Litigation roster

This roster is a list of selected litigation involving the Franchise Tax Board. It includes active cases and cases closed within the last 2 years. The roster is updated as needed.

Active cases

Abercrombie & Fitch Co. & Subsidiaries v. Franchise Tax Board

Filed

10/22/12

Courts

Fresno Superior Court, Case № 12CECG03408

Fifth Appellate District Court, Case № F074873

Taxpayer’s Counsel

Amy L. Silverstein, Esq., Silverstein & Pomerantz, LLP

FTB’s Counsel

Tim Nadar

Contact

Melissa Williams

Year

1999

Amount

Tax: $181,591.00

Issue:

Whether FTB improperly discriminates against interstate unitary corporate Taxpayers by requiring them to compute their California taxable income by using the combined reporting method and not allowing them the option offered to in-state unitary filers under Revenue and Taxation Code §25101.15 which allows in-state unitary filers to file on either a separate entity basis or a combined report basis.

Status:
Date	Status
October 23, 2012	Plaintiff filed its complaint
November 20, 2012	FTB filed an answer to the complaint
September 18, 2014	Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment were filed by the parties
January 21, 2015	The Court issued an Order Staying Proceedings in this case pending the Court of Appeal decision in Harley-Davidson v. Franchise Tax Board.
May 28, 2015	The decision by the Court of Appeal in Harley-Davidson was issued
November 15, 2015	The court required additional briefing in connection with the Harley-Davidson decision.
November 24, 2015	The hearing on the cross-Motions for Summary Judgment occurred, and the matter was taken under submission.
November 30, 2015	A Minute Order was filed denying both motions.
September 6, 2016	Trial commenced: at the commencement of the trial, the parties submitted four motions-in-limine seeking to bar testimony and limit the scope of the trial.
September 12, 2016	FTB’s Motion for Judgment under CCP section 631.8 was granted.
October 7, 2016	FTB’s proposed Judgment was filed
October 11, 2016	FTB filed its proposed Statement of Decision
October 21, 2016	Plaintiff filed its Objections to FTB’s Proposed Statement of Decision
October 31, 2016	An Order Regarding Statement of Decision and Judgment was filed
October 31, 2016	Judgment in FTB’s favor was filed
December 7, 2016	Plaintiff’s Notice of Appeal was filed.
March 3, 2017	The court acknowledged Plaintiff’s appeal
March 15, 2017	A Stipulation for Extension of Time was filed by Appellant. Appellant’s Opening Brief was due to be filed by June 12, 2017.
June 7, 2017	The court accepted the stipulated request for an extension of time. Appellant’s Opening Brief was due to be filed on July 12, 2017
July 5, 2017	Appellant requested and was granted an extension of time by the court within which to file the Opening Brief.
August 14, 2017	Appellant’s Opening Brief was filed, along with pleadings in support thereof.
August 14, 2017	A Request for Judicial Notice was filed by Appellant.
September 6, 2017	The ruling on Appellant’s Request for Judicial Notice was deferred pending consideration of the appeal on its merits.
November 7, 2017	Respondent was granted an extension of time within which to file its Opening Brief. The Brief is due to be filed on or before December 13, 2017.
December 13, 2017	Respondent’s Opening Brief was filed.
January 2018	Appellants’s Reply Brief is due to be filed on or before March 5, 2018.
February 16, 2018	The Court granted Appellant's request for an extension of time. Appellant's Reply Brief is now due to be filed on May 4, 2018.
May 4, 2018	Appellant's Reply Brief was filed. The case is fully briefed.
May 22, 2018	Notice of Errata in Appellant's Reply Brief was filed by Appellants.
May 22, 2018	The Court received Appellant's errata letter seeking correction of certain pages of the Reply Brief. Appellant was directed to submit a corrected Reply Brief. The Court directed the Clerk to strike the Reply Brief filed on May 4, 2018 and to file a corrected Reply Brief.
June 27, 2018	Appellants filed their Corrected Reply Brief.
June 27, 2018	The case is fully briefed.
October 19, 2018	Respondent filed a Supplemental Memorandum of Points and Authorities.
April 17, 2019	Notice of right to waive Oral Argument was sent.
April 19, 2019	The Court of Appeal issued its deferred ruling on Appellant's Request for Judicial Notice filed August 14, 2017. Appellant's Request for Judicial Notice was denied without prejudice to the parties referring to the identified material in their arguments.
May 17, 2019	Oral Argument is scheduled to occur on June 25, 2019.
June 25, 2019	Oral Argument was held and the matter was taken under submission.
August 28, 2019	The Court of Appeal issued its ruling in favor of FTB. The court concluded the trial court did not err when it determined Appellant failed to carry its burden of proof as to damages.

Alan Steuer and Stafford Smiley as Co-Trustees of the Syufy Trusts

Filed: 11/06/18
Court: San Francisco Superior Court Case № CGC-18-571122
Taxpayer’s Counsel: Edwin Antolin Antolin Agarwal LLP
FTB’s Counsel: Heather Hoesterey
Contact: Sonia Woodruff
Year: 2007
Amount: $115,519.00

Issues:

Whether Revenue and Taxation Code section 17442(a) is not applicable to Plaintiffs where one trustee of the trust is a non-California resident and the trust does not have any beneficiary with a non-contingent interest.
Whether FTB's two-step methodology to determine Plaintiffs' California taxable income violates the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution and/or the California Constitution and violates the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution.

Status:
Date	Status
November 6, 2018	Plaintiffs filed a Summons and Complaint.
November 6, 2018	A Notice to Plaintiff was filed. The Notice set a Case Management Conference to April 10, 2019.
December 12, 2018	Defendant filed a Stipulation and (proposed) Order to Extend Time to Respond to the Complaint. The Parties stipulated that the deadline to file an Answer to the Complaint is extended to January 16, 2019.
January 15, 2019	Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint was filed.
February 15, 2019	FTB's Answer to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint was filed.
February 15, 2019	A Notice of Related Case was filed.
February 15, 2019	FTB's Notice of Motion and Motion to Stay was filed along with pleadings in support thereof.
February 15, 2019	Notice of Motion and Motion to Stay proceedings was filed along with pleadings in support thereof. The hearing is scheduled for April 9, 2019.
February 15, 2019	Also on February 15, 2019 FTB filed a Request for Judicial Notice in support of Motion to Stay with pleadings in support thereof.
March 25, 2019	Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Stay was filed.
April 2, 2019	The Reply Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of FTB's Motion to Stay was filed.
April 9, 2019	The Court granted FTB's Motion to Stay pending the issuance of a decision by the Court of Appeal in the pending appeal in the case of Paula Trust v. FTB.
May 6, 2019	The Case Management Conference scheduled to occur on May 22, 2019, is continued to November 20, 2019.
May 22, 2019	A Notice of Entry of Order granting FTB's Motion to Stay was filed.

Bakersfield Mall, LLC v. Franchise Tax Board

Filed

04/25/07

Courts

San Francisco Superior Court Case № CGC-07-462728

FTB LLC Tax Refund Cases Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding № 4742

Taxpayer’s Counsel

Amy L. Silverstein, Esq., Silverstein & Pomerantz, LLP

FTB’s Counsel

Lucy Wang

Contact

William C. Hilson, Jr.

Year

2000 – 2004

Amount

Tax: $56,537.00

Issues:

Whether the LLC fee imposed on an LLC doing business entirely within California by Rev. & Tax. Code §17942 is unconstitutional under the Due Process, Equal Protection and Commerce clauses of the U.S. Constitution.
Whether Rev. & Tax. Code §17942 violates Article XIII, section 26 of the California Constitution.
Whether Rev. & Tax. Code §17942 constitutes an invalid exercise of state police power and is void.

Status:
Date	Status
June 26, 2012	FTB caused a Notice of Related Case to be filed in this action and also with the Fresno County Superior Court and Judicial Council advising that this case was substantially similar to CA-Centerside LLC v. Franchise Tax Board and proposing that the two cases be coordinated.
January 29, 2013	A Hearing on the Motion to Coordinate the two cases was held, and the matter was taken under submission.
January 30, 2013	The Petition to Coordinate was granted. Please refer to the status summary for FTB LLC Tax Refund Cases Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding № 4742.

Ca-Centerside II, LLC v. Franchise Tax Board

Filed

02/04/10

Courts

Fresno Superior Court Case № 10CECG00434

FTB LLC Tax Refund Cases Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding № 4742

Taxpayers Counsel

Amy L. Silverstein, Esq., Silverstein & Pomerantz, LLP

FTB’s Counsel

Lucy Wang

Contact

William C. Hilson, Jr.

Year

2000 – 2005

Amount

Tax:: $65,201.00

Issues:

Whether the LLC fee imposed on an LLC doing business entirely within California by Rev. & Tax. Code §17942 is unconstitutional under the Due Process, Equal Protection and Commerce clauses of the Constitution of the United States of America.
Whether Rev. & Tax. Code §17942 violates Article XIII, section 26, of the California Constitution.
Whether Rev. & Tax. Code §17942 constitutes an invalid exercise of state police power and is void.

Status:

Date	Status
January 30, 2013	FTB’s Petition to Coordinate this case with Bakersfield Mall LLC v. Franchise Tax Board was granted. Please refer to the status summary for FTB LLC Tax Refund Cases Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding № 4742.

Cynthia Betzler v. Franchise Tax Board

Filed: 07/18/19
Court: Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case № 19STCV21940
Taxpayer’s Counsel: Walter Channels
FTB’s Counsel: Van-Dzung Nguyen
Contact: Ann H. Hodges
Year: 2005, 2006, 2007
Amount: $1,462,152.69

Issues:

Whether the taxpayer was required to pay penalties and interest that accrued while FTB was holding the taxpayer's extension deposit?

Status:
Date	Status
July 18, 2019	Complaint filed.
October 10, 2019	FTB files demurrer.
October 23, 2019	Case management conference.

David Pool v. Franchise Tax Board

Filed: 07/06/18
Court: Alameda County Superior Court, Case № RG18911765
Taxpayer’s Counsel: Glen L. Moss
FTB’s Counsel: Heather Hoesterey
Contact: Scott DePeel
Year: 1993
Amount: $35,413.10

Issues:

Whether FTB has over-collected the tax obligation owed by Plaintiff for tax year 1993.
Whether Plaintiff's claim for refund is barred by the applicable statute of limitations.

