Legal Opinion

Hall v. Franchise Tax Board

California Court of Appeal

Decided September 15, 1966No. Civ. 631; Civ. 632; Civ. 633PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

McMURRAY, J. pro tem. *

Three actions were consolidated for trial and this is an appeal from the judgment in those actions which denied appellants tax refunds after additional assessments were levied for the years 1951 and 1952.

Appellants, the only partners in the Sacramento Novelty Company, filed partnership returns for the years 1951 and 1952. After audit, the respondent determined that neither the partnership returns nor the individual returns filed by the appellants for those years reported the total gross income as required by Revenue and Taxation Code section 17359 (now numbered 17297)…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Universal Sales Corp. v. California Press Manufacturing Co.California Supreme Court · 1942
  2. United States v. KahrigerSupreme Court of the United States · 1953
  3. Lewis v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1955
  4. Nelson v. AbrahamCalifornia Supreme Court · 1947
  5. Aronoff v. Franchise Tax BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1963

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Honeywell, Inc. v. State Board of EqualizationCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1982
  2. Paine v. State Board of EqualizationCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1982
  3. Capitol Records, Inc. v. State Board of EqualizationCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1984
  4. Wertin v. Franchise Tax BoardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1998

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

Powered by the Exa API