1 BEFORE THE CALIFORNIA STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION 2 5901 GREEN VALLEY CIRCLE 3 CULVER CITY, CALIFORNIA 4 5 6 7 8 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT 9 APRIL 28, 2009 10 11 CORPORATE FRANCHISE AND PERSONAL INCOME TAX HEARING 12 APPEAL OF 13 FRANCES CUMMINGS AND THOMAS CUMMINGS 14 NO. 437596 15 AGAINST PROPOSED ASSESSMENT OF 16 ADDITIONAL TAX 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Reported by: Juli Price Jackson 26 CSR No. 5214 27 28 1 1 P R E S E N T 2 For the Board Betty T. Yee of Equalization: Chair 3 Judy Chu 4 Vice-Chair 5 Bill Leonard Member 6 Michelle Steel 7 Member 8 Marcy Jo Mandel Appearing for John 9 Chiang, State Controller (per Government Code 10 Section 7.9) 11 Diane G. Olson Chief, Board 12 Proceedings Division 13 For Board of John Johnson 14 Equalization Staff: Staff Counsel 15 16 17 For Franchise Tax Judy Hirano Board: Tax Counsel 18 Bill Hilson 19 Tax Counsel IV 20 For Appellant: Keith A. Shibou 21 Representative 22 23 24 ---oOo--- 25 26 27 28 2 1 5901 GREEN VALLEY CIRCLE 2 CULVER CITY, CALIFORNIA 3 APRIL 28, 2009 4 ---oOo--- 5 MS. OLSON: The next item is B3, Frances 6 Cummings and Thomas Cummings. 7 MS. YEE: Okay. 8 MS. OLSON: Mr. Johnson will introduce the 9 issues for this hearing. 10 MS. YEE: Okay. Give Mr. Shibou a couple -- 11 MR. SHIBOU: Just when you thought you were 12 going to get rid of me. 13 MS. YEE: No, no, that's all right. 14 Are you ready? 15 MR. SHIBOU: One second. 16 MS. YEE: Okay, good morning. 17 MR. JOHNSON: The issued presented in this 18 appeal is whether California may tax Appellants' per 19 capita Indian gaming distributions. 20 MS. YEE: Okay, thank you. 21 Once again, Mr. Shibou? 22 MR. SHIBOU: I think this will be a little 23 simpler. 24 MS. YEE: Okay, please? 25 MR. SHIBOU: This appeal relates to the 26 taxpayers' tax years 2003 and 2004. At issue is whether 27 or not they are subject to State income tax on Frances 28 Cummings' per capita distributions from the Agua 3 1 Caliente. 2 There is no dispute as to the amount of the per 3 capita distributions that Appellant received, nor is 4 there any dispute as to the facts that Frances Cummings 5 was an enrolled member of the Agua Caliente. 6 Appellants, based upon a recent decision by 7 your Board, decided that after Appellants -- this was 8 made after the Appellants' appeal was filed. 9 I'm now prepared to stipulate that she will 10 forego her argument claiming exempsure (sic) under the 11 Indian Gaming Regulatory Act and further agree that for 12 that period of time that she was not living in the 13 Indian country of the Agua Caliente, the tribe of which 14 she is a member, that she is subject to the State income 15 tax. 16 This stipulation is made to expedite these 17 proceedings and not made because the taxpayer agrees 18 with your Board on the decision as to any exemption 19 conferred under IGRA and they would, accordingly, 20 reserve their rights to argue this matter in a higher 21 court and/or for other tax years. 22 Frances Cummings, however, has continuously, 23 since November 2003 -- I repeat, November 2003 -- 24 resided in the Indian country of the Agua Caliente, the 25 tribe of which she is a member. And, accordingly, 26 claims an exemption from State income taxes, pursuant to 27 the US Supreme Court ruling in McClanahan. 28 Mrs. Cummings has been seriously ill, battling 4 1 breast cancer since 2003. Accordingly, it has been 2 difficult to communicate with her over the past several 3 years. And some of the information that has been 4 provided to this Board and the Franchise Tax Board may 5 have been incomplete. 6 Recently we've had an opportunity to talk 7 extensively with Appellants and would like to provide 8 you with the following information: 9 Prior to November 2003, that's from January the 10 1st to November 2003, Appellants apparently resided in 11 their Piute Creek Drive residence, which is not in 12 Indian country and, accordingly, will now stipulate that 13 their income for the period January 1st, 2003 through 14 November 7th, 2003, which amounted to $123,762 is 15 subject to State income taxes. 16 However, the balance applicable to the period 17 November 8th, 2003 through December 31st, 2003, being 18 24,752.58, should be excluded from 2003 State taxable 19 income. 