Status:
Date	Status
July 6, 2018	Summons and Complaint were filed.
July 9, 2019	Case Management Conference was filed.
August 29, 2018	FTB filed an Answer to the Complaint
November 5, 2018	FTB filed a Case Management Statement.
November 20, 2018	Case Management Conference was held. The Court determined that FTB will file a Motion for Summary Judgment and written discovery and depositions will be scheduled.
February 11, 2019	Plaintiff filed a Case Management Statement regarding the Case Management Conference scheduled to occur on February 27, 2019.
February 14, 2019	FTB filed a Case Management Statement regarding the Case Management Conference scheduled to occur on February 27, 2019.
February 27, 2019	The minutes of the Case Management Conference were filed. The order of the Court scheduled trial to commence January 6, 2020, and a Motion for Summary Judgment to be heard on August 23, 2019.
June 21, 2019	FTB's Notice of Motion and Motion for Order Deeming Matters Admitted and for Monetary Sanctions was filed together with pleadings in support thereof. Hearing on the motion is scheduled to occur on July 23, 2019.
July 23, 2019	FTB's Motion for Order Deeming Matters Admitted was granted. FTB's Request for Monetary Sanctions in connection with its Motion for Order Deeming Matters Admitted was denied.
August 1, 2019	FTB filed its motion for summary judgment.
August 23, 2019	Court schedules CMC for 10/15/19, to be in conjunction with hearing on motion for summary judgment.
October 10, 2019	FTB files notice of plaintiff's non-opposition to FTB's motion for summary judgment.
October 15, 2019	Case management conference.
October 15, 2019	FTB's motion for summary judgment granted.

David Swanson v. Franchise Tax Board

Filed: 06/13/19
Court: San Diego County Superior Court, Case № 37-2019-00030244-CU-MC-NC
Taxpayer’s Counsel: David Swanson (pro per)
FTB’s Counsel: John Keith
Contact: Scott DePeel
Year: 1993, 1994, 1995
Amount: Unknown

Issues:

Whether the FTB was constitutionally required to abide by the taxpayers' offer in compromise agreement with the IRS.
Whether the taxpayers are entitled to a judgment reducing their California tax liability.

Status:
Date	Status
June 13, 2019	Complaint filed.
September 3, 2019	Joint stipulated request to stay action filed by the parties.
September 5, 2019	Court issues order denying parties' request to stay action, but suspending the litigation pending FTB's decision regarding plaintiff's application to participate in FTB's Offer In Compromise program.

Edward & Evelyn Silva v. Franchise Tax Board

Filed

02/14/17

Court

San Francisco Superior Court, Case № CGC-17-556629

Taxpayer’s Counsel

Edward O.C. Ord, ESQ., Cheng Zhang, ESQ., Ord & Norman

FTB’s Counsel

Lucy Wang

Contact

Renel Sapiandante

Year

2009

Amount

Amount: $3,056,077.00

Issues

Whether Plaintiffs properly reported the gain on the sale of real property.
Whether the Notice of Proposed Assessment issued to Plaintiffs was valid.
Whether Plaintiffs are entitled to a worthless stock loss.
Whether Plaintiffs are entitled to a bad debt deduction.
Whether Plaintiffs properly reported an abandonment loss related to certain shares of stock.

Status:
Date	Status
February 7, 2017	The Summons and First Amended Complaint were filed by Plaintiffs.
March 15, 2017	FTB filed its Answer to the First Amended Complaint.
June 13, 2017	A Case Management Statement was filed by FTB.
June 28, 2017	Plaintiffs' Notice of Objection to the Trial Date was heard. The trial is now scheduled to commence on June 11, 2018.
December 1, 2017	Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Summary Judgment along with pleadings in support thereof.
January 16, 2018	The Plaintiffs requested a continuance of the hearing on their Motion for Summary Judgment scheduled for February 20, 2018. The Court granted Plaintiffs' request and the hearing on the Motion for Summary Judgment was scheduled to occur on May 16, 2018.
January 30, 2018	An Ex Parte Application to continue the trial date, along with documents in support thereof, was filed by FTB. The Court granted the continuance of the trial date. The new Trial date is set for November 13, 2018.
April 16, 2018	The parties jointly requested a continuance of the Hearing on the Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court granted the request and the Hearing on the Motion for Summary Judgment is scheduled to occur on June 27, 2018.
June 14, 2018	FTB filed its Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment, along with pleadings in support thereof.
June 22, 2018	Plaintiffs' Reply to FTB's Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment was filed, along with pleadings in support thereof.
June 27, 2018	The Court heard oral argument on Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment. After the hearing, the Court denied Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment.
June 27, 2018	Order Denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment was filed.
July 13, 2018	Plaintiffs filed an Ex Parte Application to Continue the Trial date of November 13, 2018, together with pleadings in support thereof. The Court denied the Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application.
August 20, 2018	A Joint Stipulation to Continue Trial Date was filed by the parties.
August 24, 2018	The stipulated Ex Parte Application to continue Trial date was granted. Trial is now scheduled to commence on July 8, 2019.
February 20, 2019	Plaintiffs filed a Motion to continue Jury Trial. Hearing on Plaintiffs' motion is scheduled to be heard on March 21, 2019.
February 20, 2019	Plaintiffs filed a Motion to continue Jury Trial. Hearing on Plaintiffs' motion is scheduled to be heard on March 21, 2019.
March 8, 2019	FTB's Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion to Continue Trial was filed.
March 13, 2019	Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of their Motion to Continue Trial was filed.
March 21, 2019	Argument occurred on Plaintiffs' Motion to Continue Trial Date. The Court granted Plaintiffs' Motion to Continue Trial Date. The trial date is continued to December 16, 2019.
October 21, 2019	Plaintiff files motion to continue trial date of December 16, 2019.

Eric G. Swallow v. Franchise Tax Board

Filed: 01/24/19
Court: San Diego County Superior Court, Case № CGC-18-571122
Taxpayer’s Counsel: William A. Cohan
FTB’s Counsel: Tim Nadar
Contact: Renel Sapiandante
Year: 2015
Amount: $1,441,597.00

Issues:

Whether the issuance of disaproportionate distributions to shareholders by an S corporation results in an involuntary termination of the corporation's "S" election so as to transmute the tax status of the corporation to that of a "C" corporation.
Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to a refund of taxes paid measured by the difference between what he paid on his distributive share from an assumend "S" corporation and what he should have paid on a distribution from a "C" corporation.

Status:
Date	Status
January 24, 2019	Summons and Complaint were filed.
February 21, 2019	FTB filed its General Denial.
May 23, 2019	Garden City filed a Notice of Motion and Motion to Intervene together with pleadings in support thereof. The Hearing on the Motion to Intervene of Nonparty Garden City Inc., is scheduled to occur on August 2, 2019.
July 22, 2019	Plaintiff filed his Opposition to the Motion to Intervene.
July 26, 2019	Garden City filed its Reply Brief in Support of its Motion to Intervene.
August 2, 2019	Garden City's motion to intervene as a defendant is granted. Case management conference continued to October 18, 2019.
October 18, 2019	Case management conference continued to December 20, 2019.

FTB LLC Tax Refund Cases Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding № 4742

Filed: 01/20/13
Courts: Court of Appeal First Appellate District, San Francisco County, Case № A140518
Superior Court, Case № CJC-12-004742
Taxpayers Counsel: Amy L. Silverstein, Esq., Silverstein & Pomerantz, LLP
FTB’s Counsel: Lucy Wang
Contact: William C. Hilson, Jr.
Year: Various
Amount: Various

Issues:

Whether the LLC fee imposed on an LLC doing business entirely within California by Rev. & Tax. Code § 17942 is unconstitutional under the Due Process, Equal Protection and Commerce clauses of the Constitution of the United States of America.
Whether Rev. & Tax. Code § 17942 violates Article XIII, section 26, of the California Constitution.
Whether Rev. & Tax. Code § 17942 constitutes an invalid exercise of state police power and is void.
Whether the consolidated cases may properly be certified as a class action.

Status:

Date	Status
January 30, 2013	FTB’s Petition to Coordinate the cases of Bakersfield Mall LLC v. Franchise Tax Board and CA-Centerside II, LLC v. Franchise Tax Board was granted
May 1, 2013	A Notice of Joint Motion for Class Action Certification was filed on behalf of Bakersfield Mall LLC and Ca-Centerside II, LLC.
July 29, 2013	FTB’s Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification was filed.
September 30, 2013	Plaintiffs’ Reply to FTB’s Opposition to the Motion for Class Action Certification was filed
October 7, 2013	The Hearing on the Motion was held.
October 8, 2013	A Memorandum Order Denying Plaintiffs’ Joint Motion for Class Certification was filed.
December 2, 2013	Plaintiffs timely filed their Notice of Appeal regarding the Denial of the Class Certification motion.
June 26, 2014	Appellants’ Opening Brief was filed
October 28, 2014	Respondent’s Opening Brief was filed.
December 17, 2014	Appellants’ Reply Brief was filed. The case is now fully briefed and the parties await the scheduling of the Oral Argument.
April 4, 2018	The Court notified parties of the scheduling of Oral Argument for April 24, 2018.
April 4, 2018	Appellants and Respondents jointly moved for a continuance of Oral Argument from April 24, 2018 to June 26, 2018.
April 16, 2018	The Court ordered Oral Argument continued to June 26, 2018.
June 26, 2018	Oral Argument was held. Submission deferred because Respondent did not receive Appellant's June 18, 2018 notice citing new authorities. Respondent was permitted to serve supplemental Letter Brief. Respondent's Supplemental Letter Brief is due to be filed on July 6, 2018 and Appellant's supplemental Letter Brief is to be served within five calendar days of that date.
July 6, 2018	A Supplemental Brief was filed by FTB.
July 11, 2018	A Supplemental Brief was filed by Appellant.
July 18, 2018	The Court of Appeal First Appellate District Court issued its opinion, in which it reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case back to trial court.
July 31, 2018	Respondent filed a Petition for Rehearing.
August 6, 2018	The Court denied Respondent's Petition for Rehearing..
August 27, 2018	Respondent filed a Petition for review with the California Supreme Court.
September 18, 2018	Appellants filed their Answer to Respondent's Petition for Review.
September 24, 2018	Respondent's Reply to Appellants' Answer to Petition for Review was filed.
October 19, 2018	The Court extended the time to grant or deny the Petition for Review to November 21, 2018.
October 31, 2018	The Defendant's Petition for Review by the California Supreme Court was denied.
November 26, 2018	Remittitur was issued by the Court of Appeal First Appellate District.
November 28, 2018	The Court of Appeal First Appellate District reversed the Remittitur.
November 28, 2018	The Case was reassigned.
January 23, 2019	The Notice of Case Management Conference was filed. The Case Management Conference was scheduled for March 1, 2019, and continued to March 12, 2019.
March 12, 2019	The Case Management Conference was held on March 12, 2019. The matter is set for further discussion to occur on July 2, 2019.
March 14, 2019	The Case Management Order No. 1 was filed. The Order set fourth applicable dates as follows; Plaintiffs' motion for Attorneys' Fees will be heard on July 2, 2019; Plaintiffs will file the Attorneys' Fees motion no later than April 25, 2019; Defendant's Opposition is due May 30, 2019 and Plaintiffs' Reply is due June 20, 2019. The Case Management Conference will follow the hearing on July 2, 2019.
April 25, 2019	Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion and Motion for an Interim Award of Reasonable Attorneys' Fees together with a Request for Judicial Notice and pleadings in support thereof, was filed.
May 8, 2019	Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion for Class Certification, together with pleadings in support thereof was filed. The Motion stated the matter was to be heard on June 3, 2019. However, the Motion was not timely served upon FTB. It is anticipated that the hearing on the Motion will be scheduled at the July 3, 2019, Case Management Conference.
June 3, 2019	The Hearing on the Motion for Class Certification scheduled to occur on June 3, 2019, was continued to August 7, 2019.
June 3, 2019	The Hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees scheduled to occur on July 2, 2019, was continued to August 7, 2019.
June 27, 2019	The Case Management Conference that was scheduled to occur on June 17, 2019 was continued to August 7, 2019.
July 25, 2019	Plaintiffs' Reply Brief in Support of Motion for Attorney's Fees was filed.
August 7, 2019	The case management conference and hearing on plaintiffs' motion for interim award of reasonable attorneys' fees were held. Both were continued to August 22, 2019.
August 22, 2019	Plaintiffs' motion for attorney's fees, followed by a case management conference, is rescheduled to September 12, 2019.
September 10, 2019	Joint case management statement filed.
September 10, 2019	Defendant FTB's opposition to plaintiffs' motion for class certification filed.
September 17, 2019	Plainitffs' reply in support of motion for class certification filed.
September 18, 2019	Court denies plaintiffs' motion for interim award of reasonable attorneys fees
September 24, 2019	Court grants plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

Gilbert P. Hyatt v. Franchise Tax Board

Filed

01/06/98

Courts

Clark County Nevada District Court, Case № A382999

Nevada Supreme Court, Case № 47141

Nevada Supreme Court, Case № 53264

United States Supreme Court, Case № 14-1175

Taxpayer’s Counsel

Thomas L. Steffen & Mark A. Hutchison, Hutchison & Steffen, H Barrow Farr III

FTB’s Counsel

James W. Bradshaw, McDonald Carano, Wilson, LLP

Contact

Scott DePeel

Year

N/A

Amount

Emotional Distress, Punitive Damages, Prejudgment Interest, Attorney’s Fees: Approx. $490,421,013.81

Issue:

Whether the judgment issued by the (Nevada) Clark County District Court in favor of Gilbert Hyatt against FTB, including the award of $250,000,000 in punitive damages was proper.

Status:

Clark County District Court
Date	Status
September 3, 2019	Status conference – Court ordered briefing on issue of whether judgment should be entered in favor of FTB. Briefs are due October 15, 2019.
October 15, 2019	Parties filed briefs regarding issue of whether judgment should be entered in favor of FTB.

Nevada Supreme Court
Date	Status
June 1, 2010	FTB filed its Appellant’s Reply Brief and Cross-Respondent’s Answering Brief regarding the judgment entered against it in the Clark County, Nevada, District Court with the Nevada Supreme Court.
May 2012	Oral Argument was held on May 7, 2012, and on May 14, 2012, the Nevada Supreme Court issued an Order scheduling an additional Oral Argument to be heard on June 18, 2012. The additional Oral Argument was presented.
September 18, 2014	The Nevada Supreme Court reversed and dismissed the $250 million punitive damage award based upon principles of comity. The Court reversed and dismissed the $52 million invasion of privacy compensatory damage award based upon state law grounds. The Court upheld the liability determination under the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim, but reversed and remanded for a new trial regarding the $85 million emotional distress verdict. The Court upheld the fraud verdict and the resultant $1.08 million compensatory damage award. The Court reversed and remanded the cost and pre-judgment interest awards of $2.5 million. The Court upheld the District Court’s dismissal of Mr. Hyatt’s cross-appeal claim for economic damages based upon lack of evidence.
October 6, 2014	Both Parties filed Petitions for Rehearing with the Nevada Supreme Court.
November 25, 2014	The Nevada Supreme Court issued an Order Denying both Petitions for Rehearing. FTB subsequently filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari with the United States Supreme Court, the result of which was that the United States Supreme Court accepted the case for hearing.
May 23, 2016	The United States Supreme Court issued judgment in favor of FTB and remanded the case to the Nevada Supreme Court.
June 24, 2016	The Nevada Supreme Court issued an Order directing the parties to address which portions of the Nevada Supreme Court decision issued during September 2014 should be reconsidered. FTB’s Opening Brief was to be filed on July 24, 2016.
July 11, 2016	The Nevada Supreme Court issued an Order amending the briefing schedule as follows: Appellant’s (FTB’s) Opening Supplemental Brief is to be filed on August 24, 2016, Respondent’s Supplemental Opening Brief is to be filed on September 23, 2016, and Appellant’s optional Supplemental Reply Brief was due to be filed on October 8, 2016.
August 22, 2016	Appellant’s Supplemental Opening Brief was filed.
August 25, 2016	A Motion for an Extension of Time within which to file the Supplemental Answering Brief was filed.
October 24, 2016	The Court granted the motion. Respondent/Cross-Appellant filed a Supplemental Appendix.
October 25, 2016	The Respondent/Cross-Appellant’s Supplemental Answering Brief was filed.
November 1, 2016	Appellant filed a Motion for Extension of Time to file a Supplemental Reply Brief.
December 5, 2016	Appellant/Cross-Respondent’s Supplemental Reply Brief was filed.
December 13, 2016	Respondent/Cross-Appellant filed its Response to Appellant/Cross-Respondent’s Request for Judicial Notice.
December 20, 2016	Appellant/Cross-Respondent’s Reply in Support of Appellant’s Request for Judicial Notice was filed.
January 12, 2017	The Court granted FTB’s Request for Judicial Notice of publically available documents.
March 23, 2017	The Nevada Supreme Court issued a Notice Scheduling Oral Argument. The matter was scheduled for oral argument on May 2, 2017.
April 10, 2017	Appellant filed a Notice of Supplemental Authorities following the Mandate from the United States Supreme Court.
April 19, 2017	Appellant filed Second Request for Judicial Notice.
April 25, 2017	Respondent’s Response to Appellant’s Second Request for Judicial Notice was filed.
April 28, 2017	Appellant’s Reply in Support of Second Request for Judicial Notice was filed.
May 2, 2017	The Court heard Oral Argument.
September 14, 2017	The Opinion was filed in the Nevada Supreme Court. The Judgment was affirmed in part, and reversed in part, and remanded back to the District Court with instructions.
October 2, 2017	Appellant/Cross-Respondent’s Petition for Rehearing was filed in the Nevada Supreme Court.
October 30, 2017	The Nevada Supreme Court issued an Order directing Respondent/Cross-Appellant to Answer the Petition for Rehearing on or before November 14, 2017.
November 14, 2017	The Respondent/Cross-Appellant filed his Answer to the Petition for Rehearing.
December 26, 2017	The Nevada Supreme Court granted FTB’s Petition for Rehearing. At the same time, the Nevada Supreme Court issued a slip opinion replacing the opinion it issued on September 14, 2017. The Nevada Supreme Court has affirmed the fraud judgment against FTB, but reduced the award to $50,000. The Nevada Supreme Court has also upheld the determination that FTB caused Respondent to suffer emotional distress and remanded the question of damages to the District Court with a suggestion that it enter Judgment against FTB in the maximum permissible amount of $50,000. The Court has determined that, to the extent Respondent may have been entitled to an award of prejudgment interest, any such award must be included within the maximum damages award of $50,000. The case is otherwise remanded to the District Court.
January 17, 2018	TB’s Motion to Stay Remitter pending application for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Supreme Court was filed.
August 5, 2019	Court filed order of remand and issued remittitur.
August 26, 2019	Court filed remittitur.

