Newman

Newman v. Franchise Tax Board

Good Law
1989 Cal. App. LEXIS 211·208 Cal. App. 3d 972·256 Cal. Rptr. 503
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 16, 1989B032783California2,531 words

Opinion

Opinion

Goertzen, J.

After a court trial, based on a stipulation of facts (Code Civ. Proc., § 283) and numerous exhibits, the trial court found in favor of plaintiffs/respondents Paul L. Newman and Joanne W. Newman and against defendant/appellant Franchise Tax Board (the Board). The Board appeals; it contends that the court erred when it determined the allocation formula to be applied between California and non-California sources of the Newmans’ acting income from the motion picture, “The Sting”; and when it found that the Newmans had given legally sufficient notice to the Board of their claim for a refund for a portion of their 1975 taxes.

Facts

The facts in this case are uncontroverted. The stipulation of facts and other exhibits contained all the facts before the trial court and may be summarized as follows:

Plaintiff Paul L. Newman (Newman) is an actor. He and his wife, Joanne W. Newman, are not California residents. Ms. Newman is a plaintiff be cause the dispute concerns California joint nonresident income tax returns filed by the Newmans, as husband and wife, for 1975, 1976 and 1977.

In October 1972, Newman entered into a “deal-player contract” with Universal Pictures for the motion…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.