20 However, for the period November 8th, 2003 21 through December 31st, 2003 and the tax year 2004, the 22 facts are different. The Franchise Tax Board has 23 provided extensive briefings, which on the surface 24 provide an appearance as to reasonance, which is a 25 classic example of form over substance. Substance, 26 however, leads to a completely different conclusion. 27 In 2003 Frances Cummings was diagnosed with a 28 severe form of cancer. She required extensive medical 5 1 treatment. And in order to receive same, she was forced 2 to move from her Piute Creek home, where no medical 3 treatment was available, to Palm Springs, where she 4 purchased a property at 1390 East Vista Chino. 5 We now provide -- this Board has in front of 6 you, Exhibits A and E, which are sworn declarations of 7 Frances and her adult daughter Elizabeth and notarized. 8 I have the original copies with me. If they are so 9 required, they'll be produced. 10 Her new residence on Vista Chino is located in 11 the Indian country of the Agua Caliente, the tribe of 12 which she is a member. That's your Exhibits B and C 13 presented today. 14 The property, however, was titled in the name 15 of her daughter, Elizabeth Cummings. That's Exhibit E 16 today. 17 The reasoning for having the property titled in 18 the name of her daughter was for medical and estate 19 planning purposes, as explained in the sworn Exhibits A 20 and E. 21 The United States Department of the Interior is 22 the preemptive authority on Indian matters and they have 23 provided an opinion that Mrs. Cummings resided at 1390 24 East Vista Chino, which property is located on the Agua 25 Caliente reservation. That's Exhibit F. 26 Please note from the BIA letter that they not 27 only confirm that 1390 East Vista Chino is in Indian 28 country and here we have no argument, it was right on 6 1 reservation land, not Indian country, but that 2 Mrs. Cummings -- that it is Mrs. Cummings' residence. 3 Remember that the BIA holds numerous parcels in trust 4 for Mrs. Cummings on her personal land allotments. They 5 are, in fact, her trustees, and, accordingly, are aware 6 of and monitor her personal affairs. 7 Mrs. Cummings renewed her driver's license on 8 June the 30th, 2005. This was on or about the same time 9 she filed her 2004 income tax return. Her address on 10 that license renewal was 1390 East Vista Chino. You 11 have that as Exhibit G. 12 She filed here appeal for the tax year 2004 on 13 September 25th, 2007. Appellants originally filed their 14 amended return for 2003 and 2004 in 2007, two years -- 15 two years after the date her driver's license was 16 renewed, indicating that the address used on the renewal 17 license was based on her residence at that time and not 18 motivated in any way for the purpose of avoiding State 19 income tax. 20 Did the Appellants at one time maintain their 21 principal residence at Piute Creek in Corona? 22 Absolutely, yes, no question. 23 Did the Appellants -- did the Appellants 24 undertake to complete the usual, quote, "housekeeping 25 chores" with regards to notification of address changes? 26 No, but certainly understandably, with good cause why 27 they did not -- due to her illnesses. 28 Accordingly, on the surface, does the Franchise 7 1 Tax Board, only based on form relating to outdated 2 historic information and not substance, have a rational 3 argument that Appellants continue to live at the Piute 4 Creek address? Possibly. 5 Did a significant event occur in Appellants' 6 lives in the year 2003 that caused them to change their 7 principal residence? Absolutely, without question, yes. 8 The only thing more significant would have been the 9 death of Mrs. Cummings. 10 Have Appellants met the burden of proof in 11 demonstrating the Respondent erred in their assumption 12 that Appellant did not live on the reservation for the 13 latter two months of 2003 and the 2004 year? Absolutely 14 and convincingly less. 15 No person would ever want to create the 16 circumstances that have provided the necessary proof 17 that the Franchise Tax Board has erred. 18 Now, I haven't read the Exhibits A and E, which 19 are the sworn declarations of Frances and her daughter. 