The United States Supreme Court
Date	Status
January 13, 2015	The United States Supreme Court granted FTB an extension of time within which to file a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to and including March 23, 2015.
March 23, 2015	FTB’s Petition for Writ Certiorari was filed.
May 26, 2015	Mr. Hyatt’s Opposition to FTB’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari was filed.
June 9, 2015	FTB’s Reply Brief was filed.
June 30, 2015	The United States Supreme Court granted FTB’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari.
September 3, 2015	FTB’s Opening Brief was filed.
September 10, 2015	An Amicus Curiae Brief was filed by the Multistate Tax Commission in support of Petitioner.
September 10, 2015	An Amicus Curiae Brief was filed by South Carolina in support of Petitioner.
September 10, 2015	An Amicus Curiae Brief was filed by the Council of State Governments, National Association of Counties, National League of Cities, United States Conference of Mayors, International City/County Management Association and International Municipal Lawyers Association in support of Petitioner.
September 16, 2015	An Amicus Curiae Brief was filed by West Virginia and 43 other states in support of Petitioner.
October 9, 2015	The Court scheduled Oral Argument for December 7, 2015.
October 23, 2015	Respondent’s Opening Brief was filed.
November 4, 2015	The Brief of Professors of Federal Jurisdiction as Amici Curiae in support of Respondent was filed.
November 23, 2015	FTB’s Reply Brief was filed. The matter was heard in the United States Supreme Court on December 7, 2015, and submitted for decision.
April 19, 2016	The United States Supreme Court issued its decision on the matter. The Court ruled in favor of FTB on the issue of the Nevada statutory damages cap, ruling that if a California agency is haled into a Nevada Court, it must be treated the same as Nevada government agencies.
May 23, 2016	The United States Supreme Court issued its judgment in favor of FTB
June 24, 2016	The United States Supreme Court remanded the case back to the Nevada Supreme Court for further action not inconsistent with its opinion.
March 13, 2018	FTB filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari with the United States Supreme Court. No further proceedings will occur in the Nevada Supreme Court at this time.
April 9, 2018	Counsel for Mr. Hyatt sent a letter to the United States Supreme Court waiving Mr. Hyatt's right to file Opposition to FTB's Petition for Writ of Certiorari.
May 1, 2018	The United States Supreme Court directed counsel for Mr. Hyatt to file an Opposition to FTB's Petition for Writ of Certiorari on or before May 31, 2018.
May 31, 2018	Respondent's Opposition to the Petition for Writ of Certiorari was filed.
June 6, 2018	Respondent's Reply to Writ of Certiorari was filed.
June 28, 2018	The Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Certiorari was granted.
July 18, 2018	Petitioner requested an extension of time within which to file its Brief on the Merits. The Court granted the request. Petitioner's Brief on the Merits is now due to be filed on September 11, 2018. Counsel for Respondent agreed to the extension of time and their Brief is now due to be filed on November 15, 2018.
September 6, 2018	A Blanket Consent was filed by Petitioner.
September 11, 2018	The Petitioner filed its Brief on the Merits.
September 18, 2018	The following Amicus Briefs were filed: Brief of Amici Curiae Alan B. Morrison and Darren Shanske in support of neither party; Brief of Amici Curiae The Multistate Tax Commission et.al. was filed in support of Petitioner; Brief of Amici Curiae The State of Indiana and 43 other states was filed in support of Petitioner; Brief of Amici Curiae Law Professors was filed in support of Petitioner; Brief of Amici Curiae Professors William Baude and Stephen E. Sachs was filed in support of neither party; Brief of Amici Curiae James C. Giudici was filed in support of neither party.
November 15, 2018	Respondent filed his Brief on the Merits.
November 21, 2018	The Professors of Federal Jurisdiction filed a Brief of Amici in support of Respondent.
November 28, 2018	The United States Supreme Court scheduled Oral Argument for January 9, 2019.
December 11, 2018	The Record was requested from the Nevada Supreme Court.
December 14, 2018	Petitioner filed its Reply Brief on the Merits.
December 27, 2018	The record was received from the Nevada Supreme Court.
January 9, 2019	Oral Argument was held and the matter was taken under submission.
May 13, 2019	The United States Supreme Court issued its Opinion holding that FTB is immune from suit by Mr. Hyatt in the State of Nevada.
June 17, 2019	The Judgment in favor of FTB and the Mandate directing the case back to the Supreme Court of Nevada for further action consistent with the opinion of the United States Supreme Court were issued.

Handelman CEG v. Franchise Tax Board

Filed: 02/13/2019
Court: Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case № 19STCV04980
Taxpayers Counsel: Steven J. Goon, Rutan & Tucker
FTBs Counsel: Laura Robbins
Contact: Renel Sapiandante
Years: 2004, 2005
Amount: $1,835,625.45

Issues:

Whether appellant has shown that it is entitled to the claimed California research and development credit.
Whether Appellant has shown that it properly calculated its net operating loss (NOL) carryovers.
Whether appellant has shown reasonable cause for failure to timely file its return for tax year ending November 22, 2005.

Status:
Date	Status
February 12, 2019	Summons and Complaint were filed.
March 28, 2019	FTB's Answer to Complaint was filed.

Joseph K. Johnson v. Franchise Tax Board

Filed: 05/03/19
Court: Los Angeles Superior Court, Case № 19STCV15515
Taxpayer’s Counsel: Madiros H. Dakessian, Dakessian Law, LTD
FTB’s Counsel: Brian D. Wesley
Contact: Scott DePeel
Year: 1996
Amount in Controversy: $909,125.84
Tax Refund sought:: $0.00

Issues:

Whether Plaintiff was a resident of California and subject to taxation by California for tax year 1996.

Status:
Date	Status
May 3, 2019	Summons and Verified Complaint were filed.
May 6, 2019	Notice of Case Management Conference was filed scheduling the Conference to occur on October 10, 2019.
May 10, 2019	Notice of Case Management Conference was filed scheduling the Conference to occur on August 8, 2019.
May 10, 2019	Plaintiff's Peremptory Challenge was filed.
June 6, 2019	FTB's Answer to verified Complaint was filed.
August 9, 2019	Plaintiff's counsel filed motion to be relieved.
September 11, 2019	Plaintiff's counsel's motion to be relieved is granted.
October 10, 2019	Case Management Conference scheduled for October 10, 2019 is vacated and rescheduled for October 15, 2019.
October 15, 2019	Case Management Conference.

Palace Exploration. v. Franchise Tax Board

Filed: 07/18/16
Court: Los Angeles Superior Court, Case № BC627385; Court of Appeal Second Appellate District Court, Case № B284110
Taxpayer’s Counsel: Brian C. McManus, Latham & Watkins LLP
FTB’s Counsel: Matthew Heyn
Contact: Scott DePeel
Year: 2005
Amount: $6,250.00
Penalty: $10,908,750.00

Issues:

Whether FTB’s assessment of promoter penalties against Plaintiff pursuant to Rev. & Tax. Code §19177 was properly determined.
Whether FTB’s assessment of promoter penalties against Plaintiff pursuant to Rev. &Tax. Code §19177 violates the Due Process and the Commerce clauses of the United States Constitution.
Whether FTB’s assessment of the penalties pursuant to Rev. & Tax. Code §19177 violates the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Whether FTB’s denial of Plaintiff’s claim for refund under Rev. & Tax. Code §19180 was proper.

Status:
Date	Status
July 18, 2016	The Summons and Complaint were filed.
August 16, 2016	A Stipulation was filed extending FTB’s time to respond to the complaint to September 1, 2016.
August 19, 2016	The court issued an Order scheduling the Initial Case Management Conference to occur on November 8, 2016.
August 23, 2016	Plaintiff filed Applications for Admission of Counsel Pro Hac Vice regarding Brian C. McManus, Miriam L. Fisher, and Stephen N. Shashy.
September 16, 2016	The court granted Plaintiff’s Applications for Admission Pro Hac Vice.
October 3, 2016	FTB’s Notice of Demurrer and Demurrer to the Complaint were filed and scheduled to be heard on December 7, 2016. The parties then stipulated to rescheduling the Case Management Conference, previously scheduled for November 8, 2016, to December 7, 2016.
November 22, 2016	The Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice in support of Plaintiff’s Opposition to Demurrer was filed, along with pleadings in support thereof. Also on November 22, 2016, a Case Management Conference Statement was filed by Defendant. The Demurrer is scheduled to be heard on December 7, 2016.
November 30, 2016	Defendant filed a Reply to Plaintiff’s Opposition to Demurrer.
December 7, 2016	The court issued a Minute Order overruling FTB’s Demurrer and ordered the FTB to file an answer by January 21, 2017. The Minute Order also scheduled the Case Management Conference to occur on May 17, 2017, the Final Status Conference and the Mandatory Settlement Conference to occur on January 31, 2018, and the Trial to commence on February 13, 2018.
January 18, 2017	FTB filed a Notice of Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Complaint for Refund of Tax together with pleadings in support thereof.
January 23, 2017	FTB filed its Answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint.
February 6, 2017	Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application to Set Aside Defendant’s Motion to Strike along with documents in support thereof, was filed and heard.
February 7, 2017	The Court denied Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application to set aside Defendant’s Motion to Strike.
March 28, 2017	A Stipulation to Continue Status Conference was filed by Defendants. The Status Conference was continued to May 25, 2017.
May 10, 2017	Plaintiff filed a Response to Defendant’s Motion to Strike along with pleadings in support thereof.
May 18, 2017	Defendant filed a Reply.
May 25, 2017	The hearing on Defendant’s Motion to Strike was held. The court took the matter under submission at the conclusion of the hearing.
June 1, 2017	The court issued an Order limiting the scope of Plaintiff’s suit for refund to the one penalty upon which Plaintiff has made payment.
July 25, 2017	Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal of the court’s order dated July 1, 2017.
August 3, 2017	Appellant’s Notice of Designating the Record on Appeal was filed in the Court of Appeal Second Appellate District.
November 29, 2017	A Stipulation and Order for Stay was filed by Defendant/Respondent. The case in the Los Angeles Superior court, BC627385, is stayed.
December 27, 2017	A Stipulated Order, extending the time within which Appellant’s Opening Brief is due, was filed. Appellant’s Opening Brief is now due to be filed on March 9, 2018.
March 2, 2018	Appellant requested an extension of time within which to file an appendix and an Opening Brief.
April 16, 2018	The Court issued a Notice of Default to Appellant after it failed to file an Appendix and an Opening Brief on April 4, 2018. The Court granted Appellant a fifteen day extension to file its Opening Brief.
May 1, 2018	Appellant filed its Opening Brief on Appeal.
May 14, 2018	A Stipulation was filed extending the time within which Respondent's Opening Brief must be filed to July 29, 2018.
July 18, 2018	Respondent requested an Extension of Time within which to its Opening Brief.
July 20, 2018	The Request for Extension of Time within which to file Respondent's Opening Brief was granted. Respondent's Opening Brief is due to be filed by August 29, 2018.
August 29, 2018	Respondent's Opening Brief and Request for Judicial Notice was filed.
September 5, 2018	Appellant requested an extension of time within which to file its Reply Brief. The Court granted the request and Appellant's Reply Brief is now due to be filed on or before November 16, 2018.
September 17, 2018	Respondent's Request for Judicial Notice of certain tax shelter related documents was granted.
November 14, 2018	Appellant's Reply Brief was filed along with a Request for Judicial Notice of Respondent's Brief filed in a different case. This case is now fully briefed.
November 14, 2018	Appellant's Reply Brief was filed along with a Request for Judicial Notice of Respondent's Brief filed in a different case. This case is now fully briefed.
December 28, 2018	The ruling on Appellant’s Request for judicial Notice was ordered deferred until consideration of the Appeal on its Merits.
June 12, 2019	The hearing on Appellant's Request for Judicial Notice is scheduled to occur on July 17, 2019.
July 10, 2019	By virtue of the Court's own motion, the oral argument scheduled to occur on July 17, 2019 is ordered advanced to July 16, 2019.
July 16, 2019	Oral arguments were presented and the matter was submitted for decision.
August 29, 2019	The Court of Appeal dismissed Appellant's appeal, ruling it did not have jurisdiction to review the trial court's interlocutory order.
October 29, 2019	Remittitur issued.

