BEFORE THE CALIFORNIA STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION 5901 Green Valley Circle, Room 207 Culver City, California REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT SEPTEMBER 22, 2009 ITEM B6 FRANCHISE AND PERSONAL INCOME TAX HEARING APPEAL OF PRUDENTIAL COMMERCIAL LEASING, INC. (No. 468875) AGAINST PROPOSED ASSESSMENT OF ADDITIONAL TAX Reported by: Beverly D. Toms CSR No. 1662 1 1 2 P R E S E N T 3 For the Board Betty T. Yee of Equalization: Chairwoman 4 Bill Leonard 5 Member 6 Michelle Steel Member 7 Marcy Jo Mandel 8 Appearing for John Chiang State Controller (per 9 Government Code Section 7.9) 10 Diane Olson 11 Chief, Board Proceedings Division 12 13 For Board of Amy Kelly Equalization Staff: Staff Counsel 14 15 For Franchise Tax Bruce Langston 16 Board: Tax Counsel 17 Karen Smith Tax Counsel 18 19 For Appellant: Ji Sung Kim Representative 20 21 Michael Yi 22 ---oOo--- 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 1 Culver City, California 2 September 22, 2009. 3 ---oOo--- 4 MS. OLSON: Our final oral hearing for the 5 afternoon is B6, Prudential Commercial Leasing, Inc. 6 Please come forward. 7 MS. YEE: Okay. Ms. Kelly. 8 MS. KELLY: The issues in this appeal are 9 whether the Franchise Tax Board abused its discretion by 10 not abating interest on Appellant's assessments for the 11 years ended 1999, 2000 and 2001. 12 And whether this Board has jurisdiction to 13 consider the penalties. 14 MS. YEE: Very well. Thank you. Good 15 afternoon, gentlemen. 16 MR. KIM: Good afternoon. 17 MS. YEE: Thank you for your patience. If you 18 can introduce yourselves for the record. You have ten 19 minutes. 20 MR. KIM: Yes, sir. Good afternoon, Chairwoman 21 and Members of the Board. My name is Ji Sung Kim. I'm 22 here. Ji Sung Kim. 23 Okay. I'm Michael Yi. I'm a friend and a -- 24 attorney sitting with Mr. Kim. 25 MS. YEE: Thank you. Please proceed. 26 MR. KIM: I'm here to explain my situation 27 regarding Prudential Commercial Leasing, Inc. and the 28 Franchise Tax Board's attempt to hold me personally 3 1 liable on the corporate tax liabilities of Prudential 2 Commercial Leasing. 3 First of all, FTB's claim against me is based 4 on the signed assumption of the tax liability forms. 5 And, however, I never signed the form. I believe that 6 time IRS audit was going on and there was no reason to 7 signing. 8 I talked to one tax attorney and he said major 9 shareholder usually sign that form when taking loans or 10 insurance or when they sell the company. 11 At that time I had no reason to sign it. I 12 called the former CPA and I left so many messages and he 13 never returned my phone calls. 14 If you see the forms 870-AD, that's the -- 15 that's my signature. That's the last page I submitted 16 today. Now, you can easily find out my signature is 17 total different from the signature on the form of 18 Assumption of Tax Liability form. 19 Second, I never received the notice of the 20 proposed assessment from FTB in 2007. I was in Receda 21 2004 and '5. And I moved to Los Angeles again in 2006. 22 I filled out the address change form and send it to the 23 Post Office. 24 When I received the letter from FTB again -- I 25 mean FTB in 2008 January 1st, just as New Year start, 26 that was the first letter from FTB. And as soon as I 27 get the letter I called FTB right away, and started to 28 find out what's going on. 4 1 I explained to FTB that signature is not mine, 2 and FTB asked me send a copy of my driver's license or a 3 copy of a Social Security card, which I faxed it over to 4 FTB. And FTB said they cannot tell which one is mine 5 or -- and a third thing, the IRS said amount was like 6 this, for 1999 I paid $2,900 -- 940 for additional tax, 7 and for 2000 -- year 2000 I paid $3,197. And for 2001 I 8 paid nothing. 