20 If the court would like me to read them, I would be 21 happy to read them; if you would read them -- if I don't 22 read them here, I would at least urge you, please, 23 before you make a decision to read these sworn 24 declarations because I think they are, as I said, sworn 25 under penalty of perjury. They are notarized. I have 26 he original copies with me if the Board wants the 27 original copies. Essentially, they outline the facts of 28 Mrs. Cummings' illness. She has asked me, of course, 8 1 most people, please not to present her medical records 2 here, understandably, but if it was the request of this 3 Board for medical records to be produced, she would go 4 back to her doctor to produce medical records in 5 confidence. 6 The reasoning for placing the house in her 7 daughter's name, if anyone has dealt with a Bureau of 8 Indian Affairs probate, they can take any place from 9 three to ten years and Mrs. Cummings felt she could 10 possibly die and the house could then be frozen -- no 11 one could use it if something happened to her and that's 12 why she titled it in her daughter's name. Her daughter 13 has provided her sworn declaration to that effect. 14 MS. YEE: Okay. 15 MR. SHIBOU: I thank you. 16 MS. MANDEL: And just quickly, maybe I missed 17 it when you said it, I read these real quickly, that she 18 decided to buy the Vista Chino -- 19 MR. SHIBOU: Property. 20 MS. MANDEL: -- location because it was close 21 to the medical center where she was getting treatment 22 and that there was not medical facilities close to 23 where -- 24 MR. SHIBOU: That's -- 25 MS. MANDEL: -- the other property was and it 26 was too far to travel for this type of medical treatment 27 and that was -- that's what -- that's the essence? 28 MR. SHIBOU: That's the essence, yes. 9 1 MS. MANDEL: The rest of the essence of the 2 declarations? 3 MR. SHIBOU: The medical treatment was 4 available at the -- 5 MS. MANDEL: Extensive. 6 MR. SHIBOU: -- Palm Springs Regional Medical 7 Center and also at Eisenhower Medical Center. 8 The home that she bought was less than one mile 9 from the Palm Springs Medical Center. The home on Piute 10 Creek Drive was -- they're just no -- and I can't 11 imagine a person getting, for example, chemotherapy and 12 driving back and forth every few days and suffering, you 13 know, the effects are the same, having to deal with that 14 type of problem must very difficult, unfortunately. 15 MS. YEE: Okay, very well, thank you. 16 We have the declarations here and we will take 17 them -- 18 MR. SHIBOU: Thank you, appreciate it. 19 MS. YEE: Thank you. 20 Franchise Tax Board? 21 MS. HIRANO: Yes, Madam Chairwoman, Members of 22 the Board, I'm Judy Hirano, representing the Franchise 23 Tax Board. And sittinge next to me is Bill Hilson. 24 Appellant Frances Cummings is a member of the 25 Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians. This appeal 26 stems from Respondent's denial of her claims for a 27 refund for the 2003 and 2004 tax years. 28 The issue here is a factual one, whether 10 1 Appellant lived at a Corona, California home she and her 2 husband owned outside of the tribe's reservation so that 3 a per capita income from her tribe is subject to State 4 tax. 5 Respondent submits the evidence is Appellant 6 lived at her off reservation Corona home and, thus, her 7 per capita income is taxable by the State. 8 The address on both the 2003 and 2004 forms 9 1099 reporting Appellant's per capita income from her 10 tribe is a Magnolia Avenue address in Corona, 11 California. This address appears to be a private 12 mailbox address at Mailboxes, Etc. This address was 13 also used on the joint 2003 California resident and 14 federal income tax returns Appellant and her husband 15 filed. 16 In 2003 and 2004 Appellant and her husband 17 owned a four bedroom home on Piute Creek Drive in 18 Corona, California, two and a half miles from the Corona 19 private Mailboxes. They have taken the homeowner's 20 property tax exemption for principal residence on this 21 home. This home is approximately 60 miles from the Agua 22 Caliente Indian reservation, Appellant's tribe's 23 reservation. The Corona home address appears on the 24 joint 2004 California resident and federal income tax 25 returns Appellant and her spouse filed. 26 Both the 2003 and 2004 federal 1098 mortgage 27 interest statements show the Piute Creek Drive address. 28 Appellant's three 2004 forms W2G, showing gambling 11 1 winnings, also show this address. And these winnings 2 were earned in, I believe it was April and October. 3 Appellant and her spouse have represented to the 4 mortgage lender, title insurance company and Riverside 5 County that they reside in this home. 6 Appellant asserts her family lived at her married 7 daughter's three bedroom Vista Chino home on the Agua 8 Caliente reservation. However, there really is no 9 objective evidence, only Appellant's assertion that she 10 resided with her daughter. 11 Appellant used her daughter's address on the 12 amended returns for 2003 and 2004 filed in April 2007. 13 She also used her daughter's address when she renewed 14 her driver's license in 2005 and when she wrote to the 15 Bureau of Indian Affairs in 2007. 16 However, documents for 2005 and 2007 do not 17 tend to show that Appellant lived at her daughter's home 18 in 2003 and 2004. The objective evidence indicates that 19 in 2003 and 2004 Appellant and her husband lived in the 20 Corona home they owned, a few miles from the Corona 21 private mailbox. 22 They have taken the homeowner's exemption for 23 an owner-occupied home, but there is no objective 24 evidence that they lived with the married daughter in -- 25 at the East Vista Chino home. 26 In addition, Appellant has provided no evidence 27 her tribe is a partnership for tax purposes. Even 28 assuming partnership tax law applies, no tax code or 12 1 other provision exempts per capita income from tax for 2 such income to be tax exempt under partnership law. 3 Your Board could make a factual determination 4 Appellant did not live in the tribe's reservation and, 5 thus, is subject to State tax on her per capita income 6 as a California resident and under Revenue and Taxation 7 Code Section 17041. 8 However, your Board lacks the authority to 9 declare a statute unconstitutional or unenforceable 10 unless an appellate court has made such a determination. 11 In addition, your Board has a longstanding 12 policy of abstaining from deciding constitutional 13 issues, such as federal preemption based upon the lack 14 of authority for Respondent to obtain judicial review. 15 And you've always believed judicial review of a 16 constitutional issue should be available. 17 For these reasons and based on the 18 preponderance of the evidence, Respondent requests that 19 the Board sustain its action in this matter. 20 MS. YEE: Thank you very much. 21 Mr. Shibou, you have five minutes on rebuttal. 22 MR. SHIBOU: Thank you. 23 First, to state, we're waiving all our 24 arguments with regard to IGRA or anything related, this 25 is a matter which is going to be heard in an appellate 26 court later this year, we understand. And we aren't 27 asking the Board to make any ruling or decision based 28 upon that at this time. 13 1 Simply, we are asking this Board to make a 2 ruling -- and we concede that from January 1 to 3 November 7, 2003, Appellant did not live in Indian 4 country, that was before they moved from their Piute 5 Creek home. We agree. They're prepared to waive 6 their -- pay tax on that amount of money. 7 But the circumstances changed in November 2003. 8 And from the November 2003 up until, I believe, two 9 weeks ago, Appellants lived on Vista Chino. I think 10 we've presented -- provided you with a very convincing, 11 reasonable and logical evidence as to why Appellant did 12 not take care of normal housekeeping chores with regard 13 to changing driver's licenses. 14 Did she have a homeowner's exemption on the 15 Piute Creek property? I would agree, probably did. And 16 that's when they bought the property and that's where 17 they had lived. So, essentially we agree with pretty 18 well all of the facts as stated by the Franchise Tax 19 Board. 20 But we simply ask the Board to consider the 21 woman underwent a severe, traumatic change in her life. 22 It caused her to move. You have sworn affidavits as to 23 why she moved. And she lives there with her husband to 24 this date. 25 I thank you. 26 MS. YEE: Thank you very much. 27 Questions or comments, Members? 28 MR. LEONARD: Sure. 14 1 MS. YEE: Yes, Mr. Leonard? 2 MR. LEONARD: Help me out on this -- this story 3 related and medical issues. 4 I really appreciate you're not introducing 5 them, it's really a question of residency. 6 MR. SHIBOU: Yes. 7 MR. LEONARD: What happened to the Corona home 8 after she moved to Palm Springs? 9 MR. SHIBOU: They still own the Corona home. 10 They have not sold it. 11 MR. LEONARD: Was it occupied? 