Case Summary
**Case Summary: William Hawkins, III v. The Franchise Tax Board of California**
**Docket Number:** 7837040
**Court:** [Specify Court, e.g., California Superior Court]
**Filing Date:** [Specify Date]
**Parties:**
- **Plaintiff:** William Hawkins, III
- **Defendant:** Franchise Tax Board of California (FTB)
**Background:**
William Hawkins, III initiated a case against the Franchise Tax Board of California, challenging a decision made by the FTB regarding his tax obligations. The dispute centers around [provide specific details, e.g., tax assessments, penalties, or refunds claimed by Hawkins that were denied or altered by the FTB].
**Core Issues:**
The main issues in this case include:
1. The validity of the FTB's tax assessments against Hawkins.
2. Allegations of improper procedures followed by the FTB in making their determinations.
3. Claims for refunds or abatements that Hawkins seeks from the FTB.
4. Any statutory interpretations applicable to Hawkins' tax situation.
**Procedural History:**
- The case was filed in [specify court and date].
- Initial motions or hearings may have taken place, leading to [any prior rulings or decisions].
- Hawkins has argued [summarize Hawkins' arguments or requests for relief].
- The FTB has [summarize FTB’s position/defense against Hawkins' claims].
**Arguments:**
- **Plaintiff's Position:** Hawkins argues that the FTB's assessment was incorrect, citing [reasons, evidence, or legal precedents]. He seeks [specific relief, such as a refund or reversal of penalties].
- **Defendant's Position:** The FTB defends its actions by stating [outline defenses or justifications offered by the FTB, including reliance on tax laws or regulations].
**Outcome:**
[If available, detail any judgments, rulings, or settlements reached thus far in the case and the implications for both parties. If the case is ongoing, indicate the current status.]
**Significance:**
This case is significant as it addresses [mention any broader implications for tax law, policies affecting taxpayers in California, or precedential value]. The outcome could influence future interactions between taxpayers and the Franchise Tax Board.
**Next Steps:**
[If applicable, outline any scheduled hearings, motions, or further actions expected in this case.]
**Conclusion:**
The case of William Hawkins, III v. The Franchise Tax Board of California remains a pivotal matter reflecting ongoing challenges faced by taxpayers and tax authorities regarding assessments and compliance, contributing to the broader conversation about tax enforcement and taxpayer rights.
**Note:** Please provide further context or details if available for a more tailored case summary.