- 9 -
payment of taxes." Boyle v. Lakeview Creamery Co., 68 P.2d 968,
969-970 (Cal. 1937); see Peacock Hill Association v. Peacock
Lagoon Constr. Co., 503 P.2d 285, 286 (Cal. 1972); see also
Benton v. County of Napa, 226 Cal. App. 3d 1485, 1490 (1991)
(“The purpose of the suspension of corporate power is to induce
the payment of taxes.”).
We have in the record a certificate from the California
secretary of state attesting that petitioner’s powers, rights,
and privileges were suspended on April 1, 1991, and that they
continued to be suspended as of February 15, 2000. Petitioner
does not dispute that the certificate means what it says but
argues that its suspension should be given no effect because, it
claims, the suspension was “improper” either ab initio or at
least beginning in 1993. Petitioner asserts that the suspension
was improper at the start because, it claims, it never received
the notice required under Cal. Rev. & Tax. Code sec. 23302(a)
(West 1992). Petitioner claims that it first learned of its
suspension on February 22, 2000, from respondent’s counsel.
Alternatively, petitioner asserts, its suspension became improper
in 1993. In support of this assertion, petitioner tendered to
the Court as an exhibit a statement (the Statement) from the
Board to petitioner indicating that petitioner’s income tax
account for its tax year ended December 31, 1993, had a credit
balance from April 15, 1993, through November 14, 1995. The
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011