Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 California opinions name it 1 courts 2013–2024 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
In re Franchise Tax Bd. Ltd. Liab. Corp. Tax Refund Casesgreen1 sentence2023McKnight, 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 | 1 | 1 |
Wallace Berrie & Co. v. State Board of Equalizationgreen1 sentence2023McKnight, 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 | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
J. H. McKnight Ranch, Inc. v. Franchise Tax Board
green
2 sentences2018McKnight, supra, 110 Cal.App.4th at pp. 985-987.) In rejecting the FTB’s argument that the trial court consequently lacked jurisdiction to order a refund on that basis, the reviewing court stated: “If the [FTB] has notice of the taxpayer’s argument from whatever source during the course of resolving the claim for refund, it has the opportunity to reevaluate its position, reach the correct result, and obviate the need for a subsequent lawsuit. 2018McKnight , supra , 110 Cal.App.4th at pp. 985-987, 2 Cal.Rptr.3d 339 .) In rejecting the FTB's argument that the trial court consequently lacked jurisdiction to order a refund on that basis, the reviewing court stated: "If the [FTB] has notice of the taxpayer's argument from whatever source during the course of resolving the claim for refund, it has the opportunity to reevaluate its position, reach the correct result, and obviate the need for a subsequent lawsuit. | 3 | 2018–2023 |
In Re Conrich
green
1 sentence2024In the course of resolving a claim of judicial estoppel, the court stated: “A child taken from a parent by judicial order was not then deemed to have been left in the care and custody of another within the meaning of the statutory provision relied 11 upon,” citing In re Conrich (1963) 221 Cal.App.2d 662 , and In re Barton (1959) 168 Cal.App.2d 584 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Barrett v. Barton
green
1 sentence2024In the course of resolving a claim of judicial estoppel, the court stated: “A child taken from a parent by judicial order was not then deemed to have been left in the care and custody of another within the meaning of the statutory provision relied 11 upon,” citing In re Conrich (1963) 221 Cal.App.2d 662 , and In re Barton (1959) 168 Cal.App.2d 584 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Preston v. State Board of Equalization
green
2 sentences2013We see no basis for construing the statutes setting out the administrative exhaustion requirement so as to ignore actual notice the Board may have 4 The McKnight court observed that the exhaustion statues for sales and use taxes and income tax were identical, and it treated authorities involving sales and use taxes such as Preston, supra, 25 Cal.4th 197 equally persuasive. 2013We see no basis for construing the statutes setting out the administrative exhaustion requirement so as to ignore actual notice the Board may have 4 The McKnight court observed that the exhaustion statues for sales and use taxes and income tax were identical, and it treated authorities involving sales and use taxes such as Preston, supra, 25 Cal.4th 197 equally persuasive. | 1 | 2013–2013 |