9 There was my portion for IRS audit for five 10 years. I don't know how come FTB ask me to pay big 11 amount -- it's a lot more than IRS. 12 I talked to the one tax attorney again and he 13 said I'm not liable for the Prudential Commercial 14 Leasing. You know, he said if somebody own the General 15 Motors share, and the company went wrong the 16 shareholders have to be responsible for all the 17 liabilities, like loans and taxes and et cetera. He 18 said I don't have to. IRS examined me and my personal 19 and Prudential Commercial Leasing, Incorporate at the 20 same time. The conclusion was, as I said, I paid just 21 like form 870-AD. IRS examination lasted five years. 22 It was a real pain to me. I collected all the evidence 23 and I send it to IRS every month every year for five 24 years. I didn't want to treat again with FTB. That's 25 why I talked to FTB to find a way. 26 In conclusion, I should not be personally 27 liable under corporate tax liabilities of Prudential 28 Commercial Leasing, Inc. Thank you. 5 1 MS. YEE: Thank you very much. Any other 2 further comment? 3 MR. YI: I think he -- he covered it pretty 4 well. 5 MS. YEE: Okay. We'll give you five minutes on 6 rebuttal. Thank you. 7 Franchise Tax Board. 8 MR. LANGSTON: My name is Bruce Langston and 9 this is Karen Smith to my right. This case is primarily 10 about jurisdiction. I mean, this case similar to the 11 last case we talked about has to do -- it came to your 12 Board on the very, very narrow issue of interest 13 abatement on the corporation's tax liability. The issue 14 of the assumption of liability, that is who has to 15 eventually pay the tax that's determined to be due, is 16 not before us yet today. 17 Let me give you some background. The 18 corporation filed returns for the years at issue, 1999, 19 2000 and 2001 and paid the amounts on those returns in 20 full. Then after that, corporation dissolved. It filed 21 the tax clearance certificate with FTB, which Mr. Kim 22 has referred to, with a signature on it, stating that 23 Mr. Kim was assuming the liability, and certified to the 24 Secretary of State that -- that all the liabilities have 25 been paid and that Mr. Kim was the agent for service of 26 process, as part of the corporation dissolution 27 requirements. 28 Sometime later, in a post-dissolution audit the 6 1 IRS audited the corporation's books and assessed -- on 2 February 10, 2005, this is after the corporation had 3 dissolved, assessed additional tax and fraud penalties 4 against the corporation for each of the years based on 5 unreported income. 6 The corporation appealed those adjustments to 7 the IRS Appeals office and the IRS Appeals Office agreed 8 to reduce the deficiency amount to take into account 9 some rebates paid out to customers. 10 So, in the 870-AD, which Mr. Kim provided 11 today, it shows the agreed amounts where the corporation 12 agreed with the IRS that they had additional 13 liabilities. 14 Franchise Tax Board received a copy of the 15 audit report in December of 2006, and on January 30, 16 2007 promptly issued Notices of Proposed Assessment 17 based on the IRS appeals agreement. The FTB did not 18 assess the fraud penalty. 19 The notices had a protest date of April 2, 2007 20 and note that they were sent to the same Receda address 21 as the Federal adjustments were. 22 No protests were filed. The deficiencies went 23 final as in -- in the amnesty penalty attached is -- 24 these were amnesty penalty years. At this point the 25 deficiencies have had not yet been paid. So the 26 correctness of the adjustments isn't really before your 27 Board. 28 So the whole Federal action issue wasn't 7 1 protested, so it's not part of this appeal. 