Paula Trust v. Franchise Tax Board

Filed: 12/22/16
Court: San Francisco County Superior Court, Case № CGC-16-556126; Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Case № A154691
Taxpayer’s Counsel: Edward Antolin Esq., Antolin Law Group
FTB’s Counsel: Heather Hoesterey
Contact: Sonia Woodruff
Year: 2007
Amount: $150,655.00

Issues:

Whether Revenue and Taxation Code §§17951 et seq. apply to the taxation of trust income in addition to the provisions of Revenue and Taxation Code §17743.
Whether the application of both Revenue and Taxation Code §17951 et seq. and 17743 to a trust’s income as unconstitutional taxation income/or unconstitutionally discriminates against interstate commerce.

Status:
Date	Status
December 22, 2016	The Summons and Complaint were filed.
January 19, 2017	FTB’s Answer was filed.
May 9, 2017	A Case Management Conference Statement was filed by Plaintiff.
May 10, 2017	The court scheduled the trial to commence on February 20, 2018.
October 5, 2017	Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion for Summary Judgment was filed with pleadings in support thereof. The hearing on the Motion for Summary Judgment will occur on December 19, 2017. Motion for Summary Judgment was filed by Plaintiff along with pleadings in support thereof.
October 30, 2017	An Ex Parte Application for Order to Continue Trial date with pleadings in support thereof was filed. FTB filed a Stipulation to Continue Trial Date. The trial is now scheduled to commence on September 24, 2018.
December 5, 2017	FTB filed its Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and a Joint Stipulation of Facts.
December 7, 2017	A Stipulation and Protective Order were filed by Plaintiff.
December 14, 2017	A Reply in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and a Request for Judicial Notice was filed by Plaintiff.
December 19, 2017	The Court continued the hearing on the Motion for Summary Judgment to January 11, 2018.
December 21, 2017	FTB filed a Sur Reply in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment with pleadings in support thereof.
January 5, 2018	A Supplemental Reply Brief in support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment along with pleadings in support thereof was filed.
January 11, 2018	The Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
February 6, 2018	The Court issued its Order granting Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment.
February 13, 2018	Plaintiff filed the Notice of Entry of Order/Ruling granting Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment.
February 21, 2018	The Memorandum of Costs and Disbursements was filed by Plaintiff.
March 7, 2018	The Court ordered that the Judgment be paid by FTB.
April 25, 2018	FTB filed a Notice of Appeal of the Judgment entered against it by the San Francisco County Superior Court.
May 1, 2018	FTB's Notice Designating the Record on Appeal was filed.
July 2, 2018	The Court received the Notice of Appeal.
July 10, 2018	FTB filed a Civil Case Information Statement.
November 15, 2018	Appellant filed the Record on Appeal.
November 16, 2018	Appellant filed a request for an extension of time to file its Opening Brief. Appellant's Opening Brief is due to be filed on or before January 9, 2019.
January 9, 2019	Appellant's Opening Brief was filed.
January 9, 2019	Appellant's Request for Judicial Notice along with pleadings in support thereof was filed.
January 18, 2019	The consideration of the Request for Judicial Notice, filed by Appellant on January 9, 2019, and Opposition thereto if any, is deferred to the Decision of the Appeal on its Merits. Respondent may file its response to this Request at the same time it files its Reply Brief.
February 4, 2019	Respondent filed a Certificate of Interested Entities or Persons.
February 14, 2019	Respondent's Opening Brief is due to be filed on March 12, 2019.
March 8, 2019	Respondent's Opening Brief was filed.
March 12, 2019	A Stipulation to Extend the Time within which Appellant must file its Reply Brief was filed. Appellant's Reply Brief is due on April 29, 2019.
April 29, 2019	A Stipulation to Extend the Time within which Appellant must file its Reply Brief was filed. Appellant's Reply Brief is due on April 29, 2019.
May 10, 2019	The Court of Appeal issued a Notice to both parties advising that they have a right to waive Oral Argument.
May 13, 2019	Both parties filed requests for Oral Argument.

Robert W. Holman v. Franchise Tax Board

Filed: 05/21/2018
Court: Los Angeles County Superior, Case № BC707004
Taxpayers Counsel: Mardiros H. Dakessian Dakessian Law, LTD
FTB's Counsel: Charles Tsai
Contact: Renel Sapiandante
Year: 2004
Amount: Tax: $182,376.31; Interest: $89,559.10

Issues:

Whether an item of income was properly sourced to the Plaintiff individually rather than sourced to Plaintiff's trust.
Whether Plaintiff's trust was a Qualified Charitable Remainder Trust.
Whether FTB's assessment against Plaintiff for the 2004 Tax Year is time-barred.

Status:
Date	Status
May 21, 2018	A Complaint was filed by Plaintiff.
June 6, 2018	A Notice of Case Conference was filed, scheduling the Case Management Conference for September 21, 2018.
June 8, 2017	The Summons was filed by Plaintiff.
July 18, 2018	Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Case Management Conference and Order to Show Cause regarding Requirements for Proof of Service and Obtaining Entry of Default and Default Judgment Pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.110 is set for September 21, 2018.
June 29, 2018	FTB filed its Answer.
July 23, 2018	The Court issued a Notice of Continuance for the Case Management Conference. The Case Management Conference scheduled for September 21, 2018, is now scheduled to occur on November 8, 2018.
July 30, 2018	Peremptory Challenge to the Judicial Officer was filed by Plaintiff, along with pleadings in support thereof.
August 6, 2018	The Court granted Plaintiff's Peremptory Challenge to the Judicial Officer.
August 6, 2018	The Court issued a Notice of Case Reassignment.
August 17, 2018	A Notice of Case Management Conference was issued by the Court which scheduled a Case Management Conference to be held on December 14, 2018.
November 26, 2018	Defendants filed a Case Management Statement requesting trial.
November 28, 2018	Plaintiff filed a Case Management Statement requesting Mediation.
December 14, 2018	A Case Management Order was issued scheduling the case to be heard on January 13, 2020.
December 14, 2018	The Court issued a Minute Order scheduling the Final; Status Conference for January 3, 2020.
October 16, 2019	Status conference.

Ronald & Pamela Mass v. Franchise Tax Board

Filed: 07/20/16
Court: Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case № BC627648; Court of Appeal Second Appellate District, Case № B286857; California Supreme Court, Case № S258092
Taxpayer’s Counsel: Mardiros H. Dakessian, Dakessian Law LTD
FTB’s Counsel: Matthew Heyn
Contact: Renel Sapiandante
Year: 2010
Amount: Tax: $7,384

Issues:

Whether Rev. & Tax. Code §17145 violates Article XIII, Section 26(b) of the California Constitution’s exemption of interest on California and/or local government bonds from taxes on income.
Whether FTB’s application of Rev. & Tax. Code §17145 with regard to dividends received from Regulated Investment Companies (“RICs”), which may have interest income from California municipal bonds, violates Article XII, Section 26(b) of the California Constitution.

Status:
Date	Status
July 20, 2016	The Summons and Complaint were filed.
August 15, 2016	A Stipulation to Extend Time to Respond to Complaint was filed. The response to Complaint is now due September 21, 2016.
August 16, 2016	The court issued an order scheduling the Initial Case Management Conference to occur on January 13, 2017.
September 6, 2016	The Response was filed.
December 27, 2016	A Case Management Statement was filed by Plaintiffs.
January 5, 2017	FTB filed its Case Management Statement.
January 13, 2017	At the January 13, 2017 Case Management Conference hearing, trial was scheduled to commence on July 3, 2017.
April 11, 2017	A Stipulation and Proposed Order to continue the trial date was filed by Plaintiffs.
April 11, 2017	The court issued an Order continuing the Status Conference and the Trial commencement dates. The Status Conference is continued to September 7, 2017, and the Trial was scheduled to commence on September 18, 2017.
September 18, 2017	The Trial was held and the matter was taken under submission, with the court indicating it may request further briefing from the parties.
October 30, 2017	The court issued judgment in favor of FTB, holding that the Legislature’s enactment of Revenue and Taxation Code §17145 was appropriate and does not violate Article XIII section 26(b) of the California Constitution.
December 7, 2017	A Notice of Appeal was filed by Plaintiffs/Appellants.
December 18, 2017	Appellant’s Notice Designating the Record on Appeal was filed.
June 4, 2018	Appellant's Opening Brief was filed.
June 19, 2018	Respondent filed a Motion for Extension of Time to file Respondent's Opening Brief. The Court granted the Respondent's motion. Respondent's Opening Brief is now due to be filed on August 6, 2018.
August 6, 2018	Respondent's Opening Brief was filed.
August 7, 2018	Appellants requested an extension of time within which to file their Reply Brief. The Court granted the request. Appellants' Reply Brief is to be filed on or before October 9, 2018.
October 3, 2018	Appellants' Reply Brief was filed. The case is now fully briefed.
February 15, 2019	The Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District issued a notice for Oral Argument. Oral Argument is scheduled for March 13, 2019.
February 22, 2019	Respondent's request to continue Oral Argument was granted by the Court of Appeal Second Appellate District. The matter is continued to the April calendar.
March 8, 2019	The Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District scheduled the Oral Argument to occur on April 17, 2019.
April 17, 2019	Oral Argument was held and the matter was taken under submission.
August 15, 2019	The Court of Appeal issues a ruling in favor of FTB, holding Revenue and Taxation Code section 17145 does not violate the exemption in article XIII, section 26, subdivision (b) of the California Constitution.
September 20, 2019	Appellant filed petition for review in California Supreme Court.

