JAY FIRESTONE v. PETER HOFFMAN
Filed 6/29/06
CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION*
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
| JAY FIRESTONE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. PETER HOFFMAN, Defendant and Appellant. | B183184 (Super. Ct. No. BC 292795) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Joseph R. Kalin and Irving S. Feffer, Judges. Reversed and remanded with directions.
Peter Hoffman, in pro. per.; Gipson Hoffman & Pancione, Kenneth I. Sidle and Corey J. Spivey for Defendant and Appellant.
Lord, Bissell & Brook, Jeffrey S. Kravitz, Keith G. Wileman; Silver & Freedman and Jeffrey S. Kravitz for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Story continue from Part I ……..
Finally, both in the trial court and on appeal, Firestone relies upon California case law that does create a privilege for tax returns. The problem, again, is that the privilege does not apply to foreign tax returns. Rather, the privilege arises from California statutes that generally prohibit California tax authorities from disclosing tax return information, subject to certain exceptions. (See Webb v. Standard Oil Co. (1957) 49 Cal.2d 509, 512-514 (hereafter Webb); Sav-On Drugs, Inc. v. Superior Court (1975) 15 Cal.3d 1, 6-7.) The Supreme Court has reasoned that the purpose of those statutes is â€
