Could later identifying a client make earlier advice to an unidentified taxpayer retroactively protected under section 6596?

Plain-English summary

Earlier legal correspondence about an unidentified client did not qualify as protected written advice for the later-identified taxpayer under section 6596.

Naming the client in a later letter did not retroactively convert the prior response. Each identified request had to be processed as a new opinion request, even when its facts matched an earlier anonymous inquiry.

The taxpayer needed to submit a new written request identifying itself and all relevant transaction facts. The staff did not treat the representative's February 14 identification letter as that request.

Common questions

Did later naming the client relate back to the earlier advice?

No. Section 6596 treatment was not retroactive to other correspondence.

Was an identical factual scenario enough?

No. The taxpayer itself had to be identified in a qualifying new request.

What information did staff ask for?

A written request identifying the taxpayer and all relevant facts surrounding the transaction.

Source-date note

The source document is dated May 7, 1996. The official annotation page supplies February 16, 1996; this page follows the document.

Citations and references

• California Revenue and Taxation Code section 6596 — written-advice reliance requirements applied

Source

• Annotated Legal Opinions collection: https://cdtfa.ca.gov/taxes-and-fees/annotations-menu.htm
• Annotation page: https://cdtfa.ca.gov/lawguides/vol2/suta/465-0000-all.html
• Original supporting opinion: https://cdtfa.ca.gov/lawguides/annotations/465-0074.pdf

Original ruling text

465.0074

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION

JOHAN KLEHS
First District, Hayward

LEGAL DIVISION (MIC:82)
450 N STREET, SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA
(P.O. BOX 942879, SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 94279-0082)
Telephone: (916) 324-2637
FAX: (916) 323-3387

DEAN ANDAL
Second District, Stockton
ERNEST J. DRONENBURG, JR.
Third District, San Diego
BRAD SHERMAN
Fourth District, Los Angeles
KATHLEEN CONNELL
Controller, Sacramento
────────

May 7, 1996

BURTON W. OLIVER
Executive Director

Mr. P--- W. M-----, --- & --XXX --- ---, --- ----- ---, California XXXXX Re:

Dear Mr. M---:
This is in response to your letter dated February 14, 1996 regarding the --- --- --- --- (“the Agency”). You previously wrote to us on November 28, 1995 regarding the application of tax to transportation charges for newspaper deliveries imposed by one of the newspaper publishers your firm represents. You did not provide us with the name of your client at that time. Our January 11, 1996 response to your November 28, 1995 letter stated that our response did not come within the provisions of Revenue and Taxation Code section 6596 since your letter to us did not identify the taxpayer subject to your opinion request. Your February 14, 1996 letter now identifies the taxpayer in your previous letter as the Agency. You state that it is your understanding that having identified the Agency in your February 14, 1996 letter, the Agency may now rely on written advice “it has received and will receive from the Board in response to past and present inquiries.” Your understanding is incorrect. Each time a person writes us to ask a question, we consider the question and provide the necessary analysis. Even if we had just written to the person as an unidentified taxpayer and then the identical request comes in identifying the taxpayer, that second request must be processed as a new opinion request. This means that letters falling within the parameters of Revenue and Taxation Code section 6596 are never "retroactive" to the date of any other correspondence. Thus, the Agency (or any other taxpayer

Mr. P--- W. M---

-2-

May 7, 1996
465.0074

for that matter) may not rely on previous correspondence from us to an unidentified taxpayer even if the factual situation in the letter to the unidentified taxpayer is identical to the situation of the Agency. If the Agency would like an opinion from the Legal Division subject to the provisions of Revenue and Taxation Code section 6596, you should provide us with a written request to do so and identify all relevant facts surrounding the transaction. We do not regard your February 14, 1996 letter as such a request. You ask that a meeting be scheduled to discuss some of the Agency’s concerns regarding transportation costs. I have forwarded your letter (and the Legal Division’s previous correspondence to you on this topic) to the Audit Evaluation and Planning Section. They will contact you if such a meeting is possible. If you would like a section 6596 letter regarding the Agency, please provide us with a written request. If you have any other questions, please write again. Sincerely,

Warren L. Astleford
Staff Counsel
WLA:rz
cc:

Mr. Glenn A. Bystrom, MIC: 43
--- --- District Administrator - (--)