2 In response to the bills, Mr. Kim asked for an 3 interest abatement and that's one of our exhibits. And 4 we -- actually, what he did is he objected to the 5 assumption, as he said today, said it wasn't his 6 signature on the assumption, but he offered to assume 7 the liability if Franchise Tax Board would -- would 8 abate the penalties and interest. 9 FTB treated this as an interest abatement 10 request and then in September of 2008 we issued a formal 11 denial of the interest abatement. So the only possible 12 interest that could be abated under the law would be 13 interest relating to those NPAs of the corporation 14 following the Federal settlement. 15 And in this case there was no delay. There was 16 no protest. We got the Federal adjustments. We issued 17 the NPAs right away. They went final. We have sort 18 of -- in some of these you can see we immediately 19 started sending out billing notices and they -- you 20 know, we have a whole stack of them. They -- there was 21 no delay. There was no -- no point at which we stopped 22 as in most interest abatement cases. 23 So, at this point the only issue before your 24 Board is the interest abatement, not who eventually has 25 to pay for it. And there has been no showing of any 26 period of time that FTB delayed unreasonably. 27 Therefore, the interest abatement should be denied. 28 MS. YEE: Very well. Thank you very much. You 8 1 have five minutes on rebuttal. 2 MR. KIM: Okay. First of all, when I received 3 the first letter from FTB, 2008 January 4th, I called in 4 one minute. I called the FTB right away. If I -- if I 5 had received this letter 2007, April 2nd, I should have 6 done same thing, called right away in one minute. 7 I never received this letter. You know, this 8 is very important in my life. I cannot disregard this 9 letter. 10 As I said before, I didn't sign the assumption 11 of the liability, so I talked to the FTB several times 12 and I send several letters, and I tried my best to 13 resolve this matter. 14 They said they cannot accept the signature 15 problems. So, I talked to one of the tax attorneys 16 said -- attorney and he said, hey, this amount is too 17 much too small for him to take care of, so why don't you 18 go yourself and deal with the Franchise Tax Board. 19 That's why I started to negotiate with the FTB, to -- 20 interest and penalty waived, we have problems -- 21 matters. 22 As I -- as I said before, you know, I don't 23 want to go through like a -- again like with the IRS, 24 you know, audit, something like that. That's the only 25 reason I want to make a deal with FTB. But I said -- I 26 clearly say, I didn't sign the assumption. I don't know 27 who signed it. The former CPA was forging my signature. 28 And that there was no reason to sign the assumption, 9 1 really. 2 That time IRS audit was going on and I summon 3 all the documentation to IRS through my attorney. I had 4 no reason to sign the assumption of liability at that 5 time. 6 And IRS audit was ended in 2005 or '6. Why I 7 have to reserve the company with all the -- taking all 8 the tax liabilities? I'm not that dumb. Really. It 9 doesn't make sense at all. You know, I said the only 10 reason I called FTB and negotiated with the FTB's 11 waiving -- asking waiving the interest and penalty is I 12 didn't want to go through again the last five years. 13 There was a pain -- real pain to me. 14 That's the only reason. And I didn't sign the 15 assumption. You know, a couple of months ago I didn't 16 know I'm going to have this kind of opportunity in 17 California. I didn't know. 18 MS. YEE: Okay. That concludes your comments? 19 MR. KIM: Yes. 20 MS. YEE: Questions? Yes, Ms. Steel. 21 MS. STEEL: Franchise Tax Board, if Mr. Kim 22 didn't sign the tax clearance individual assumption of 23 tax liability form means that he's no longer responsible 24 for the corporation? 