The Rasmussen Company, Inc. v. Franchise Tax Board

Filed: 09/08/16
Court: San Francisco Superior Court, Case № CGC-16-554150
Taxpayer’s Counsel: Stewart R. Pollock, Esq., Edelson PC
FTB’s Counsel: Heather B. Hoesterey
Contact: Ann H. Hodges
Year: 2011
Amount: $800.00

Issues:

Whether the definition of “doing business” as defined in California Revenue and Taxation Code §23101 violates the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution.
Whether Plaintiff had sufficient nexus with the state of California so as to be subject to California Revenue and Taxation Code §23153.
Whether Plaintiff is entitled to an award of Attorney’s fees.
Whether the matter should properly be certified as a class action

Status:
Date	Status
September 8, 2016	The Summons and Complaint were filed. The Case Management Conference is scheduled for February 8, 2017. The Civil Case Management statement is due to be filed on January 17, 2016.
November 17, 2016	FTB’s Demurrer to Class Action Complaint was filed.
November 30, 2016	The parties request for a continuance of the Demurrer hearing was granted and the matter is continued to January 18, 2017.
December 29, 2016	Plaintiff filed its Opposition to the Demurrer.
January 11, 2017	A Reply to Opposition to Demurrer was filed by FTB.
January 18, 2017	The court denied FTB’s Demurrer, with leave to amend.
January 20, 2017	The court continued the Case Management Conference from February 8, 2017 to April 12, 2017.
February 7, 2017	Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint.
March 28, 2017	A Case Management Statement was filed by Defendant.
March 29, 2017	The Case Management Conference was continued from April 12, 2017 to June 14, 2017.
March 30, 2017	The FTB filed a Demurrer to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, along with documents in support thereof. In addition, FTB also filed a Motion to Stay Proceedings in this case with respect to Plaintiff’s request that this case proceed as a class action, pending the Court of Appeal’s determination of Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding № 4742.
April 12, 2017	The Case Management Conference was continued to June 14, 2017.
April 19, 2017	The Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Demurrer to the First Amended Complaint and Defendant’s Motion to Stay were filed.
May 2, 2017	The court issued an Order granting FTB’s Motion to Stay Proceedings and removing FTB’s Demurrer to the First Amended Complaint from the court’s calendar.
June 2, 2017	A Notice of Entry of Order Granting Defendant’s Motion to Stay Proceedings was filed by FTB. This case is stayed pending determination of the appeal in Case № 140518, FTB LLC Tax Refund Cases Judicial Coordination Proceeding № 4742.
November 16, 2017	Both Plaintiff and Defendant filed Case Management Statements.
November 27, 2017	An Order continuing Case Management Conference was filed. The Case Management Conference is now set to occur on June 13, 2018.
May 17, 2018	Defendant filed a Case Management Statement, which requested that the Case Management Conference be continued for six months pending the outcome of the Bakersfield Mall LLC litigation.
May 18, 2018	Plaintiff's Case Management Statement was filed.
May 25, 2018	The Court ordered the Case Management Conference of June 13, 2018 to be continued to October 17, 2018.
September 21, 2018	A Case Management Statement was filed requesting the Court stay proceedings pending the outcome of the Franchise Tax Board Limited Liability Corporation Tax Refund Cases (Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding No. 4742.)
September 28, 2018	The Case Management Conference scheduled for October 17, 2018 is continued to February 20, 2019.
February 6, 2019	The Order Continuing Case Management Conference was filed. The Case Management Conference is set for April 10, 2019.
February 6, 2019	Pursuant to a Stipulation by the parties, the May 2, 2017, order staying further proceedings in this case was vacated. The Defendants have thirty days to respond to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint.
February 6, 2019	Pursuant to a Stipulation by the parties, the May 2, 2017, order staying further proceedings in this case was vacated. The Defendants have thirty days to respond to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint.
March 22, 2019	Plaintiff filed a Case Management Statement.
March 26, 2019	A Stipulated Order permitting Plaintiff to file a Second Amended Complaint was filed.
March 27, 2019	An Order Continuing Case Management Conference was filed. The Case Management Conference is now scheduled to occur on June 12, 2019.
April 9, 2019	Plaintiff filed its Second Amended Complaint with a class action designation.
May 13, 2019	FTB filed its Demurrer to Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint, together with pleadings in support thereof.
May 22, 2019	The Case Management Conference scheduled to occur on June 12, 2019, is continued to July 24, 2019.
June 4, 2019	Plaintiff's Opposition to FTB's Demurrer to the Second Amended Complaint was filed together with pleadings in support thereof.
June 7, 2019	The FTB's Demurrer to the Second Amended Complaint was overruled. FTB must file its Answer to the Second Amended Complaint within ten days.
July 9, 2019	Case Management Conference statements were filed by both Plaintiff and Defendant.
July 15, 2019	Plaintiff filed an application seeking a Complex Litigation designation for this case.
July 18, 2019	FTB filed its Answer to Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint.
July 26, 2019	Plaintiff's Application for Complex Litigation designation was granted and the case has been assigned to Judge Teri L. Jackson for all purposes.
October 29, 2019	Case management conference.

Timothy Dummer v. California State License Board, Franchise Tax Board, et al.

Filed: 09/16/16
Court: Sacramento County Superior Court, Case № 34-2016-00200378;
Court of Appeal Third Appellate District, Case № C087240
Taxpayer’s Counsel: Timothy Dummer, in propria persona
FTB’s Counsel: Mike Sapoznikow
Contact: Ann H. Hodges
Years: 2006 – 2008, 2010 – 2013
Amount: $1.00

Issues:

Whether FTB and the Contractor Licensing Board violated the Due Process Clause of the California Constitution by suspending Plaintiff’s contractor license.
Whether FTB violated the California Rev. & Tax. Code sections requiring a hearing on a protest of a Notice of Proposed Assessment.
Whether Plaintiff was a resident of California during the years at issue.

Status:
Date	Status
September 16, 2016	A complaint and a Motion for Preliminary Injunction seeking the immediate reinstatement of his contractor’s license were filed by Plaintiff.
October 12, 2016	The court denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction.
October 18, 2016	Defendants’ filed a Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint, which was to be heard on November 18, 2016.
October 31, 2016	Plaintiff filed an Opposition to Defendants’ Demurrer.
November 10, 2016	Defendants’ Reply to Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendants’ Demurrer to Complaint was filed.
November 18, 2016	The court, on its own motion, continued the hearing to November 23, 2016.
November 23, 2016	Defendant State License Board requested and was granted a continuance of the hearing date.
December 20, 2016	Plaintiff improperly filed a First Amended Complaint for Injunctive Relief prior to the hearing on the pending Demurrer.
January 5, 2017	The court heard arguments on Defendants’ Demurrer and issued a Minute Order sustaining the Demurrer and allowing leave to amend.
February 8, 2017	Defendants filed a Demurrer to the First Amended Complaint that was filed December 20, 2016, which was scheduled for hearing on March 9, 2017.
February 21, 2017	Defendants filed a Case Management Statement.
February 24, 2017	The Plaintiff filed an Opposition to Defendants’ Demurrer.
March 2, 2017	Defendants filed a Reply to Plaintiff’s Opposition to Demurrer.
March 9, 2017	The court overruled the Demurrer.
March 16, 2017	A Case Management Statement was filed by Plaintiff.
March 20, 2017	Plaintiff filed his Second Amended Complaint.
April 20, 2017	A Demurrer to the Second Amended Complaint was filed by Defendant, along with pleadings in support thereof.
April 24, 2017	The Hearing on the Demurrer was scheduled for May 23, 2017.
April 28, 2017	Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendants’ Demurrer was filed.
May 23, 2017	The court issued a ruling denying the Demurrer to the Second Amended Complaint.
June 5, 2017	FTB filed its Answer to the Second Amended Complaint.
September 18, 2017	The court set this case for trial, commencing March 26, 2018. The Settlement Conference is set for February 5, 2018.
December 8, 2017	Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment was filed, along with pleadings in support thereof. The Motion for Summary Judgment is scheduled to be heard on February 20, 2018.
January 2, 2018	A Protective Order was filed by Defendants protecting Plaintiff’s confidential tax information.
February 5, 2018	Settlement Conference was held.
February 14, 2018	FTB filed a Motion to Amend the Answer.
February 16, 2018	The Court issued a Tentative Ruling on Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, which if adopted would deny Plaintiff's Motion. Plaintiff requested a hearing on the motion and the Court scheduled the hearing to occur on February 20, 2018.
February 20, 2018	The Court heard oral arguments on the Motion for Summary Judgment. After the hearing, the Court denied Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment.
February 27, 2018	Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Leave to Amend the Answer was filed.
March 5, 2018	Defendants filed a Reply in Support of Defendants' Motion for Leave to Amend the Answer.
March 5, 2018	Defendants filed Evidentiary Objections to Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Leave to Amend the Answer.
March 14, 2018	The Minute Order was issued by the Court denying Defendants' Motion for Leave to Amend the Answer.
March 14, 2018	The Notice of Renewed Motion and Renewed Motion for Leave to Amend the Answer, with pleadings in support thereof were filed by Defendants.
March 15, 2018	An Ex Parte Application to Shorten Time for Consideration of Renewed Motion to Leave to Amend the Motion was filed by Defendants.
March 15, 2018	Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' Renewed Motion for Leave to Amend the Answer was filed.
March 15, 2018	Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' Ex Parte Application to Shorten Time for Consideration of the Renewed Motion for Leave to Amend the Answer was filed.
March 19, 2018	Defendants filed a new Notice of Renewed Motion and Motion for Leave to Amend the Answer with pleadings in support thereof.
March 21, 2018	Plaintiff's Trial Brief was filed.
March 22, 2018	The Court granted Defendants' Motion to Shorten Time for Consideration of Renewed Motion for Leave to Amend the Answer.
March 26, 2018	Defendants filed their Trial Brief.
March 26, 2018	A two day trial commenced and the matter was submitted for decision.
May 3, 2018	The Court issued a Notice of Decision in favor of FTB.
May 16, 2018	Defendant's filed a Proposed form of Judgment together with a Notice of Entry of Judgment.
May 21, 2018	Notice of Appeal was filed Plaintiff.
June 6, 2018	Plaintiff filed a Motion to Stay Enforcement of Judgment Pending Appeal and to Strike Court Costs or in the alternative Tax Costs.
June 11, 2018	FTB's Response to Plaintiff's Motion to Stay Enforcement of Judgment Pending Appeal and to Strike Court Costs or in the Alternative Tax Costs was filed, along with supporting documentation.
July 10, 2018	Appellant's Notice Designating Record on Appeal was filed.
August 10, 2018	Plaintiff's Motion to Stay Enforcement of Judgment Pending Appeal and to Strike/Tax Costs was heard and taken under submission.
August 14, 2018	The Court issued a Minute Order granting Plaintiff's Motion to Stay Enforcement of Judgment pending appeal in part and denied in part. The Court held that Defendants were the prevailing party. The Court rejected each of Plaintiff's contentions with the limited exception of the costs of Defendant's Exhibits.
August 21, 2018	Plaintiff's Notice of Motion and Motion for Reconsideration of Order Denying Motion to Stay Enforcement of Judgment Pending Appeal Pursuant to Stipulation and to Strike Court Costs or in the Alternative to Tax Costs was filed with pleadings in support thereof.
August 27, 2018	The Court rejected Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration as being incomplete.
September 7, 2018	Plaintiff refiled the Motion for Reconsideration along with pleadings in support thereof.
September 25, 2018	The Court denied the Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration.
November 26, 2018	The Appellant filed the Record on Appeal. The Appellant's Opening Brief is due to be filed on or before January 7, 2019.
January 7, 2019	Appellant's Opening Brief was filed.
January 15, 2019	Respondent's Application for Extension of Time to file a brief was granted. Respondent's Reply Brief is now due to be filed on April 8, 2019.
January 17, 2019	Appellant's Opposition to Respondents' Application for Extension of time to file brief was filed.
March 25, 2019	Respondents filed a Certificate of Interested Parties.
March 25, 2019	Respondents' Request for Judicial Notice was filed.
March 25, 2019	Respondents' Motion to Supplement the Record was filed.
April 3, 2019	The ruling on Respondents' Request for Judicial Notice was deferred.
April 12, 2019	Respondents' Opening Brief was filed
May 1, 2019	Appellant's Reply Brief was filed. The matter is now fully briefed, and the parties await the scheduling of Oral Argument.
May 14, 2019	Appellant's Motion to Strike Respondents' Brief was denied.
September 10, 2019	Court of Appeal sends oral argument waiver notice.
September 18, 2019	Appellant requests oral argument.
September 27, 2019	Court of Appeal schedules oral argument for December 17, 2019.

