Ezel / Tax Rulings / CA

Did serving California Form 465 itself demand that the recipient pay the amount the notice required the recipient to withhold?

Short answer No. The 1952 correspondence said mere service of Form 465 was not a demand for payment, although the Board could accept a voluntary payment.
State
CA
Ruling
Annotation 170.0020
Tax type
Sales and Use Tax
Issued
1952-08-15
Issued by
California State Board of Equalization
Requested by
Board collection staff
Topics
voluntary payment collection procedure
Source
View Original PDF

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1952. Ask about yours and see what current California tax law says, with citations.

Currency note: this ruling is from 1952
Subsequent statutory amendments, regulation changes, court decisions, or later rulings may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current tax advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, rate, or position mentioned here.
Disclaimer: This August 15, 1952 internal office correspondence addresses the effect of serving the version of Form 465 then in use and cites no statute or regulation. It is historical staff guidance, not current collection-procedure advice. The form served, later notices or demands, voluntary-payment facts, procedural changes, and current law control.
About this page: The plain-English summary, reader guidance, and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official state tax ruling. The original ruling (linked on this page as a PDF) is the authoritative source for any reliance.
View original ruling (PDF)

Plain-English summary

Board legal staff said merely serving Form 465 did not itself demand payment of the amount the notice required a recipient to withhold.

The Board could accept payment if the recipient paid voluntarily. But employees were to be instructed not to insist on payment solely because the form had been served.

The short correspondence requested a further report about the particular case and did not identify the attached facts or cite governing law.

Common questions

Was Form 465 itself a demand for payment?

No, according to this 1952 correspondence.

Could the Board accept money tendered voluntarily?

Yes.

Did the letter decide whether a separate demand could be made?

No. It addressed only the effect of the form's mere service.

Citations and references

  • Form 465 — historical notice whose service was discussed

Source

Original ruling text

STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION
OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE

170.0020
1335 Notice-of-delinquency not a demand for payment required to be withheld. Sacramento, California August 15, 1952 Mr. H. B. Hoffman E. H. Stetson REDACTED TEXT

Account No REDACTED TEXT

With reference to the attached it would appear advisable to instruct your staff that under no circumstances does the mere service of a Form 465 constitute a demand for payment owed to the Board of the amount required to be withheld by the notice. If payment is voluntarily made, it may, of course, be accepted. The instant case indicates the difficulties that may ensue if employees insist upon payment pursuant to the service of a Form 465. I discussed this matter with Mr. Gasser of your office some weeks ago and I understood that he would check into the matter and furnish a further report. I have not heard from him and would appreciate your further comments. EHS:ja

What does the law say today, for your facts?

This ruling is from 1952. Ezel checks current California tax law against your situation and cites the authority it relies on.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace