refund claim in California

2023McKnight, supra, 110 Cal.App.4th at pp. 986–987.) Thus, the requirement of administrative exhaustion does not force us to “ignore actual notice the [FTB] may have had from sources other than the four corners of the initial claim.” (Id. at p. 987; accord, Franchise Tax Bd. Limited Liability Corp. Tax Refund Cases (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 369, 386 ; see also Wallace Berrie & Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization (1985) 40 Cal.3d 60, 66, fn. 2 [exhaustion challenge rejected when issue was implicit in claim and Board’s trial stance showed it was aware of issue].) We construe a tax refund claim 12 liberall

2013(McKnight, supra, 110 Cal.App.4th at p. 987 , discussing Wallace Berrie, 40 Cal.3d at p. 66, fn. 2 .) In Jimmy Swaggart, the Court of Appeal looked beyond just the initial claim and considered the entire record before the Board, including the Board's denial that any exemption applied and its staff analysis of the plaintiff's petition for redetermination, to hold the taxpayer in that case had not raised various constitutional claims in its claim for refund, in which it had asserted only a First Amendment argument.

2013Such knowledge—standing alone—constitutes neither substantial compliance nor basis for estoppel." ' " (Shiseido, 235 Cal.App.3d at p. 492 , quoting Mercury Casualty Co., supra, at p. 40.) The Shiseido court declined to apply federal tax authorities, observing that California's claim statutes are clear and straightforward and the filing of a refund claim was a simple and unburdensome act.

2009(See Shiseido Cosmetics (America) Ltd. v. Franchise Tax Board (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 478, 488-489 [ 286 Cal.Rptr. 690 ] (Shiseido) [exhaustion of remedies doctrine has no application to an action to recover a tax paid; courts are without authority to alter statutory procedures for tax refunds enacted by the Legislature].) Chase is not assisted by the decision in Focus Cable of Oakland, Inc. v. County of Alameda (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 519, 525-527 [ 219 Cal.Rptr. 95 ] (Focus Cable), which concluded that the failure to cite a particular statute in a refund claim filed under section 5097 did not ba

2014The Legislature has enacted “a specific statutory refund procedure for taxpayers whose property has been improperly assessed.” (IBM Personal Pension Plan v. City and County of San Francisco (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1291, 1299 [ 32 Cal.Rptr.3d 656 ] (IBM).) As explained in IBM, “[s]ection 5096 provides for the ‘refund of taxes paid before or after delinquency if they were erroneously or illegally collected (subd. (b)), or illegally assessed or levied (subd. (c)).’ [Citation.] Section 5097 requires that this refund be based on a claim that is ‘(1) Verified by the person who paid the tax ... .’ [][

2014The Legislature has enacted “a specific statutory refund procedure for taxpayers whose property has been improperly assessed.” (IBM Personal Pension Plan v. City and County of San Francisco (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1291, 1299 [ 32 Cal.Rptr.3d 656 ] (IBM).) As explained in IBM, “[s]ection 5096 provides for the ‘refund of taxes paid before or after delinquency if they were erroneously or illegally collected (subd. (b)), or illegally assessed or levied (subd. (c)).’ [Citation.] Section 5097 requires that this refund be based on a claim that is ‘(1) Verified by the person who paid the tax ... .’ [][

2021And, section 5142, subdivision (a) provides that a court action may not “be commenced or maintained . . . unless a claim for refund has first been filed pursuant to Article 1 (commencing with Section 5096),” and “[n]o recovery shall be allowed in any refund action upon any ground not specified in the refund claim.” (See Steinhart, supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 1307 .) 13 In light of these statutes, our Supreme Court has explained that in the property tax context, “application of the exhaustion principle means that a taxpayer ordinarily may not file or pursue a court action for a tax refund without f