Wein Realty v. Franchise Tax Board

Filed: 05/15/19
Court: San Francisco County Superior Court, Case № CGC-19-576007
Taxpayer’s Counsel: Rafey S. Balabanian
FTB’s Counsel: Karen W. Yiu
Contact: Ann H. Hodges
Year: 2016, 2017
Amount: $1,600.00

Issues:

Whether the matter should be certified as a class action on behalf of a class of business entities that plaintiff alleges were not "doing business" in California but were still assessed and paid the minimum franchise tax.
Whether the various statutes involving the definition of "doing business" in California are unconstitutional under the California and/or the United States Constitutions as applied to Plaintiff and/or the class members.
Whether Plaintiff had sufficient nexus with California (i.e. whether Plaintiff was "doing business" in California) so as to enable California to properly assess taxes against Plaintiff for the 2016 and 2017 tax years.
Whether Plaintiff is entitled to an award of attorneys' fees.

Status:
Date	Status
May 14, 2019	Summons and Class action Complaint for Refund of Taxes were filed.
July 2, 2019	FTB filed its Answer to Complaint.
August 9, 2019	Order granting complex designation and for single assignment to Judge Teri L. Jackson for all purposes.
October 29, 2019	Case management conference.

Recently closed cases

Bunzl Distribution v. Franchise Tax Board

Filed

12/17/10

Court

San Francisco Superior Court Case № CGC10506344

First Appellate District Court Case № A137887

Taxpayers Counsel

Kimberley M. Reeder, The Law Offices of Kimberley M. Reeder, A Professional Corporation

FTB’s Counsel

Karen Yiu

Contact

Michael Cornez

Year

2005

Amount

Tax:: $1,368,734.00
Interest:: $128,562.00
Damages:: $767,857.79

Issues:

Whether FTB properly included the California factors attributable to certain single-member LLCs when calculating the Taxpayer’s apportionment percentages.
Whether FTB properly included the single-member LLCs in the Taxpayer’s combined report.
Whether the FTB Settlement Bureau conducts itself with reckless disregard for Board published procedures.
Whether the policies and/or procedures of the FTB Settlement Bureau constitute improper underground regulations.

Status:
Date	Status
December 21, 2010	The Summons and Complaint were served upon FTB.
March 1, 2011	FTB’s Demurrer to the Complaint was heard. The Demurrer was sustained in part and overruled in part.
May 11, 2011	FTB’s Answer was filed.
December 21, 2012	A Notice of Entry of Judgment was filed in favor of FTB.
February 12, 2013	A timely Notice of Appeal was filed by Plaintiff.
May 22, 2013	Appellant’s Opening Brief was filed.
October 30, 2013	Respondent’s Brief was filed.
February 21, 2014	Appellant’s Reply Brief was filed.
March 5, 2014	An Application to file an Amicus Brief in support of Appellant was filed by the California Taxpayers Association.
March 20, 2014	The court issued a letter to Appellant directing it to address whether a final judgment from which Appellant could appeal, existed in this case.
April 1, 2014	Appellant’s letter Brief was filed.
August 21, 2014	FTB’s Answer to the Amicus Curiae Brief filed by California Taxpayers Association in support of Appellant was filed. The matter is fully briefed and the parties await the scheduling of the Oral Argument.
January 17, 2017	The court requested additional briefing from both parties to be filed by February 1, 2017.
January 30, 2017	The parties made a joint request for an extension of the due date to February 22, 2017.
February 21, 2017	The California Taxpayers Association filed an Amicus Curiae Brief on behalf of Appellant.
February 22, 2017	Letter Briefs were filed by Appellant and FTB.
June 6, 2017	The Court of Appeal sent a letter to Appellant requesting Appellant’s opinion as to the independent viability of the Third and Fifth Causes of Action of their Complaint if FTB prevailed on the First and Second Causes of Action.
June 22, 2017	The Appellant responded to the court regarding the viability of the Third and Fifth Causes of Action by means of a letter.
June 01, 2018	The Court notified the parties of the scheduling of Oral Argument. Oral Argument is scheduled to be heard on September 21, 2018.
September 21, 2018	The case was argued and submitted for decision.
September 28, 2018	The Court of Appeal issued its published opinion affirming the trial court's issuance of judgment in favor of FTB. The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.
October 10, 2018	The FTB made a request to the Court of Appeal to modify certain language in its Opinion.
October 15, 2018	Appellant's Petition for Rehearing was filed.
October 24, 2018	The Court of Appeal made modifications to its Opinion with no change to the Judgment.
October 29, 2018	The Court of Appeal denied Appellant's Petition for Rehearing.
November 7, 2018	Appellant filed a Petition for Review with the California Supreme Court
November 26, 2018	Respondent FTB notified the California Supreme Court it does not intend to file an answer to the Petition for Review unless one is requested by the court.
December 19, 2018	The California Supreme Court denied Appellant's Petition for Review.

Harley-Davidson Inc. & Subsidiaries v. Franchise Tax Board

Filed: 11/09/11
Court: The Supreme Court of California, Case № S227652
Court: San Diego County Superior Court, Case № 37-2011-00100846
Court: Court of Appeal Fourth Appellate District, Case № D071669
Taxpayer’s Counsel: Amy L. Silverstein, Esq., Silverstein & Pomerantz, LLP
FTB’s Counsel: Tim Nadar
Contact: Melissa Williams
Year: 2000 – 2002
Amount
Tax: $3,232,742.00

Issues:

Whether FTB improperly discriminates against interstate unitary corporate Taxpayers by requiring them to compute their California taxable income by using the combined reporting method and not allowing them the option offered to in-state unitary filers under Revenue and Taxation Code §25101.15, which allows in-state unitary filers to file on either a separate entity basis or a combined report basis.
Whether California lacks nexus sufficient to justify taxation of certain Harley-Davidson subsidiaries and, if there is nexus, whether the income of these subsidiaries can be attributable to California.