25 MR. LANGSTON: I -- we're -- that issue is 26 really not before us today. But I can say as a general 27 rule that you don't -- you're not liable for it because 28 you sign the assumption of liability, you sign the 10 1 assumption of liability because you're liable for it. 2 So there are many ways a person can be 3 liable -- 4 MS. STEEL: Can you repeat one more time? 5 MR. LANGSTON: Okay. The -- the liability is 6 there because the corporation had a tax liability. 7 MS. STEEL: Right. 8 MR. LANGSTON: When a corporation dissolves 9 you -- you can't just escape by dissolving a wholly 10 owned corporation. If -- normal -- the normal process 11 in order to dissolve, the Secretary of State requires 12 certain things to happen. One of them being you have to 13 essentially say who's going to be responsible for debts 14 against -- or lawsuits against the corporation. 15 When this corporation dissolved, and -- and I 16 don't want to get into what -- whether Mr. Kim signed it 17 or not, I'm not prepared to really talk about that, but 18 it was represented there was a signed assumption. 19 And then the other corporate documents also 20 showed Mr. Kim as a -- as the person who would be 21 responsible, the -- the agent for the service of process 22 is what they call it. 23 MS. STEEL: So he's one of the officers. 24 MR. LANGSTON: Yes. It was his -- 25 MS. STEEL: But you have --- there are many 26 others, too? Not just him? 27 MR. LANGSTON: Well, that's a question. 28 According to our records, it was a wholly owned 11 1 corporation. 2 MS. STEEL: Just one person? 3 MR. LANGSTON: Yes. And the other -- the other 4 thing, too, is if you have an agent -- if you hire 5 someone as a CPA and they do things on your behalf, 6 those can bind you, as well. And -- and I think that 7 that's something to -- to -- again, it's not before us 8 right now, but ultimately the -- the owner -- the 9 personal owner is normally the one who eventually has 10 to be -- take responsibility for the liabilities. 11 And here we had a Federal adjustment -- the 12 Federal adjustment was -- actually started after the 13 corporation was dissolved. 14 MS. STEEL: Let's go to Federal -- the form 15 that he got for Offer to Waive Restrictions on 16 Assessment and Collection of Tax Deficiency. This one 17 shows exactly what taxpayer said that he owes, this 18 amount of taxes. 19 MR. LANGSTON: Yes. 20 MS. STEEL: But you said that this is 21 additional liability. 22 MR. LANGSTON: No. 23 MS. STEEL: But the transcript itself is not 24 really clear that what additional to what. Because I 25 was being looking at the IRS form and, you know, it was 26 not really clear about it. So, we are assessing more 27 tax is what taxpayer is saying right now that, you know, 28 more than what IRS is assessing. 12 1 Did you go through all the paperworks? 2 MR. LANGSTON: We did. We went through in -- 3 in the original briefs we stepped through the original 4 IRS RAR, which is the Revenue Agents Report, the 5 reductions made at appeal, which is here, and came up 6 with -- and I'm sure it's -- it's in our explanation in 7 the original brief. 8 But -- but it goes through the computation of 9 why the corporation owed the amount of income it did. 10 Now, a lot of the California deficiency is the amnesty 11 penalty, which as you know applies to final balances due 12 for these tax years. 13 So -- 14 MS. STEEL: That was not my question. 15 My question was this paper from IRS, form 16 870, -- 17 MR. LANGSTON: Yes. 18 MS. STEEL: -- that how much taxes that the 19 taxpayer owes. This amount is different than what 20 Franchise Tax Board is assessing taxes to taxpayers. 21 And taxpayer said this is the tax amount that they owe 22 to Franchise Tax Board. 23 MS. MANDEL: It was the last page of his -- 24 what he brought. 25 MR. LANGSTON: Yes, that's his -- that's his 26 Federal tax -- the 6663 is the fraud penalty. 