2021And, section 5142, subdivision (a) provides that a court action may not “be commenced or maintained . . . unless a claim for refund has first been filed pursuant to Article 1 (commencing with Section 5096),” and “[n]o recovery shall be allowed in any refund action upon any ground not specified in the refund claim.” (See Steinhart, supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 1307 .) 13 In light of these statutes, our Supreme Court has explained that in the property tax context, “application of the exhaustion principle means that a taxpayer ordinarily may not file or pursue a court action for a tax refund without f

2023(See Yamaha Corp. of America v. State Bd. of Equalization (1998) 19 Cal.4th 1, 5 [the Department determined the plaintiff owed use tax following an audit]; Dell, Inc. v. Superior Court (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 911, 917 [the parties agreed to a bench trial on the taxability issue]; Microsoft Corp. v. Franchise Tax Bd. (2006) 39 Cal.4th 750, 757 [the plaintiff filed suit after exhausting its administrative remedies without success]; Culligan Water Conditioning v. State Bd. of Equalization (1976) 17 Cal.3d 86, 90 [the Department rejected the plaintiff’s refund claim].) Having afforded the Departmen

2023(See Yamaha Corp. of America v. State Bd. of Equalization (1998) 19 Cal.4th 1, 5 [the Department determined the plaintiff owed use tax following an audit]; Dell, Inc. v. Superior Court (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 911, 917 [the parties agreed to a bench trial on the taxability issue]; Microsoft Corp. v. Franchise Tax Bd. (2006) 39 Cal.4th 750, 757 [the plaintiff filed suit after exhausting its administrative remedies without success]; Culligan Water Conditioning v. State Bd. of Equalization (1976) 17 Cal.3d 86, 90 [the Department rejected the plaintiff’s refund claim].) Having afforded the Departmen

2013(Ibid; King v. State Bd. of Equalization (1972) 22 Cal.App.3d 1006, 1015 .) Though a court is " 'without jurisdiction to consider grounds not set forth in the claim,' " it may consider any contentions "intertwined with contentions expressly raised in the refund claim . . . ." (Preston, at p. 206.) The policy underlying section 6932, requiring a taxpayer to file a claim with the Board before commencing a tax refund lawsuit, is to give the Board an opportunity to correct any mistakes, thereby avoiding the cost of litigation and the consumption of judicial resources.

1982(King v. State Bd. of Equalization (1972) 22 Cal.App.3d 1006, 1015 [ 99 Cal.Rptr. 802 ].) The refund action is confined to the grounds set forth in the refund claim.

2023(See Yamaha Corp. of America v. State Bd. of Equalization (1998) 19 Cal.4th 1, 5 [the Department determined the plaintiff owed use tax following an audit]; Dell, Inc. v. Superior Court (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 911, 917 [the parties agreed to a bench trial on the taxability issue]; Microsoft Corp. v. Franchise Tax Bd. (2006) 39 Cal.4th 750, 757 [the plaintiff filed suit after exhausting its administrative remedies without success]; Culligan Water Conditioning v. State Bd. of Equalization (1976) 17 Cal.3d 86, 90 [the Department rejected the plaintiff’s refund claim].) Having afforded the Departmen

2023(See Yamaha Corp. of America v. State Bd. of Equalization (1998) 19 Cal.4th 1, 5 [the Department determined the plaintiff owed use tax following an audit]; Dell, Inc. v. Superior Court (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 911, 917 [the parties agreed to a bench trial on the taxability issue]; Microsoft Corp. v. Franchise Tax Bd. (2006) 39 Cal.4th 750, 757 [the plaintiff filed suit after exhausting its administrative remedies without success]; Culligan Water Conditioning v. State Bd. of Equalization (1976) 17 Cal.3d 86, 90 [the Department rejected the plaintiff’s refund claim].) Having afforded the Departmen

2023(See Yamaha Corp. of America v. State Bd. of Equalization (1998) 19 Cal.4th 1, 5 [the Department determined the plaintiff owed use tax following an audit]; Dell, Inc. v. Superior Court (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 911, 917 [the parties agreed to a bench trial on the taxability issue]; Microsoft Corp. v. Franchise Tax Bd. (2006) 39 Cal.4th 750, 757 [the plaintiff filed suit after exhausting its administrative remedies without success]; Culligan Water Conditioning v. State Bd. of Equalization (1976) 17 Cal.3d 86, 90 [the Department rejected the plaintiff’s refund claim].) Having afforded the Departmen

2023(See Yamaha Corp. of America v. State Bd. of Equalization (1998) 19 Cal.4th 1, 5 [the Department determined the plaintiff owed use tax following an audit]; Dell, Inc. v. Superior Court (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 911, 917 [the parties agreed to a bench trial on the taxability issue]; Microsoft Corp. v. Franchise Tax Bd. (2006) 39 Cal.4th 750, 757 [the plaintiff filed suit after exhausting its administrative remedies without success]; Culligan Water Conditioning v. State Bd. of Equalization (1976) 17 Cal.3d 86, 90 [the Department rejected the plaintiff’s refund claim].) Having afforded the Departmen

2023(See Yamaha Corp. of America v. State Bd. of Equalization (1998) 19 Cal.4th 1, 5 [the Department determined the plaintiff owed use tax following an audit]; Dell, Inc. v. Superior Court (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 911, 917 [the parties agreed to a bench trial on the taxability issue]; Microsoft Corp. v. Franchise Tax Bd. (2006) 39 Cal.4th 750, 757 [the plaintiff filed suit after exhausting its administrative remedies without success]; Culligan Water Conditioning v. State Bd. of Equalization (1976) 17 Cal.3d 86, 90 [the Department rejected the plaintiff’s refund claim].) Having afforded the Departmen

2023(See Yamaha Corp. of America v. State Bd. of Equalization (1998) 19 Cal.4th 1, 5 [the Department determined the plaintiff owed use tax following an audit]; Dell, Inc. v. Superior Court (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 911, 917 [the parties agreed to a bench trial on the taxability issue]; Microsoft Corp. v. Franchise Tax Bd. (2006) 39 Cal.4th 750, 757 [the plaintiff filed suit after exhausting its administrative remedies without success]; Culligan Water Conditioning v. State Bd. of Equalization (1976) 17 Cal.3d 86, 90 [the Department rejected the plaintiff’s refund claim].) Having afforded the Departmen

2021And, section 5142, subdivision (a) provides that a court action may not “be commenced or maintained . . . unless a claim for refund has first been filed pursuant to Article 1 (commencing with Section 5096),” and “[n]o recovery shall be allowed in any refund action upon any ground not specified in the refund claim.” (See Steinhart, supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 1307 .) 13 In light of these statutes, our Supreme Court has explained that in the property tax context, “application of the exhaustion principle means that a taxpayer ordinarily may not file or pursue a court action for a tax refund without f

2021And, section 5142, subdivision (a) provides that a court action may not “be commenced or maintained . . . unless a claim for refund has first been filed pursuant to Article 1 (commencing with Section 5096),” and “[n]o recovery shall be allowed in any refund action upon any ground not specified in the refund claim.” (See Steinhart, supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 1307 .) 13 In light of these statutes, our Supreme Court has explained that in the property tax context, “application of the exhaustion principle means that a taxpayer ordinarily may not file or pursue a court action for a tax refund without f

2009(See Shiseido Cosmetics (America) Ltd. v. Franchise Tax Board (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 478, 488-489 [ 286 Cal.Rptr. 690 ] (Shiseido) [exhaustion of remedies doctrine has no application to an action to recover a tax paid; courts are without authority to alter statutory procedures for tax refunds enacted by the Legislature].) Chase is not assisted by the decision in Focus Cable of Oakland, Inc. v. County of Alameda (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 519, 525-527 [ 219 Cal.Rptr. 95 ] (Focus Cable), which concluded that the failure to cite a particular statute in a refund claim filed under section 5097 did not ba

2009(See Shiseido Cosmetics (America) Ltd. v. Franchise Tax Board (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 478, 488-489 [ 286 Cal.Rptr. 690 ] (Shiseido) [exhaustion of remedies doctrine has no application to an action to recover a tax paid; courts are without authority to alter statutory procedures for tax refunds enacted by the Legislature].) Chase is not assisted by the decision in Focus Cable of Oakland, Inc. v. County of Alameda (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 519, 525-527 [ 219 Cal.Rptr. 95 ] (Focus Cable), which concluded that the failure to cite a particular statute in a refund claim filed under section 5097 did not ba

2000Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization (1992) 4 Cal.4th 715, 732 [ 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 822 , 842 P.2d 121 ].) Thus, the SBE may raise items regarding the taxpayer’s return “for the timeframe encompassed in the refund claim period which might be set off against [the taxpayer’s] refund claim . . . .” (Sprint Communications Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 1254, 1260 [ 47 Cal.Rptr.2d 399 ].) The FTB simply applied the law in effect during the time period in which Citicorp filed the amended returns in accordance with policy and procedures applicable to all reviews.

2000Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization (1992) 4 Cal.4th 715, 732 [ 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 822 , 842 P.2d 121 ].) Thus, the SBE may raise items regarding the taxpayer’s return “for the timeframe encompassed in the refund claim period which might be set off against [the taxpayer’s] refund claim . . . .” (Sprint Communications Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 1254, 1260 [ 47 Cal.Rptr.2d 399 ].) The FTB simply applied the law in effect during the time period in which Citicorp filed the amended returns in accordance with policy and procedures applicable to all reviews.

1999Our task is to construe the language of the California statute in accordance with this state’s law. 5 The board stated in relevant part: “[Garg] held that the California Constitution forbids a court from adjudicating the validity of a tax before the tax, together with interest and penalties, has been paid in full. [¶] Shiseido Cosmetics (America), Ltd. v. Franchise Tax [Bd.] (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 478, 486-489 [ 286 Cal.Rptr. 690 ], held that satisfaction of the essential statutory criteria of prepayment and a contemporaneous or subsequent clear written statement that a claim was being sought m

1999Our task is to construe the language of the California statute in accordance with this state’s law. 5 The board stated in relevant part: “[Garg] held that the California Constitution forbids a court from adjudicating the validity of a tax before the tax, together with interest and penalties, has been paid in full. [¶] Shiseido Cosmetics (America), Ltd. v. Franchise Tax [Bd.] (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 478, 486-489 [ 286 Cal.Rptr. 690 ], held that satisfaction of the essential statutory criteria of prepayment and a contemporaneous or subsequent clear written statement that a claim was being sought m

1988(Richfield Oil Corp. v. State Bd. of Equalization (1946) 329 U.S. 69, 73 [ 91 L.Ed. 80, 87 , 67 S.Ct. 156 ].)” (King v. State Bd. of Equalization (1972) 22 Cal.App.3d 1006, 1015 [ 99 Cal.Rptr. 802 ]; accord American Alliance Ins.

1988(Richfield Oil Corp. v. State Bd. of Equalization (1946) 329 U.S. 69, 73 [ 91 L.Ed. 80, 87 , 67 S.Ct. 156 ].)” (King v. State Bd. of Equalization (1972) 22 Cal.App.3d 1006, 1015 [ 99 Cal.Rptr. 802 ]; accord American Alliance Ins.