Status:
Date	Status
November 9, 2011	The Summons and Complaint were filed.
December 20, 2011	Harley-Davidson filed a First Amended Complaint.
January 20, 2012	FTB demurred to the First Amended Complaint. Plaintiff opposed FTB’s demurrer.
March 12, 2012	a Minute Order was issued sustaining FTB’s Demurrer as to the first two causes of action (the 25101.15 and Gillette issues respectively) without leave to amend; and sustaining FTB’s Demurrer to the Third Cause of action (nexus issue) with leave to amend.
March 21, 2012	A Second Amended Complaint was filed by Harley-Davidson with the same causes of action as were set out in previous complaints (including the 4th cause of action, that certain subsidiaries were not financial corporations.) FTB timely filed its Answer to Second Amended Complaint.
November 9, 2012	Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Summary Judgment/Summary Adjudication of Issues. FTB timely filed its Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment/Summary Adjudication.
January 17, 2013	A Minute Order was issued by the court denying Harley-Davidson’s Motion for Summary Judgment. The parties stipulated that trial briefs and related documents would be submitted to the court in lieu of testimony for trial in the matter. The only issues brought to trial were the Revenue and Taxation Code §25101.15 issue and the nexus issue. The Gillette issue was stayed pending the outcome of Gillette. Plaintiffs dropped the 4th issue regarding whether or not certain subsidiaries were financial corporations.
February 22, 2013	Trial briefs were filed with the court.
May 2, 2013	The Trial Court issued its Statement of Decision and Judgment in favor of FTB.
June 27, 2013	A Notice of Appeal was timely filed by Harley-Davidson.
December 26, 2013	Appellants’ Opening Brief was filed.
April 24, 2014	Respondent’s Brief was filed.
July 15, 2014	Appellants’ Reply Brief was filed.
May 13, 2015	Oral Argument was heard and the matter was submitted for decision.
May 28, 2015	The Court of Appeal issued its opinion for publication, holding that the Superior Court had improperly sustained, without leave to amend, FTB’s Demurrer to the Plaintiffs’ first cause of action alleging that Revenue and Taxation Code §25105.15 discriminated against taxpayers engaged in interstate business. However, the Court of Appeal also held that the Superior Court properly concluded that Plaintiffs’ subsidiaries had nexus with California sufficient to subject them to taxation by California. The case was remanded to San Diego County Superior Court for further proceedings on Plaintiffs’ claims of discrimination.
October 21, 2016	Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment were heard. The court took the parties’ Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment under submission.
October 31, 2016	A Minute Order was filed. The Order overruled all objections to evidence, denied Harley-Davidson’s Motion for Summary Judgment, and granted FTB’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
December 14, 2016	A Proposed Judgment was filed by the FTB.
December 27, 2016	A Notice of Appeal was filed by Harley Davidson.
December 29, 2016	Plaintiffs’ Objections to FTB’s Proposed Judgment were filed.
January 20, 2017	Appellants’ Notice designating record on Appeal was filed.
February 14, 2017	The Court of Appeal directed Appellants to provide an appealable final judgment to the court by March 6, 2017.
March 3, 2017	An Order was filed by the Court of Appeal granting Appellants’ request for an extension of time to submit a final judgment.
March 7, 2017	Appellants submitted a copy of the final judgment to the Court of Appeal.
April 18, 2017	Appellants filed the record on Appeal. Appellants’ Opening Brief was filed on July 27, 2017.
July 27, 2017	A Motion/Application to augment the record was filed by Appellant.
August 2, 2017	Respondent’s Opposition to Appellants’ Motion to Augment the Record on Appeal was filed.
August 4, 2017	The Appellants’ motion was granted. Respondent’s Opening Brief was filed on November 30, 2017.
November 30, 2017	Respondent’s filed a Motion /Application to Augment the Record.
December 1, 2017	Respondent’s Request for Judicial Notice was filed.
December 5, 2017	Respondent filed a Request for Oral Argument.
December 7, 2017	Appellants filed a Request for Oral Argument.
December 15, 2017	Appellants filed an Opposition to Respondent’s Request for Judicial Notice and an Opposition to Respondent’s Motion to Augment.
December 20, 2017	Respondent’s November 30, 2017 Motion to Augment the record with Appellant’s appendix in the earlier appeal in this case (D064241) is treated as a motion to incorporate the appendix by reference and is granted. The documents attached to the Motion to Augment are deemed part of the record on Appeal. Respondent’s December 1, 2017, request for judicial Notice will be considered concurrently with the appeal.
February 15, 2018	Appellants asked for an extension of time within which to file its Reply Brief. The Court granted it. The Reply Brief is now due to be filed on April 23, 2018.
April 23, 2018	Appellants requested and were granted an extension of time within which to file their Reply Brief. The Reply Brief is now due to be filed on July 13, 2018.
May 3, 2018	Appellant's Reply Brief was filed. The case is fully briefed.
June 4, 2018	The Court notified the parties of the scheduling of Oral Argument. Oral Argument is scheduled to be heard on July 9, 2018.
July 9, 2018	The Court heard Oral Argument and the case was submitted for Decision.
August 22, 2018	The Court of Appeal issued its Opinion affirming the judgment of the trial court.
September 6, 2018	Appellants filed a Petition for Rehearing with the Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District.
September 11, 2018	Respondent filed a Request to Publish Opinion.
September 14, 2018	The Appellants' Petition for Rehearing was denied by the Court of Appeal
September 14, 2018	The Court of Appeal granted Respondent's request to publish the opinion and issued an Order certifying its Opinion in this case for publication in the California Official Reports.
October 24, 2018	Plaintiffs filed a Petition for Review from the California Supreme Court.
November 13, 2018	Respondent's Answer to the Petition for Review was filed in the California Supreme Court.
November 21, 2018	Appellants' Reply to the Answer to Petition for Review was filed in the California Supreme Court.
December 12, 2018	The California Supreme Court denied Appellants Petition for Review.
December 17, 2018	The Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District issued a Remittitur and deemed the case complete.

Martin A. Logies v. Franchise Tax Board

Filed: 07/01/11
Court: Alameda County Superior Court, Case № RG11603896
Taxpayer’s Counsel: Bradley A. Bening, Esq., Willoughby, Stuart & Bening
FTB’s Counsel: Marguerite Stricklin
Contact: Craig Scott
Year: 1997 – 2001
Amount
Penalty: $21,112.50

Issues:

Whether Plaintiff is entitled to cancellation of the Preparer penalties.
Whether Plaintiff is entitled to a refund of the $21,112.50 that he has paid to date.

Status:
Date	Status
June 23, 2011	The Summons and Complaint were filed.
August 4, 2011	The Santa Clara County Superior Court approved a Stipulation and Order transferring the case to Alameda County.
October 13, 2011	An Order was issued transferring the case to Oakland, Alameda County.
November 7, 2011	The case was transferred to Oakland, Alameda County.
November 8, 2011	Notice of Receipt of Transfer was filed.
June 27, 2013	FTB filed the Answer to Petition.
November 21, 2018	FTB filed a Motion to Dismiss. The Motion is scheduled to be heard on December 18, 2018.
December 17, 2018	The Hearing on FTB's Motion to Dismiss has been rescheduled to December 20, 2018.
December 18, 2018	The Court issued a Tentative Ruling granting the Motion to Dismiss.
December 20, 2018	The Motion to Dismiss was granted.

Priority Posting & Publishing Inc. v. Franchise Tax Board

Filed:

03/18/15

Court

San Francisco County Superior Court, Case № CGC-15-544791

Taxpayer’s Counsel

Edward Ord, Esq., Cheng Zheng, Esq., Ord & Norman

FTB’s Counsel

Marguerite Stricklin

Contact

Renel Sapiandante

Year

2008

Amount

Tax: $1,482,454.00
Penalty: $625,855.00

Issues:

Whether FTB properly concluded that $17,861,500 of a purported $19,750,000 bonus paid to the corporation’s sole shareholder and director during 2008 should be reclassified as a dividend and disallowed as a salary deduction to the corporation.
Whether FTB’s assessment of penalties and interest against the corporation in the amount of $625,855.03 for tax year 2008 is appropriate.

Status:
Date	Status
March 20, 2015	The Summons and Complaint were served upon FTB.
April 16, 2015	Plaintiff filed its First Amended Complaint for Refund of Taxes.
June 1, 2015	FTB filed a Demurrer to the First Amended Complaint, together with supporting pleadings.
December 8, 2015	An Order on Stipulation permitting Plaintiff to file a Second Amended Complaint was filed, and FTB’s Demurrer to the First Amended Complaint was taken off calendar.
December 18, 2015	Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint was filed.
January 12, 2016	FTB filed its Answer to the Second Amended Complaint.
February 9, 2016	FTB filed an Amended Answer to the Second Amended Complaint.
October 10, 2017	An Ex-Parte Application for Order to Continue Trial was filed by Plaintiff along with pleadings in support thereof.
November 2, 2017	The Court granted the Motion to Continue Trial Date. The trial is now scheduled to commence on February 20, 2018.
January 12, 2018	Plaintiff filed an Ex Parte Application along with pleadings in support thereof, for an Order Shortening Time within which to bring a motion to continue the currently scheduled trial date of February 20, 2017. Plaintiff's Motion is scheduled to be heard on February 9, 2018.
February 6, 2018	Plaintiff filed a Motion to Continue Trial, which was scheduled to commence on February 20, 2018, along with pleadings in support thereof.
February 15, 2018	The Court issued an order granting Plaintiff's Motion to Continue Trial. The Trial is now scheduled to commence May 29, 2018.
May 30, 2018	Trial commenced and continued through June 6, 2018.
June 6, 2018	Upon the conclusion of the trial, the Court requested the parties to each submit a Proposed Statement of Decision by August 17, 2018.
August 3, 2018	A Joint Stipulation to Extend Time for Parties to Lodge/File Proposed Statement of Decision after Trial was submitted by the parties.
August 13, 2018	An Order granting the Joint Stipulation to Extend Time for Parties to Lodge/File Proposed Statement of Decision After Trial was issued by the Court. Each party must submit a Proposed Statement of Decision by September 7, 2018.
September 18, 2018	An Order Granting Plaintiff's Application to Further Extend Time to Lodge/File Proposed Statement of Decision after Trial until September 21, 2018 was issued.
September 29, 2018	Proposed Statement of Decision after Trial was filed by Plaintiff.
October 2, 2018	Plaintiff filed an Application for Leave to File a Proposed Statement of Decision after Trial. The Court did not grant Plaintiff's Application.
October 3, 2018	The Court issued its Tentative Statement in favor of FTB.
October 9, 2018	FTB filed a Request for a Correction to the Tentative Statement.
October 11, 2018	The Tentative Statement became the Court's Statement of Decision after there were no Objections to the Tentative Statement.
March 15, 2019	The Judgment was issued in favor of FTB.
June 3, 2019	The Court entered an Amended Judgment in favor of FTB confirming that Plaintiff will receive no part of its Request for Refund of Taxes paid and that FTB shall be awarded all costs of suit for which it has requested reimbursement.
June 5, 2019	Notice of Entry of Judgment in favor of FTB was filed.

Litigation roster

Active cases

Issue:

Status:

Issues:

Status:

Issues:

Status:

Issues:

Status:

Issues:

Status:

Issues:

Status:

Issues:

Status:

Issues

Status:

Issues:

Status:

Issues:

Status:

Issue:

Status:

Clark County District Court

Nevada Supreme Court

The United States Supreme Court

Issues:

Status:

Issues:

Status:

Issues:

Status:

Issues:

Status:

Issues:

Status:

Issues:

Status:

Issues:

Status:

Issues:

Status:

Issues:

Status:

Recently closed cases

Issues:

Status:

Issues:

Status:

Issues:

Status:

Issues:

Status: