Wilson v. Franchise Tax Bd.
Decision Date | 13 December 1993 |
Docket Number | No. B073188,B073188 |
Citation | 25 Cal.Rptr.2d 282,20 Cal.App.4th 1441 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | Marc D. WILSON, et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. FRANCHISE TAX BOARD, Defendant and Appellant. |
Daniel E. Lungren, Atty. Gen., Edmond B. Mamer and Jack T. Kerry, Deputy Attys. Gen., for defendant and appellant.
Staker & Gose and Gose, Panitz & Lechman and Philip Garrett Panitz, Camarillo, for plaintiffs and respondents.
During 1984-1986, plaintiff Marc D. Wilson played quarterback for the Los Angeles Raiders. In the off-season during those years, Wilson lived in Washington state and thus was not a California resident for California income tax purposes. However, because Wilson's income from his Raiders contract derived from a California source, he paid California income tax on a portion of his income for those years. Wilson's income tax was based on a ratio, set out in defendant California Franchise Tax Board's administrative regulation (Audit Ruling § 125.1) governing the percentage of a nonresident athlete's California source income subject to state tax, of the number of days he worked in California (the ratio's numerator) compared to the total number of days he actually worked or had to be available for work (its denominator). Wilson claimed his contract required him to be available for work every day each year, resulting in 41-45 percent of his income being taxable.
The Board assessed additional taxes for 1984-1986, arguing that under Wilson's Raiders contract, he only worked or had to be available for work during the football season. The Board's calculation subjected 88-91 percent of Wilson's income to state tax. Wilson paid the additional taxes under protest and filed this case, seeking a refund. The trial court agreed with and entered judgment for Wilson. The Board appeals.
We agree with the Board's interpretation of Wilson's contract and reverse the judgment. 1
In 1980, the Raiders drafted Wilson, who played college football at Brigham Young University, and loaned him $125,000. Pursuant to a promissory note signed July 24, 1980, Wilson agreed to repay the loan plus interest on August 23, 1985. Wilson played quarterback for the Raiders until 1988. This case involves Wilson's 1984 through 1986 Raiders income.
On October 21, 1983, Wilson and the Raiders signed a series of three identical National Football League (NFL) one-year contracts, under which the Raiders paid Wilson, respectively, $700,000, $800,000, and $900,000 in 1984-1986, not counting performance bonuses. According to paragraph 1, titled "TERM," each contract covered "one football season, and ... beg[a]n on the date of execution or February 1, ... whichever [was] later, and end[ed] on [the following] February 1...."
Paragraph 2, titled "EMPLOYMENT AND SERVICES," stated that the Raiders employed Wilson
Paragraph 3, titled "OTHER ACTIVITIES," stated:
Paragraph 4, titled "PUBLICITY," stated:
Paragraph 5, titled "COMPENSATION," stated that, in addition to Wilson's yearly salary and any incentive bonuses, the Raiders would pay Wilson's "necessary traveling expenses from his residence to training camp; ... reasonable board and lodging expenses during pre-season training and in connection with playing pre-season, regular-season, and post-season football games outside [Los Angeles]; ... necessary traveling expenses to and from pre-season, regular-season, and post-season football games outside [Los Angeles]...."
In lieu of the standard payment schedule, set out in paragraph 6, under which Wilson's annual salary would have been paid weekly during the pre and regular season, an addendum provided that Wilson's salary would be paid in 12 equal monthly installments. Wilson could not remember at which party's request this alternative payment schedule was inserted into his contracts. Tom Flores, Raiders head coach throughout the three-year period, testified that the method of payment generally is an option decided by the player.
Paragraph 8, titled "PHYSICAL CONDITION," stated:
Paragraph 9, titled "INJURY," stated: "If [Wilson] is injured in the performance of his services under this contract and promptly reports such injury to the [Raiders] physician or trainer, then [Wilson] will receive such medical and hospital care during the term of this contract as the [Raiders] physician may deem necessary, and, in accordance with [the Raiders] practice, will continue to receive his yearly salary for so long, during the season of injury only and for no subsequent period, as [Wilson] is physically unable to perform the services required of him by this contract because of such injury...." An addendum guaranteed Wilson's salary throughout the three-year period if Wilson was unable to play because terminated by the Raiders or due to injury or death.
Paragraph 11, titled "SKILL, PERFORMANCE AND CONDUCT," stated: "[Wilson] understands that he is competing with other players for a position on [the Raider's] roster within the applicable player limits. If at any time, in the sole judgment of [the Raiders], [Wilson's] skill or performance has been unsatisfactory as compared with that of other players competing for positions on [the Paragraph 14, titled "RULES," stated: "[Wilson] will comply with and be bound by all reasonable [Raiders] rules and regulations in effect during the term of this contract which are not inconsistent with the provisions of this contract...."
Raider's] roster, or if [Wilson] has engaged in personal conduct [20 Cal.App.4th 1446] reasonably judged by [the Raiders] to adversely affect or reflect on [the Raiders], then [the Raiders] may terminate this contract."
Paragraph 22, titled "OTHER AGREEMENTS," stated:
Paragraph 24.2, contained in an addendum and titled "FORGIVENESS OF DEBT," stated: During the three relevant years, the Wilsons lived in Washington state, where Wilson grew up, and where their four parents lived. The Raiders forgave Wilson's debt. Wilson lived in California only during the football season, and was not a California resident for state income tax purposes.
During the off-season in the three relevant years, other than an approximately one month vacation, Wilson engaged in a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
2009 Metropoulos Family Trust v. Cal. Franchise Tax Bd.
...); Jim Beam Brands Co. v. Franchise Tax Bd., supra , 133 Cal.App.4th at p. 521, 34 Cal.Rptr.3d 874 ; Wilson v. Franchise Tax Bd. (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 1441, 1450, 25 Cal.Rptr.2d 282.)II. Corporate Taxation of Unitary BusinessesA discussion of the Uniform Act is necessary to address the argu......
-
J.H. McKnight Ranch v. Franchise Tax Bd.
...than fact. We independently review the record and are not bound by the trial court's determination. (Wilson v. Franchise Tax Bd. (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 1441, 1450, 25 Cal.Rptr .2d 282.) However, when the trial court makes factual findings on disputed issues, we review those findings under th......
-
Automotive Funding Group, Inc. v. Garamendi
...present sales contract and the LDW, based on a set of stipulated facts, these too are questions of law (Wilson v. Franchise Tax Board (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 1441, 1450, 25 Cal.Rptr.2d 282) that we resolve by de novo review. (McIntosh v. Aubry (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 1576, 1584, 18 Cal.Rptr.2d ......