Legal Opinion
Newman v. Franchise Tax Board
California Court of Appeal
Decided March 16, 1989No. B032783PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
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…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Newton v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1958
- Peter Stemkowski v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1982
- Oliver & Williams Elevator Corp. v. State Board of EqualizationCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1975
- McKinney v. KullCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1981
- Andrews v. Franchise Tax BoardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1969
3Cited by6 opinions
- Gates Rubber Co. v. UlmanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1989
- Shiseido Cosmetics (America) Ltd. v. Franchise Tax BoardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1991
- Wertin v. Franchise Tax BoardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1998
- City of Los Angeles v. Furman Selz Capital Management, L.L.CCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2004
- Wilson v. Franchise Tax BoardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1993
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.