2021And, section 5142, subdivision (a) provides that a court action may not “be commenced or maintained . . . unless a claim for refund has first been filed pursuant to Article 1 (commencing with Section 5096),” and “[n]o recovery shall be allowed in any refund action upon any ground not specified in the refund claim.” (See Steinhart, supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 1307 .) 13 In light of these statutes, our Supreme Court has explained that in the property tax context, “application of the exhaustion principle means that a taxpayer ordinarily may not file or pursue a court action for a tax refund without f

2021And, section 5142, subdivision (a) provides that a court action may not “be commenced or maintained . . . unless a claim for refund has first been filed pursuant to Article 1 (commencing with Section 5096),” and “[n]o recovery shall be allowed in any refund action upon any ground not specified in the refund claim.” (See Steinhart, supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 1307 .) 13 In light of these statutes, our Supreme Court has explained that in the property tax context, “application of the exhaustion principle means that a taxpayer ordinarily may not file or pursue a court action for a tax refund without f

2025To the extent that the complaint sought a judicial determination of the validity of the Board’s interest prepayment policy it did not involve any issue subject to determination through the administrative refund remedy available to plaintiff.” (Agnew v. State Bd. of Equalization, supra, 21 Cal.4th at p. 320 .) Although portions of the declaratory relief action relating to the taxpayer’s payment of interest were moot, the portion of the action seeking “a declaration of the validity of the Board’s policy of requiring payment of accrued interest on a tax deficiency before it will consider a refund

2016In Agnew v. State Bd. Of Equalization (1999) 21 Cal.4th 310 , the taxpayer plaintiff sought "a declaration of the validity of the Board's policy of 6 requiring payment of accrued interest on a tax deficiency before it will consider a refund claim." (Id. at p. 320.) The plaintiffs in Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. v. City of Roseville (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 637 , sought a judicial determination that a certain fee was being charged in violation of state law.

2017“The law is similarly clear that a claim for refund pursuant to . . . section 5097 cannot be made until after the taxes (and any penalties) have been paid. (. . . § 5097, subd. (a)(1); JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. City and County of San Francisco[ (2009)] 174 Cal.App.4th 1201, 1210 [ 94 Cal.Rptr.3d 906 ].) Accordingly, since a refund claim cannot be properly made until after the disputed taxes are paid, the right to file a claim for refund does not accrue, and the statute of limitations in . . . section 5097, subdivision (a)(3)(A)(i) does not start running, until after all of the factual condi

2017“The law is similarly clear that a claim for refund pursuant to . . . section 5097 cannot be made until after the taxes (and any penalties) have been paid. (. . . § 5097, subd. (a)(1); JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. City and County of San Francisco[ (2009)] 174 Cal.App.4th 1201, 1210 [ 94 Cal.Rptr.3d 906 ].) Accordingly, since a refund claim cannot be properly made until after the disputed taxes are paid, the right to file a claim for refund does not accrue, and the statute of limitations in . . . section 5097, subdivision (a)(3)(A)(i) does not start running, until after all of the factual condi

2001Appeals Bd. (1981) 29 Cal.3d 101, 111 [ 172 Cal.Rptr. 194 , 624 P.2d 244 ]; Lusardi Construction Co. v. California Occupational Safety & Health Appeals Bd. (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 639, 645 [ 2 Cal.Rptr.2d 297 ].) “Where the meaning and legal effect of a statute is the issue, an agency’s interpretation is one among several tools available to the court.” (Yamaha Corp. of America v. State Bd. of Equalization, supra, 19 Cal.4th at p. 7 .) Boyd acknowledges that the issues to be considered are limited to the grounds stated in the claim for refund, and any contentions “intertwined with contentions expr

2001Appeals Bd. (1981) 29 Cal.3d 101, 111 [ 172 Cal.Rptr. 194 , 624 P.2d 244 ]; Lusardi Construction Co. v. California Occupational Safety & Health Appeals Bd. (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 639, 645 [ 2 Cal.Rptr.2d 297 ].) “Where the meaning and legal effect of a statute is the issue, an agency’s interpretation is one among several tools available to the court.” (Yamaha Corp. of America v. State Bd. of Equalization, supra, 19 Cal.4th at p. 7 .) Boyd acknowledges that the issues to be considered are limited to the grounds stated in the claim for refund, and any contentions “intertwined with contentions expr

2013The Court of Appeal rejected Shiseido's arguments, explaining the words, "paid under protest" do not constitute a valid refund claim, "since they do not demand a refund or specify grounds for a refund." (Shiseido, at p. 492.) The court relied upon Mercury Casualty Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization, supra, 179 Cal.App.3d 34 to hold the FTB's knowledge of circumstances surrounding the claim did not excuse compliance with the refund claim requirement.

