RIVER GARDEN RETIREMENT HOME v. FRANCHISE TAX BOARD Part-II
<script src="http://www.google-analytics.com/urchin.js" type="text/javascript"> </script> <script type="text/javascript"> _uacct = "UA-1698443-1"; urchinTracker(); </script> <html ><br /> <head><br /> <title>RIVER GARDEN RETIREMENT HOME v</title><br /> </head><br /> <body><br /> <div><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/><b > </b><br /> <br/><b > </b><br /> <br/><b<br /> >RIVER GARDEN<br /> RETIREMENT HOME v.</b><br /> <br/><b >FRANCHISE TAX BOARD</b><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>Filed 7/15/10<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/><b<br /> >CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION</b><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>IN<br /> THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>FIRST<br /> APPELLATE DISTRICT<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>DIVISION<br /> FOUR<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <table class=MsoNormalTable border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0<br /> ><br /> <tr ><br /> <td width=319 valign=top ><br /> <br/>RIVER<br /> GARDEN RETIREMENT HOME,<br /> <br/> Plaintiff and Appellant,<br /> <br/>v.<br /> <br/>FRANCHISE<br /> TAX BOARD,<br /> <br/> Defendant and Respondent.<br /> </td><br /> <td width=319 valign=top ><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> A123316<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> (San<br /> Francisco City<br /> and County<br /> <br/> Super. Ct.<br /> No. CGC07-467783)<br /> <br/> <br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> </table><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/><b >Story continued from part I…..</b><br /> <br/><b > </b><br /> <br/><b > </b><br /> <br/>2. <br /> <i >Post-</i>Carlton<br /> <br/> Although<br /> the <i >context </i>in which retroactivity<br /> arises in this case differs from that of <i<br /> >Carlton</i>--imposition<br /> of an administrative remedy to cure the discriminatory impact of a statute as<br /> opposed to enactment of tax legislation to close a loophole--the retroactive<br /> application of the remedy or the legislation both touch on due process<br /> concerns. Our particular focus lies in<br /> determining whether the retroactive period here was sufficiently â€