Legal Opinion
Hetzel v. Franchise Tax Board
California Court of Appeal
Decided June 10, 1958No. Civ. 22876PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
KINCAID, J. pro tem. *
Appellant (hereinafter called Hetzel) sues for a refund of $500 paid to the Franchise Tax Board (hereinafter called the Tax Board) on account of the principal of additional personal income taxes of $14,330.11 for the calendar year 1951.
The appeal is on the judgment roll from a judgment dismissing the complaint. The record consists of the complaint, answer, appellant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, and respondent’s countermotion for judgment on the pleadings. Appellant’s motion was denied and respondent’s motion granted, dismissing the complaint.
The undisputed…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Commissioner v. HeiningerSupreme Court of the United States · 1943
- Textile Mills Securities Corp. v. CommissionerSupreme Court of the United States · 1941
- Lilly v. CommissionerSupreme Court of the United States · 1952
- United States v. ConstantineSupreme Court of the United States · 1935
- Roth Drug, Inc. v. JohnsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1936
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Armstrong v. County of San MateoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1983
- Anaheim Union Water Co. v. Franchise Tax BoardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1972
- Great Western Financial Corp. v. Franchise Tax BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
- Hotel Del Coronado Corp. v. State Board of EqualizationCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1971
- Tetreault v. Franchise Tax BoardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1967
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.