1991However, these words do not constitute a valid refund claim, since they do not demand a refund or specify grounds for a refund. (§ 26074; Mercury Casualty Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 34, 40 [ 224 Cal.Rptr. 781 ].) Nor does FTB’s knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the claim excuse compliance with the refund claim requirement. “ ‘It is well-settled that claims statutes must be satisfied even in face of the public entity’s actual knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the claim.

2013In other words, while a taxpayer's refund claim might be proper, there might be other items which the taxpayer omitted from its return for that year, which if included would show that the taxpayer had underpaid its tax." (Sprint Communications Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization, supra, 40 Cal.App.4th at p. 1260 .) The proposition flows from the principle that a suit to recover a tax refund is an action in equity governed by equitable principles that " 'limit recovery to the difference between the tax actually paid and that which properly should be exacted, and . . . prevent recovery if the taxpa

1995A. (1953) 117 Cal.App.2d 19, 27 [ 254 P.2d 877 ]; Northrop Aircraft v. Cal. Emp. etc. Com. (1948) 32 Cal.2d 872, 879 [ 198 P.2d 898 ] (Northrop); Pacific Fruit Express Co. v. McColgan (1944) 67 Cal.App.2d 93, 96-97 [ 153 P.2d 607 ].) The equitable principles underlying a refund action “limit recovery to the difference between the tax actually paid and that which properly should have been exacted, and . . . prevent recovery if the taxpayer paid only his fair and just proportion of taxes.” (Simms v. County of Los Angeles (1950) 35 Cal.2d 303, 316 [ 217 P.2d 936 ], italics added (Simms).) In maki

2013In other words, while a taxpayer's refund claim might be proper, there might be other items which the taxpayer omitted from its return for that year, which if included would show that the taxpayer had underpaid its tax." (Sprint Communications Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization, supra, 40 Cal.App.4th at p. 1260 .) The proposition flows from the principle that a suit to recover a tax refund is an action in equity governed by equitable principles that " 'limit recovery to the difference between the tax actually paid and that which properly should be exacted, and . . . prevent recovery if the taxpa

2000Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization (1992) 4 Cal.4th 715, 732 [ 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 822 , 842 P.2d 121 ].) Thus, the SBE may raise items regarding the taxpayer’s return “for the timeframe encompassed in the refund claim period which might be set off against [the taxpayer’s] refund claim . . . .” (Sprint Communications Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 1254, 1260 [ 47 Cal.Rptr.2d 399 ].) The FTB simply applied the law in effect during the time period in which Citicorp filed the amended returns in accordance with policy and procedures applicable to all reviews.

1995(Pope Estate Co. v. Johnson (1941) 43 Cal.App.2d 170, 173 [ 110 P.2d 481 ] (Pope Estate).) Thus, in the present case, the Board was compelled to raise all claims concerning unpaid use taxes for the timeframe encompassed in the refund claim period which might be set off against Sprint’s refund claim, or forego the right to collect any taxes for that period.

1995(Pope Estate Co. v. Johnson (1941) 43 Cal.App.2d 170, 173 [ 110 P.2d 481 ] (Pope Estate).) Thus, in the present case, the Board was compelled to raise all claims concerning unpaid use taxes for the timeframe encompassed in the refund claim period which might be set off against Sprint’s refund claim, or forego the right to collect any taxes for that period.