27 The -- the additional tax to the corporation -- because 28 remember we're talking about the corporation -- was -- 13 1 yeah, 2900 for '99, 31 for 2000. And that, if I can -- 2 if I can find my records, that was explained in our 3 brief where we went through -- I can't -- thank you -- 4 when we went through the specific items of adjustment, 5 the additional income -- okay, so the addi -- the total 6 adjustments were $142,000 of corporate, which gave us 7 additional tax of $12,000. 8 And that's question -- your question is why is 9 that more than -- 10 MS. STEEL: That's what Franchise Tax Board is 11 asking, right? That's what your computation, it's not 12 IRS computation. 13 I'm asking is -- 14 MR. LANGSTON: Yes, the California -- 15 MS. STEEL: -- where does transcript of IRS 16 computation to result of FTB's asking for those amount 17 of taxes that imposed to the taxpayers. 18 MR. LANGSTON: Yes. I think -- I think that is 19 in the -- I -- you know, I'm sorry, I don't have that 20 right here because it's not really an issue before us 21 today. 22 MS. STEEL: What's the issue then? 23 MR. LANGSTON: But I know that the -- the 24 issue? The only issue, because this was not protested, 25 is the interest abatement, whether the timeframes when 26 we issued the notices were excessive. That's -- and -- 27 and as you can see from the -- you know, from -- from 28 the time line, we issued the notices right away. 14 1 The amount -- 2 MS. STEEL: Interest is based on certain tax 3 amount. Without taxes how you going to put the interest 4 on it? 5 MR. LANGSTON: That's correct. And I am 6 looking for that. That is -- 7 Gee, I know we gave him that. That was in here. 8 Oh, okay, so was this -- I have to see if this 9 was an exhibit. That was the interest suspension -- I'm 10 sorry, I don't have that right here. 11 MS. KELLY: Mr. Langston, are you looking for 12 the IMF? 13 MR. LANGSTON: I am looking for the -- the 14 schedule showing the California tax computation based on 15 the Federal income adjustments. 16 MS. YEE: Well -- 17 MR. LANGSTON: I know it's in here and I'm 18 sorry, I just can't locate it right -- 19 MS. YEE: Yeah. While you're doing it, Mr. 20 Leonard. 21 MR. LEONARD: Just to verify, Mr. Kim, in 22 addition to the interest abatement issue that's before 23 us, you are also objecting to being held liable for the 24 corporate taxes? 25 MR. KIM: Yes, sir. 26 MR. LEONARD: Okay. 27 MR. KIM: The reason -- 28 MS. STEEL: Okay, I just want to get that. 15 1 Now, procedurally, Ms. Kelly, can -- can that 2 come before us once it goes final and protested, will 3 it -- could it come back before us for a hearing? 4 MS. KELLY: I'm sorry, I missed the first part 5 of what you said. But if you're asking about Mr. Kim's 6 personal -- 7 MR. LEONARD: In addition to -- 8 MS. KELLY: -- liability? 9 MR. LEONARD: Yeah, the personal liability 10 issue, which appears to be his -- his big dollar issue, 11 procedurally where do we stand in the process with that? 12 Can that come back before us? 13 MS. KELLY: It can come on a claim for refund. 14 MR. LEONARD: Can -- only on a claim for 15 refund? 16 MS. KELLY: That's right. 17 MR. LEONARD: Okay. 18 MS. STEEL: You know, I know that issue is 19 here, interest -- abating interest or not, but only 20 thing is interest starts with the tax amount first. And 21 then I'm looking at IRS, and IRS paper only here for 22 form 870 that they -- they -- the taxes for '99 for 2900 23 and 2000 -- 2000 for 3100. This is what taxpayer was 24 telling us, that this is what they owed. 25 So, what I want to do is actually, I want them 26 to go back and looking at the IRS paperworks, documents, 27 and how Franchise Tax Board came up with this interest 28 with -- on the base of what tax amount of money, and 16 1 then I want to make it very clear about that because I 2 couldn't really match with the IRS except this 3 paperworks here that what I'm looking at, so I -- it 4 didn't make any sense what Franchise Tax Board was 5 imposing tax amount to the taxpayer. 