[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-1-en-105":3,"doc-seo-304572-105":53,"doc-detail-304572-en":126},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,14,19,24,29,34,39,44,49],{"id":8,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":11,"show_sort_weight":12,"slug":13},11,1,"Template","Presentations",90,"presentations",{"id":15,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":16,"show_sort_weight":17,"slug":18},12,"Resumes",80,"resumes",{"id":20,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":21,"show_sort_weight":22,"slug":23},14,"Invoices",70,"invoices",{"id":25,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":26,"show_sort_weight":27,"slug":28},15,"Posters",60,"posters",{"id":30,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":31,"show_sort_weight":32,"slug":33},16,"Social Media",50,"social-media",{"id":35,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":36,"show_sort_weight":37,"slug":38},17,"Forms",40,"forms",{"id":40,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":41,"show_sort_weight":42,"slug":43},18,"Letters",30,"letters",{"id":45,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":46,"show_sort_weight":47,"slug":48},21,"Paper Templates",5,"papers-templates",{"id":50,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":51,"show_sort_weight":4,"slug":52},158,"General","general-158",{"code":4,"msg":54,"data":55},"ok",{"site_id":56,"language":57,"slug":58,"title":59,"keywords":60,"description":61,"schema_data":62,"social_meta":119,"head_meta":121,"extra_data":123,"updated_unix":125},105,"en","18010823-ota-case-no-18010823-opinion","18010823 - OTA Case No. 18010823 - Opinion","","Opinion issued by the Office of Tax Appeals of the State of California in the matter of Samantha Fernandez’s appeal of OTA Case No. 18010823. The appeal challenges a proposed Franchise Tax Board assessment for the 2013 tax year, including additional tax of $496 plus accrued interest, based on a final federal determination. The case addresses whether the taxpayer established non-liability for the additional tax and evaluates federal income reporting changes, the subsequent state proposed assessment, and the taxpayer’s payment and protest arguments.",{"@graph":63,"@context":118},[64,80,101],{"@type":65,"itemListElement":66},"BreadcrumbList",[67,71,74,77],{"item":68,"name":69,"@type":70,"position":9},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":72,"name":10,"@type":70,"position":73},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/",2,{"item":75,"name":41,"@type":70,"position":76},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/letters/",3,{"item":78,"name":59,"@type":70,"position":79},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/18010823-ota-case-no-18010823-opinion/304572/",4,{"url":78,"name":59,"@type":81,"image":82,"author":87,"headline":59,"publisher":90,"fileFormat":93,"inLanguage":57,"description":61,"dateModified":94,"datePublished":95,"encodingFormat":93,"isAccessibleForFree":96,"interactionStatistic":97},"DigitalDocument",{"url":83,"@type":84,"width":85,"height":86},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/18010823-ota-case-no-18010823-opinion/304572.png","ImageObject",442,249,{"name":88,"@type":89},"Angel","Person",{"url":68,"name":91,"@type":92},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-09-24","2026-09-19",true,{"@type":98,"interactionType":99,"userInteractionCount":9},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":100},"ViewAction",{"@type":102,"mainEntity":103},"FAQPage",[104,110,114],{"name":105,"@type":106,"acceptedAnswer":107},"What additional tax and tax year are at issue in this appeal?","Question",{"text":108,"@type":109},"The appeal concerns the 2013 tax year and a proposed additional tax assessment of $496 plus accrued interest.","Answer",{"name":111,"@type":106,"acceptedAnswer":112},"What federal determination is the state assessment based on?",{"text":113,"@type":109},"The assessment is based on federal income changes arising from unreported income related to federal Form 1099-MISC and the IRS’s final adjustments to federal taxable income.",{"name":115,"@type":106,"acceptedAnswer":116},"Why did the Office of Tax Appeals reject adjusting the state liability?",{"text":117,"@type":109},"Because there was no evidence suggesting the Franchise Tax Board’s proposed assessment was incorrect, and the amount in dispute matches the tax reported by the appellant on her amended California return accepted by the FTB.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":78,"og:type":120,"og:title":59,"og:site_name":91,"og:description":61},"article",{"robots":122,"canonical":78},"index,follow",{"doc_id":124,"site_id":56},304572,1790225367,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":127},{"doc_id":124,"user_id":128,"nickname":88,"user_avatar":129,"doc_module":9,"category_id":40,"category_name":41,"doc_title":59,"doc_description":61,"doc_content":130,"file_id":131,"file_url":132,"file_type":133,"file_size":134,"view_count":73,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":9,"is_downloadable":9,"audit_status":9,"page_count":79,"language":135,"language_code":57,"site_id":56,"html_lang":57,"table_of_contents":136,"faqs":137,"seo_title":138,"seo_description":61,"update_tm":139,"read_time":73},687207412472,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_155a257f0dc6eb9ab79c44ca47cae57d","OFFICE OF TAX APPEALS  \nSTATE OF CALIFORNIA  \nIn the Matter of the Appeal of: ) OTA Case No. 18010823  \n)  \nSAMANTHA FERNANDEZ ) Date Issued: June 18, 2018  \n))  \n  )  \nOPINION  \nRepresenting the Parties:  \nFor Appellant: Samantha Fernandez, Taxpayer  \nFor Respondent: Freddie C. Cauton, Legal Assistant  \nKWEE, Administrative Law Judge: Pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code section 19045, 1 Samantha Fernandez (appellant) appeals an action taken by the Franchise Tax Board (FTB or respondent) in denying appellant’s protest of a proposed assessment of $496 in additional tax, plus accrued interest, for the 2013 tax year.  \nISSUE  \nHas appellant established that she is not liable for the additional tax proposed to be assessed by FTB based upon a final federal determination?  \nFACTUAL FINDINGS  \n1. On March 21, 2014, appellant timely filed a California Resident Income Tax Return, Form 540 (tax return) for 2013. In that return, appellant reported California taxable income of $27,136 .  \n2. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) subsequently obtained information that appellant failed to report $19,699 of income reported to her on federal Form 1099-MISC (Miscellaneous Income) as nonemployee compensation paid to her by “John Solo Inc.”  \n1 Unless otherwise indicated, all statutory references are to sections of the California Revenue and Taxation Code.  \n3. After adjusting for an increased self-employment tax deduction in the amount of $1,392, the IRS determined that appellant’s federal taxable income should be increased by $18,307, from $21,497 to $39,804 . The IRS assessed tax on the unreported income, as determined, on November 9, 2015.  \n4. Appellant subsequently filed an amended federal tax return (Form 1040X) with the IRS dated May 10, 2016.  \n5. On July 18, 2016, the IRS accepted the amended income information as reported by appellant on the Form 1040X. The IRS reduced appellant’s federal taxable income by $9,602, from $39,804 (as initially determined by the IRS) to $30,202 (as reported by appellant on her Form 1040X) .  \n6. On November 15, 2016, FTB issued a Notice of Proposed Assessment (NPA), which proposed to assess additional tax of $1,323.84, plus interest, based on increasing appellant’s California taxable income by $18,673, from $27,136 to $45,809 .2  \n7. By letter dated January 12, 2017, appellant protested the NPA on the basis that her federal tax liability was already paid to the IRS. In addition, appellant submitted a copy of her amended federal tax return, and filed an amended state tax return (California Form 540X) reporting income adjustments consistent with her amended federal return.  \n8. On her amended state tax return, appellant self-reported additional state income tax due to FTB in the amount of $496. Appellant left blank the line to report interest due.  \n9. By Notice of Action (NOA) dated August 4, 2017, FTB accepted appellant’s amended state tax return as filed, and reduced the proposed tax assessment to $496, as self-reported by appellant. The amended state income information reported by appellant, and accepted by FTB, reduced appellant’s taxable income by $9,968, from $45,809 to $35,841 . The adjustment in the NOA brings the state correction into conformity with the federal correction to taxable income of $9,602 .  \n10. By letter dated August 8, 2017, appellant timely appealed the NOA on the basis that the $2,611 federal tax liability that she reported on her amended federal tax return was paid in full to the IRS in three installments: (1) $730 on April 11, 2016, when the IRS applied her 2015 federal tax refund to pay the 2013 federal tax liability; (2) $938 on May 2, 2016,  \n2 This amount included the $18,307 in additional income initially picked up by the IRS, and a $366 reduction in appellant’s itemized deductions on account of the increase in appellant’s adjusted gross income.  \nwhen the IRS seized her state tax refund issued by FTB, and (3) the balance, $943, by check dated May 16, 2016.  \nDISCUSSION  \nGr","cbCainDtYHqI7ecu","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCainDtYHqI7ecu","pdf",190033,"English","# Issue\n## Has appellant established non-liability based upon a final federal determination?\n# Factual Findings\n## IRS change to federal taxable income and amended filings\n## Notice of Proposed Assessment and state protest\n# Discussion\n## Burden of proof and reporting federal changes\n## Assessment presumed correct and taxpayer’s arguments","[{\"question\":\"What additional tax and tax year are at issue in this appeal?\",\"answer\":\"The appeal concerns the 2013 tax year and a proposed additional tax assessment of $496 plus accrued interest.\"},{\"question\":\"What federal determination is the state assessment based on?\",\"answer\":\"The assessment is based on federal income changes arising from unreported income related to federal Form 1099-MISC and the IRS’s final adjustments to federal taxable income.\"},{\"question\":\"Why did the Office of Tax Appeals reject adjusting the state liability?\",\"answer\":\"Because there was no evidence suggesting the Franchise Tax Board’s proposed assessment was incorrect, and the amount in dispute matches the tax reported by the appellant on her amended California return accepted by the FTB.\"}]","18010823 - OTA Case No. 18010823 - Opinion | PDF",1789814963]