|
|
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
California Sampling Bibliography
California Revenue and Taxation Code
- Sec. 7051 (Authority of board to adopt rules and regulations)
- Sec. 7054 (Authority of board to examine records)
- Sec. 7076.1 - 7076.7 (Managed Audit Program)
- Sec. 7085. (SBE required to prepare an annual report on areas of recurring taxpayer noncompliance based on samples of examined taxpayers).
- Sec. 7086 (Rights and obligations of board and taxpayers)
State Board of Equalization Regulations
- Reg. 1698 (Definition of records required to be produced by taxpayer)
- Reg. 5080 (Burden of proof)
State Board of Equalization Manuals
CAUTION: The Board is implementing extensive updates in its manuals.
Several months may elapse from the time the changes are approved until they
appear on the Board's web site.
Cases
- Associated Beverage Company, Inc. v. Board of Equalization, 224 Cal.
App.3d 192, 273 Cal. Rptr. 639 (Cal. Appeals, 1990) (Court denied refund claim
when a sample of bottler's sales found customers had not provided resales
certificates.)
- Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. State Board of Equalization, 214 Cal.
App.3d 518, 262 Cal.Rptr. 803 (Cal. Appeals, 1989) (Court affirmed State Board
of Equalization's method of determining amount of airline fuel used in
interstate commerce exempt from California tax).
- Maganini v. Quinn, 99 Cal. App.2d 1, 221 P.2d 241 (Cal. Appeals,
1950) (Court held that State Board of Equalization's assessment based on
estimation could only be overcome by a preponderance of evidence from the
taxpayer).
- Riley B's Inc. v. State Board of Equalization, 61 Cal. App.3d 610,
132 Cal. Rptr. 520 (Cal. Ct. Appeals, 1976) (Court held that State Board of
Equalization could examine taxpayer's original transaction records in addition
to its summary books of account).
- People v. Schwartz, 31 Cal.2d 59, 187 P.2d 12 (Cal.1947) (Court held
taxpayer had burden of proving State Board of Equalization's deficiency
determination was incorrect).
- Sears, Roebuck and Co. v. City of Inglewood, (Los Angeles Superior
Court, 1955) (case discussed in R. Clay Sprowls, The Admissibility of Sample
Data Into a Court of Law, 4 UCLA LAW REVIEW 222-232 (1957).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|