6 So, I want them to go back and give them 30 -- 7 30-30-30. 8 MR. LANGSTON: Yes, we can do that. I -- I 9 apologize for not being able to find it right here in 10 the stack. 11 MS. YEE: Okay. Other questions, Members? 12 MS. OLSON: Ms. Steel, do you have a proposal? 13 MS. STEEL: Yeah, that's my motion, 30-30-30. 14 MR. LANGSTON: Okay. 15 MS. YEE: Okay. 16 MR. LEONARD: I'll second it. 17 MS. YEE: We have a motion by Ms. Steel for a 18 30-30-30, second by Mr. Leonard. And -- 19 MS. MANDEL: And who's on the first 30? 20 And what's the issue? 21 MR. LANGSTON: Just to be clear -- 22 MS. YEE: Yeah, but -- 23 MR. LANGSTON: -- you're -- you're saying 24 Franchise Tax Board has 30 days to provide an 25 explanation of the computation -- 26 MS. STEEL: Yes. 27 MR. LANGSTON: -- of the liability to the 28 corporation following the Federal adjustment? 17 1 MS. STEEL: Yes. 2 MS. YEE: Yes. 3 MR. LANGSTON: All right. I -- we will do 4 that. 5 MS. YEE: Okay. Ms. -- 6 MS. MANDEL: And what's -- and can I just ask 7 was that because the -- the dollar figure of the 8 interest is so -- 9 MS. STEEL: Yes. 10 MR. LANGSTON: Yes. 11 MS. MANDEL: -- large as compared -- okay. 12 MR. KIM: Can I ask you a question, sir? 13 MS. YEE: Yes. 14 MR. LEONARD: Through the -- through the chair. 15 Talk to -- talk to us here. 16 MS. YEE: Yeah, let's -- 17 MR. KIM: Can I ask a question? 18 MS. YEE: Hang on one second. Let me just 19 have -- Ms. Kelly, could you just go ahead and do what 20 you do in terms of the process, and then it might 21 clarify any questions. 22 MS. KELLY: Right. And so the Board direction 23 is for Franchise Tax Board to come back with explanation 24 of the Federal adjustment and the California calculation 25 so that the interest calculation is explained. 26 Then Appellant will have 30 days to reply. 27 And after the Appeals Division will have 30 28 days to draft a decision document proposed. 18 1 MS. YEE: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Kim. 2 MR. KIM: Yes. I think this letter is very 3 important to me. I never -- which I received. 2007, 4 April 2nd. They send this letter addressed to 182 5 Tajero Shamo (phonetic) Way, which is -- I was staying 6 there 2004 and 2005. And I move to Los Angeles again in 7 2006. And I never receive this letter in 2007. And I 8 receive the letter I submitted today 2008, January 4th. 9 In the case -- I start to talk to FTB, which I 10 didn't sign the -- the assumption of the tax liability. 11 They ask me to send the -- all the copies of driver's 12 license or -- all my signature to verify. 13 MS. YEE: Uh-huh. 14 MR. KIM: If -- if the time frame is not that 15 cred -- why they try to me to verify my signature that 16 time? 2000 -- 2008. 17 MS. YEE: Okay. 18 MR. KIM: The gentleman said that's not a 19 matter at this time, but there was the very big matter 20 to me, because I didn't sign the assumption of the tax 21 liability. 22 As I said, if somebody own the share of the 23 corporation I don't think he's liable for the -- you 24 know, corporation liabilities. 25 MR. YI: Just to elaborate on that, Mr. 26 Langston has stated that if the corporation assumed 27 certain tax liability, that goes directly to the 28 shareholders upon dissolution but what Mr. Kim is 19 1 disputing is the fact that he did not dissolve the 2 corporation, it was done by somebody else without him 3 knowing and he has not signed that assumption document. 4 So the tax liability of the corporation cannot 5 automatically be -- be transferred to Mr. Kim in his 6 personal capacity. 