12 MR. SHIBOUT: I am not sure. It was -- they 13 have two sons, one, by the way, I hate to say this, 14 recently passed away from a heart condition, some sort 15 of heart disease, but I believe she had two sons who wee 16 over the age of 18 and they were living in the Corona 17 home. 18 She -- they still own the Corona home. My -- 19 but she told me she hoped that if her health is 20 sustained an she becomes better, that Palm Springs is a 21 very difficult place to live in the summer, where the 22 temperature gets to be 115. They're hoping to be able 23 to use the Piute Creek residence as a summer home to 24 escape the heat relevant to her medical condition. 25 MR. LEONARD: And on the Palm Springs 26 residence, how many people lived in the home during 27 2004? 28 MR. SHIBOU: I believe in the Palm Springs 15 1 residence there was herself, her husband, her 2 daughter -- and I believe there was the daughter's 3 child. 4 MR. LEONARD: Okay. 5 MR. SHIBOU: And her two sons -- I'm not saying 6 the didn't stay there, you know, periodically, I just 7 can't give you the answer. 8 My understanding was they had continued to 9 live -- use the Piute Creek residence. 10 MR. LEONARD: Was the Palm Springs residence 11 used as the mailing address for any of the medical 12 reports, billings? 13 MR. SHIBOU: I can't -- 14 MR. LEONARD: Other things addressed 15 specifically to her? 16 MR. SHIBOU: -- I can't honestly answer that. 17 I don't know. 18 I was -- I would say that I know that when she 19 was feeling somewhat better in 2005, she started to do 20 her housekeeping chores while she was in remission. 21 MR. LEONARD: Right. Well, that's -- 22 MR. SHIBOU: She changed mailing addresses. 23 MR. LEONARD: -- does -- were you able to check 24 the escrow instructions on the purchase of the Palm 25 Springs property in '03? And could you determine from 26 that that it was her money that was put through escrow 27 to purchase and not her daughter's? 28 MR. SHIBOU: I never-- I checked title of the 16 1 property. I asked the Cummings as to where the money 2 came from. 3 And I was advised -- and they outlined it in 4 their sworn affidavit -- that Mrs. Frances Cummings 5 provided the money to purchase the house. 6 MR. LEONARD: I saw that and I appreciate it 7 and I am inclined to believe it, I just -- I'm looking 8 for corroborating evidence. 9 Was there a mortgage on the Palm Springs 10 property? 11 MR. SHIBOU: I believe, no. 12 MR. LEONARD: Cash was paid? 13 MR. SHIBOU: I'm not -- you know, I'm not sure. 14 I can't -- I just can't answer, I'm not sure of that. 15 MR. LEONARD: I think it would be helpful, that 16 kind of corroborated evidence because the story you've 17 laid out makes sense. 18 And the fact that you've -- I don't know what 19 the tax consequences are for the portion of the appeal 20 you dropped, but it -- 21 MR. SHIBOU: I believe it's probably about 10 22 $12,000. 23 MR. LEONARD: So, the -- 24 MR. SHIBOU: And the other aspect of the 25 appeal, I think we never did address, was I think she 26 earned some $3500 in interest. 27 MR. LEONARD: Right, I saw that. 28 You say 10,000 -- are you now claiming a refund 17 1 for $10,000 total? 2 MR. SHIBOU: No, what I -- what we're claiming 3 is the refund is to do -- is to recalculate and claim a 4 pro rata refund for the year 2003, by including only 5 $24,000, by -- 6 MR. LEONARD: So, it would reduce the -- 7 MR. SHIBOU: I'm sorry? 8 MR. LEONARD: -- $7,000 claim for refund by 9 ten-twelfths? 10 MR. SHIBOU: Approximately. 11 MR. LEONARD: Is that a rough way to say it? 12 MR. SHIBOU: That's -- that's correct. 13 MR. LEONARD: Okay. 14 MR. SHIBOU: That's correct. 15 MR. LEONARD: By your claim, okay. 16 MR. SHIBOU: And requesting the refund for the 17 entire 2004 tax year. 18 MR. LEONARD: The other part is -- I just have 19 to say it on the record -- is the homeowner exemption 20 that the Cummings signed has a declaration under perjury 21 that that's their residence. 22 MR. SHIBOU: This was done a long time ago. 23 You see, when she bought the Piute -- 24 MR. LEONARD: Yeah, but they got a property tax 25 benefit to Riverside County. 26 MR. SHIBOU: But she's not claiming duplicate 27 benefits because the other property is really registered 28 in her daughter's name and, to my knowledge, I don't 18 1 think there is any homeowner's benefits claimed for that 2 second property. 