Franchise Tax Bd. v. SUPERIOR COURT OF CITY AND CTY. OF SAN FRANCISCO

Good Law
1998 Cal. App. LEXIS 388·63 Cal. App. 2d 794·63 Cal. App. 4th 794·73 Cal. Rptr. 2d 889·98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3259
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 30, 1998A080228California2,606 words

Opinion

Opinion

Walker, J.

By this writ petition we are asked to decide whether real parties in interest E. Floyd Kvamme and M. Jean Kvamme (real parties) timely filed their action in San Francisco Superior Court for refund of personal income taxes and interest paid to petitioner Franchise Tax Board (FTB). The trial court concluded that the action was timely, and overruled FTB’s demurrer to real parties’ complaint. Relying on Revenue and Taxation Code section 19384, which we discuss more fully below, FTB contends that the court erred. Real parties, on the other hand, claim that when section 19384 is considered and harmonized with section 19334, their action must be viewed as timely. We conclude that the action was untimely, and issue a peremptory writ of mandate directing the trial court to enter an order sustaining FTB’s demurrer without leave to amend.

Factual and Procedural Background

The underlying suit is an action for refund of personal income taxes in which real parties seek to recover from petitioner $71,912.55 of taxes and interest paid, plus accrued interest from the date of payment for the 1986 tax year. The case has its origin in the denial by petitioner of real parties’ claim for…

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.