7 And also Mr. Langston has stated his CPAs or 8 representative could sign on the form, as well. But we 9 strongly disagree with that. Unless the representative 10 has a Power of Attorney from Mr. Kim, he has no 11 authority to sign any document on behalf of Mr. Kim. 12 MR. LANGSTON: Okay, I -- 13 MS. YEE: Mr. Langston. 14 MR. LANGSTON: -- I do have an answer for you 15 now. This -- this is what was confusing. The -- the 16 exhibit Mr. Kim gave us is his individual liability, his 17 individual tax liability. 18 We're here today talking about the corporate 19 tax liability. Corporate tax liability was much larger, 20 as explained in our brief. IRS assessed the corporation 21 $38,000 of tax, $35,000 of penalty for '99. $12,000 of 22 tax, $7,000 of penalty for '99. And then -- 23 MS. SMITH: For 2000. 24 MR. LANGSTON: 2000, I'm sorry. And then 25 $9,000 of tax and $2,000 of penalty for 2001. 26 And then -- but -- but that isn't the same as 27 his individual personal income tax liability, which 28 would be -- we'd have to find out what that was, but 20 1 money that he got from the corporation rather than money 2 the corporation got, itself. 3 So that's -- that's why there is a discrepancy 4 here. The corporate level tax was much higher and as 5 Mr. Kim said, the IRS did not assess the full amount 6 against him, personally. 7 MS. YEE: Okay. 8 MR. LANGSTON: But we can still do -- we can 9 still do the explanation -- 10 MS. YEE: All right. 11 MR. LANGSTON: -- to reconcile these figures. 12 MR. KIM: If you -- if you see the form 870-AD, 13 it clearly said taxpayers are not transferees of assets 14 of Prudential Commercial Leasing, Inc. for purposes of 15 6901 of the Internal Revenue Code as regards the 16 original adjustments of other income of $10,000 in '99, 17 $9,902 in 2000, 14,000 -- $14,140 in 2001. 18 It clearly says in the form 870-AD. And IRS 19 agreed and approved it and signed it. 20 MS. STEEL: Chairwoman Yee. You know, if it's 21 okay with you, I want to stay with my motion and -- 22 MR. LANGSTON: Yes. 23 MS. STEEL: -- and want to looking at more 24 clear numbers because I was going through all these 25 numbers trying to match with the IRS and Franchise Tax 26 Board, and I couldn't really match it. 27 So if you can explain better -- 28 MR. LANGSTON: I -- I -- 21 1 MS. STEEL: -- I think it might be -- yeah. 2 MR. LANGSTON: Yes, we will do that, because 3 I -- don't think I can do it sitting right here -- 4 MS. YEE: Right. 5 MS. STEEL: Okay. 6 MR. LANGSTON: -- off the top of my head. I 7 think I'm going to have to put up -- put up something. 8 MS. STEEL: So my motion still stays. 9 MS. YEE: Okay. 10 MS. STEEL: 30 to Franchise Tax Board and 30 to 11 the taxpayer to review. 12 MS. YEE: Okay. 13 MS. STEEL: And 30. 14 MS. YEE: All right. Then we have a motion by 15 Ms. Steel, second by Mr. Leonard, for a 30-30-30 to 16 provide additional time for the Franchise Tax Board to 17 explain the Federal adjustments. 18 And without objection, that motion carries. 19 Okay. We will allow additional time to let the 20 Franchise Tax Board come back with just the full 21 explanation of the Federal adjustment for you. 22 MR. YI: Thank you. 23 MS. YEE: Okay. Very well. Thank you. 24 ---oOo--- 25 26 27 28 22 1 . 2 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE 3 4 State of California ) 5 ) ss 6 County of Sacramento ) 7 8 I, BEVERLY D. TOMS, Hearing Reporter for the 9 California State Board of Equalization certify that on 10 September 22, 2009 I recorded verbatim, in shorthand, to 11 the best of my ability, the proceedings in the 12 above-entitled hearing; that I transcribed the shorthand 13 writing into typewriting; and that the preceding 22 14 pages constitute a complete and accurate transcription 15 of the shorthand writing. 16 17 Dated: October 16, 2009. 18 19 20 ____________________________ 21 BEVERLY D. TOMS 22 Hearing Reporter 23 24 25 26 27 28 23