3 MR. LEONARD: Well, I'm assuming the second 4 property has no property taxes because it's on tribal 5 land? 6 MR. SHIBOU: I don't think so. 7 Actually, there is property tax. They pay the 8 possessory interest tax. 9 I believe the exemption for -- for -- you have 10 to live in your own allotment to be exempt from property 11 taxes in their entirety. 12 MR. LEONARD: Okay. It wasn't -- it was 13 possessory interest then -- 14 MR. SHIBOU: Yes. 15 MR. LEONARD: -- that Riverside assesses? 16 Thank you. 17 MR. SHIBOU: Thank you. 18 MS. YEE: Thank you. 19 Other questions? Ms. Mandel? 20 MS. MANDEL: I have a question, I guess, for 21 FTB because I had a note about the deed that transferred 22 the property to the daughter. 23 I had a note that FTB had information -- well, 24 that the purchase was from an unrelated third party, 25 which it would be, that there was a mortgage, but I also 26 had a note that the deed was interspousal grant deed; is 27 that correct? 28 MS. HIRANO: That's correct. And that is in 19 1 the record, that's Respondent's opening brief, 2 Exhibit P. 3 MS. MANDEL: So, how would it be -- and is 4 that -- was that the original purchase that we're 5 talking about in 2003 or was that somehow later, your 6 deed that you're showing? 7 MS. HIRANO: My understanding is that -- 8 according to this, you know, this document which I have 9 before me -- it was recorded in November 2003 as an 10 interspousal deed. 11 I was not able to locate the deed transferring 12 from the third party to Elizabeth Cummings herself, 13 however -- 14 MS. MANDEL: And this -- 15 MS. HIRANO: -- her husband -- 16 MS. MANDEL: -- this deed is from -- 17 MS. HIRANO: It's from her husband, Anavo 18 Guillermo, Respondent's Exhibit Q does show that they're 19 married. 20 MS. MANDEL: So, he transferred it in November, 21 2003 to her? 22 MS. HIRANO: That's correct. 23 MS. MANDEL: Perhaps pursuant to a divorce or 24 something? 25 MS. HIRANO: Well, I'm not certain that it was 26 pursuant to divorce. I was not able to find a divorce 27 record. 28 However, in tribal income situations I have 20 1 often seen that a nonspousal -- nontribal member spouse 2 will transfer his or her, I guess, community property 3 interest to the tribal member spouse so that that person 4 owns the property as his or her separate property. 5 And I think -- I believe that's what occurred 6 here. Because in 2003, which is the date of the 7 purchase as far as I understand, the third parties -- 8 and I submitted the records for the third parties who 9 had owned the property prior, they did pay the property 10 tax for 2003. 11 But starting with 2004, Elizabeth Cummings -- 12 MS. MANDEL: So, the deed that you have may be 13 a second deed that was done in conjunction with the 14 purchase -- the overall purchase of the property? 15 MS. HIRANO: That's correct. And there is 16 a part of Exhibit P that does indicate there is a 17 mortgage that Elizabeth Cummings had obtained from a 18 Long Beach Mortgage Company when she -- in conjunction 19 with the purchase. And this was for $200,000, I 20 believe. 21 MS. MANDEL: Okay. Well, that explains. Thank 22 you. 23 MS. YEE: Okay, thank you. 24 Other questions or comments, Members? 25 Hearing none, is there a motion? 26 DR. CHU: Move to take the matter under 27 submission. 28 MS. YEE: Motion by Dr. Chu to take this matter 21 1 under submission. 2 Is there a second? 3 MS. MANDEL: Second. 4 MS. YEE: Second by Ms. Mandel. 5 Without objection, that motion carries. 6 Thank you very much, Mr. Shibou. 7 MR. SHIBOU: Thank you. 8 ---o0o--- 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 22 1 REPORTER'SCERTIFICATE. 2 3 State of California ) 4 ) ss 5 County of Sacramento ) 6 7 I, JULI PRICE JACKSON Hearing Reporter for the 8 California State Board of Equalization certify that on 9 APRIL 28, 2009 I recorded verbatim, in shorthand, to the 10 best of my ability, the proceedings in the 11 above-entitled hearing; that I transcribed the shorthand 12 writing into typewriting; and that the preceding pages 1 13 through 22 constitute a complete and accurate 14 transcription of the shorthand writing. 15 16 Dated: May 27, 2009 17 18 19 ____________________________ 20 JULI PRICE JACKSON 21 Hearing Reporter 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 23