Goldman

Goldman v. Franchise Tax Board

Good Law
136 Cal. Rptr. 3d 373·2012 Cal. App. LEXIS 34·202 Cal. App. 4th 1193·2012 WL 171691
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 23, 2012No. A128985California4,386 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Siggins, J.

Appellants Steven J. Goldman and Azita Etaati (the Goldmans) seek a refund of interest they paid in 2004 on a state income tax deficiency for the 2000 tax year. While they do not contest the tax owed for 2000, which was increased due to their participation in a disallowed tax shelter, they contend California’s Franchise Tax Board (FTB) should have suspended *1197 the accrual of interest on the deficiency. The trial court found the Goldmans ineligible for interest suspension, denied their motion for summary judgment, and granted summary judgment for the FTB. We affirm.

Resolution of this appeal involves the interplay of two provisions of the Revenue and Taxation Code. 1 Former section 19116 provided that, with certain enumerated exceptions, the accrual of interest owed on unpaid tax obligations is normally suspended 18 months after a taxpayer files a timely tax return. (Former § 19116, subds. (a) & (b)(1).) 2 This case deals with an enumerated exception to interest suspension that involves section 18622. Section 19116, subdivision (e) specifies that interest suspension does not take effect for taxpayers affected by a federal audit who are required to report a change or…

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.