Ninth Circuit Upholds California Tax Appeals Process as Providing a Plain, Speedy, and Efficient Remedy

In Hyatt v. Yee, the plaintiff disputed the California Franchise Tax Board's ("FTB's") determination that he owed $7.4 million in unpaid taxes for the 1991 and 1992 tax years on the ground that he moved to Nevada in 1991. Under California law, a plaintiff contesting an assessment may not litigate in state court until exhausting administrative remedies set out in Cal. Rev. & Tax Code § 19381. Generally, a plaintiff must first pay the disputed tax before seeking a refund. Cal. Rev. & Tax Code § 19382. Under this "pay-then-protest" scheme, if the FTB does not mail a notice of action on the claim within six months, the plaintiff may sue in state court. Cal. Rev. & Tax Code § 19385. However, if a plaintiff is contesting an assessment solely based on residency, he may instead opt to "protest-then-pay" a tax by seeking reconsideration in front of the FTB, appealing to the State Board of Equalization ("SBE"), and then suing in state court. See Cal. Rev. & Tax Code §§ 19044 & 19381.

Hyatt sought to invoke federal jurisdiction for alleged constitutional violations in his ongoing dispute with the FTB after it took the FTB at least 11 years to make a final determination under protest-then-pay and the SBE had not come to a ruling in another 8 years. All told, it had taken at least 22 years to litigate under protest-then-pay, during which time Hyatt incurred substantial attorney fees and the original assessment ballooned in amount from $7.4 million to over $55 million. In addition to reconsideration of the assessment, Hyatt sought attorney fees in federal court (not apparently available in protest-then-pay). However, the Tax Injunction Act removes jurisdiction from district courts to hear any dispute over a state's imposition of taxes where "a plain, speedy and efficient remedy may be had in the courts of such State." 28 U.S.C. § 1341.

Here, the Ninth Circuit rejected the plaintiff's argument that California's tax appeal procedures did not come within the scope of the Act because pay-then-protest was a plain, speedy and efficient remedy. It was immaterial whether or not protest-then-pay also qualified. As long as a litigant can switch to pay-then-protest, he can have his appeal heard and determined by the FTB within 6 months after which he can proceed to state court. While the ruling narrowly concerns the jurisdiction of federal courts to review state tax appellate procedures, it is meaningful because it gives the FTB and SBE permission to take unlimited time reviewing residency-based appeals under protest-then-pay. Unless a litigant is willing risk paying decades of legal fees, the proper procedure is to pay the tax first to ensure a timely adjudication.

No Comments

Leave a comment
Comment Information
  • NBLSC Board Certified Lawyer Rated By Super Lawyers | Ryan P. Durham Rated By Super Lawyers | Ben Boston
  • Tennessee Association For Justice | Member 2015-2016 American Association For Premier DUI Attorneys The National Trial Lawyers | Top 100 Trial Lawyers
  • American Institute of Family Law Attorneys | 10 best 2015 American Institute of Personal Injury attorneys | 10 best 2016 AV preeminent |  Jeffery Broker

Schedule a Consultation Today

Bold labels are required.

Contact Information

The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.


Privacy Policy

Shulman Bastian LLP | Full Service. Business. Lawyers.

100 Spectrum Center Drive
Suite 600
Irvine, CA 92618

Map & Directions

3550 Vine Street
Suite 210
Riverside, CA 92507

Map & Directions