<p><b>JAY FIRESTONE v. PETER HOFFMAN</b><b></b></p> <br /> <p><b> </b></p> <br /> <p align="center"><b> </b></p> <br /> <p align="center"><b>Filed 6/29/06</b><b></b></p> <br /> <p align="center"><b> </b></p> <br /> <p align="center"><b> </b></p> <br /> <p align="center"><b> </b></p> <br /> <p align="center"><b>CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION</b><a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1">*</a><b></b></p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center">IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA</p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center">SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT</p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center">DIVISION ONE</p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p><br /> <table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><br /> <tr><br /> <td width="336" valign="top"> <br /> <p>JAY FIRESTONE,</p> <br /> <p> Plaintiff and Respondent,</p> <br /> <p> v.</p> <br /> <p>PETER HOFFMAN,</p> <br /> <p> Defendant and Appellant.</p><br /> </td><br /> <td width="336" valign="top"> <br /> <p> B183184 </p> <br /> <p> (Super. Ct. No. BC 292795)</p><br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> </table> <br /> <p> APPEAL from a judgment of the <a href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.us/">Superior Court of Los Angeles County</a>. Joseph R. Kalin and Irving S. Feffer, Judges. Reversed and remanded with directions.</p> <br /> <p> Peter Hoffman, in pro. per.; Gipson Hoffman & Pancione, Kenneth I. Sidle and Corey J. Spivey for Defendant and Appellant.</p> <br /> <p> Lord, Bissell & Brook, Jeffrey S. Kravitz, Keith G. Wileman; Silver & Freedman and Jeffrey S. Kravitz for Plaintiff and Respondent. </p> <br /> <p><b>Story continue from Part I ……..</b><b></b></p> <br /> <p>Finally, both in the trial court and on appeal, Firestone relies upon California case law that does create a privilege for tax returns. The problem, again, is that the privilege does not apply to <a href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">foreign tax returns</a>. Rather, the privilege arises from California statutes that generally prohibit <i>California</i> tax authorities from disclosing tax return information, subject to certain exceptions. (See <i>Webb v. Standard Oil Co.</i> (1957) 49 Cal.2d 509, 512-514 (hereafter <i>Webb</i>); <i>Sav-On Drugs, Inc. v. Superior Court</i> (1975) 15 Cal.3d 1, 6-7.) The Supreme Court has reasoned that the purpose of those statutes is â€