. Superior Court (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 268 , 274, 125 Cal.Rptr.2d 371 ; Webb, at p. 513, 319 P.2d 621 .) 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

2019Tax returns are privileged from disclosure. ( Webb v. Standard Oil Co. (1957) 49 Cal.2d 509 , 512-513, 319 P.2d 621 .) "The purpose of the privilege is to encourage voluntary filing of tax returns and truthful reporting of income, and thus to facilitate tax collection." ( Weingarten v. Superior Court (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 268 , 274, 125 Cal.Rptr.2d 371 ; Webb, at p. 513, 319 P.2d 621 .) 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

2015(E.g., Fortunato v. Superior Court (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 475 [in a will contest, no compelling public policy outweighed the tax return privilege].) California has a “strong legislative policy in favor of fair child and spousal support awards and a fair division of community assets.” (Schnabel, supra, 5 Cal.4th at p. 722 .) That policy overcomes the tax return privilege in marital dissolution proceedings, and a party to such proceedings must disclose his or her tax returns to the opposing party.

2014The effect of the statutory prohibition is to render the returns privileged, and the privilege should not be nullified by permitting third parties to obtain the information by adopting the indirect procedure of demanding copies of the tax returns.’” ( Schnabel, supra, at p. 719 .) The tax return privilege applies to both state and federal tax returns “because ‘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.’” ( Firestone, supra, at p. 1420 .) The privile

2014(Ibid.; M.S. v. O.S. (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 548, 558 ["Ordinarily, a party's challenge to the presumption of correctness is based on the argument that income or benefits not included on the other parent's federal tax returns should nonetheless be included in gross income for calculation of guideline support."].) Not only does the evidence recounted above effectively rebut the tax-return presumption, but additional trial testimony also suggested John's tax returns were not reliable for purposes of determining support.

2003(See Agricultural Labor Relations Bd. v. Laflin & Laflin (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 651, 666-667, fn. 16 [ 152 Cal.Rptr. 800 ].) Nevertheless, we believe that the constitutional right of privacy in financial documents in a bank’s possession has bearing upon the question of whether the tax-return privilege was waived in this case.

2003(See Agricultural Labor Relations Bd. v. Laflin & Laflin (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 651, 666-667, fn. 16 [ 152 Cal.Rptr. 800 ].) Nevertheless, we believe that the constitutional right of privacy in financial documents in a bank’s possession has bearing upon the question of whether the tax-return privilege was waived in this case.

2003(Valley Bank of Nevada v. Superior Court (1975) 15 Cal.3d 652, 656 [ 125 Cal.Rptr. 553 , 542 P.2d 977 ]; Cal. Const., art.

2003(Valley Bank of Nevada v. Superior Court (1975) 15 Cal.3d 652, 656 [ 125 Cal.Rptr. 553 , 542 P.2d 977 ]; Cal. Const., art.

2003(Burrows v. Superior Court (1974) 13 Cal.3d 238, 243 [ 118 Cal.Rptr. 166 , 529 P.2d 590 ].) 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 *481 the tax-return privilege.

2003(Burrows v. Superior Court (1974) 13 Cal.3d 238, 243 [ 118 Cal.Rptr. 166 , 529 P.2d 590 ].) 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 *481 the tax-return privilege.

2003Code, §§ 8870-8873.) Civil discovery statutes promote the important public policy of facilitating “ ‘ “the ascertainment of truth and the just resolution of legal claims.” ’ ” (Marylander v. Superior Court (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1119, 1127 [ 97 Cal.Rptr.2d 439 ].) The public-policy exception to the tax-return privilege, “[h]owever, ... is narrow, and only applies ‘when warranted by a legislatively declared public policy.’ [Citation.]” (Deary v. Superior Court, supra, 87 Cal.App.4th at p. 1080 .) Further, the public policy must be a compelling one, and exceptions on this ground will be declared

2003Code, §§ 8870-8873.) Civil discovery statutes promote the important public policy of facilitating “ ‘ “the ascertainment of truth and the just resolution of legal claims.” ’ ” (Marylander v. Superior Court (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1119, 1127 [ 97 Cal.Rptr.2d 439 ].) The public-policy exception to the tax-return privilege, “[h]owever, ... is narrow, and only applies ‘when warranted by a legislatively declared public policy.’ [Citation.]” (Deary v. Superior Court, supra, 87 Cal.App.4th at p. 1080 .) Further, the public policy must be a compelling one, and exceptions on this ground will be declared

2001Co. v. Superior Court (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 263, 274 [ 69 Cal.Rptr.2d 112 ].) Invoking this general principle, plaintiff contends defendants “neglected to raise any objection on the basis of the tax return privilege at any stage until [they] desperately attempted to avoid production of the relevant documents after being compelled to do so by the trial court in October 2000.” Plaintiff’s assertions are not, in our view, an accurate characterization of the events below.

2001Co. v. Superior Court (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 263, 274 [ 69 Cal.Rptr.2d 112 ].) Invoking this general principle, plaintiff contends defendants “neglected to raise any objection on the basis of the tax return privilege at any stage until [they] desperately attempted to avoid production of the relevant documents after being compelled to do so by the trial court in October 2000.” Plaintiff’s assertions are not, in our view, an accurate characterization of the events below.