Shafran v. Franchise Tax Bd.
Filed 7/31/06 Shafran v. Franchise Tax Bd. CA2/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
| ALLEN JEROME SHAFRAN et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. FRANCHISE TAX BOARD, Defendant and Respondent. | B186947 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC316070) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. William F. Fahey, Judge. Affirmed.
W. Patrick O'Keefe, Jr. Incorporated and W. Patrick O'Keefe, Jr., for Plaintiffs and Appellants.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, W. Dean Freeman, Lead Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Anthony Sgherzi, Deputy Attorney General, for Defendant and Respondent.
____
Plaintiffs Allen and Toby Shafran (Shafran) appeal from a judgment in favor of the Franchise Tax Board (FTB) on their complaint for a refund of $118,388 in personal income taxes for the 1992 tax year after the FTB issued a notice of assessment disallowing a depreciation deduction of $503,740. We affirm the judgment, rejecting Shafran's contentions that they were entitled to a jury trial, that the assessment was barred by the statute of limitations, and that the evidence was insufficient to support the judgment denying their claim for a refund.
BACKGROUND
In mid-1990, Shafran formed an â€
