Legal Opinion

Goldman v. Franchise Tax Board

California Court of Appeal

Decided January 23, 2012No. A128985PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

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 *1197the 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…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Johnson v. City of Loma LindaCalifornia Supreme Court · 2000
  2. Mudd v. McColganCalifornia Supreme Court · 1947
  3. Kirkwood v. Bank of America National Trust & Savings Ass'nCalifornia Supreme Court · 1954
  4. Ruoff v. Harbor Creek Community Assn.California Court of Appeal · 1992
  5. Ordlock v. Franchise Tax BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 2006

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Citizens Ass'n v. Orange County Local Agency Formation CommissionCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2012
  2. Steuer v. Franchise Tax Bd.California Court of Appeal · 2020

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API