FTB responded to my Annual Taxpayer Bill of Rights (ATBOR) Requests on February 3, 2026, as promised. In the same meeting, I had made two public comments separate from the ATBOR requests. FTB included a response to one of the comments, about Protests, as if it were part of the ATBOR requests.
I’ve learned that with FTB, what they don’t say is far more telling than what they do say. The first public comment that I’d made was asking FTB what they were going to do to correct their issues with the small business collections line. I pointed out long hold times and high hang up rates. FTB did not acknowledge the public comment at the time I made it; they responded with “Next speaker.” And they didn’t respond in writing to that comment, even though I’d sent two follow up emails stating that I expected a response. Per California law, failure to deny constitutes admission: Any material allegation in the complaint that is not effectively denied is deemed admitted. [CCP § 431.20(a); see Hennefer v. Butcher (1986) 182 CA3d 492, 504, 227 CR 318, 325]. This failure to acknowledge my comment is basically an admission that they are intentionally trying to destroy small businesses by making it impossible to resolve “issues.”
Issue 1: In the written version, I asked FTB’s board and executives to stop putting their employees at risk of federal prosecution by having FTB staff cite laws verbatim so that they can no longer deceive people about their unlawful and extra-lawful policies and procedures. In the verbal version, I asked FTB staff to protect themselves from federal prosecution by refusing to comply with unethical and unlawful behavior.
In FTB’s response, FTB wrote “…and denies any suggestions that its standard operating procedures violate state or federal law.”
Issue 2: For several years, I have asked FTB for more information about its “no payment suspense account.” FTB’s answers were vague and evasive. This year, I accused them of using this “no payment suspense” account as an off-the-books spending account. Here is more information about FTB’s delayed payment application.
In FTB’s response, FTB did not deny the allegation that there was an off-the-books spending account. Remember, with FTB, the focus needs to be on what they don’t say. Failure to deny constitutes admission. Instead, they wrote that they had already addressed this concern. They did add that “…all funds received by FTB are deposited into accounts within the Centralized State Treasury System (CTS) and remitted to the State Controller’s Office (SCO).” However, this was deceptive. As I had pointed out in the written version, in previous responses they conflated “funds” with “no payments.” — they aren’t “funds” until the payment is recognized. Had I been wrong, they would have said something to the effect of “no payments are recognized as payments and thus considered funds.” Since they did not make any clarifying statement, that means that the allegation that “no payments” are not considered “funds” was correct.
Issue 3: For several years, I have asked FTB to disclose complete guidelines about exactly when it applies each of the 14 type of payment to the taxpayer’s account. FTB only gave an answer for one type of payment: Bill Payments. The rest of the payments had vague and evasive answers. This year, I accused of FTB of not timely applying funds (which means temporarily embezzling the payments) in order to help fund its off-the-books spending account.
In FTB’s response, FTB did not deny the allegation that the money was being used to fund its off-the-books spending account. Remember, we’re looking at what they don’t say. Failure to deny constitutes admission. Instead, FTB wrote: “…FTB is unable to provide the exact timing of when payments are applied…”
Issue 4: For several years, I have asked FTB to disclose complete guidelines about which payments and portions of payments are applied to the taxpayer’s account for the purpose of calculating interest. As was revealed in my court case, FTB does not fully credit payments for the purpose of calculating interest so that the taxpayer falsely appears to have a higher outstanding balance than they do and thus pays more interest than they should. The first few years, they gave vague and evasive responses. Last year, they stated that late payments are immediately credited, but did not address timely payments. This year, I asked FTB to address timely payments. Here is more information about FTB’s not crediting all payments for the purpose of calculating interest.
In FTB’s response, FTB doubled down. They wrote: “As previously stated: FTB accounts for all payments received from the time the payment is received for each tax liability for the purpose of calculating interest on liabilities unpaid after the due date for payment of taxes.” Remember, we’re looking at what they don’t say. — they did not address timely payments and they did not deny the allegations that timely payments are not (fully) credited in order to overcharge interest.
Issue 5: For several years, I have asked FTB to disclose which laws it utilizes to justify its business practice of not crediting all payments made on Notices of Proposed Assessments and denying Protests on the basis that the NPA was falsely issued since not all payments had been credited. In the written version, I pointed out other laws that FTB had cited in previous ATBOR Responses and during my court case that were either irrelevant or didn’t say what FTB claimed they said. I asked them to cite me an applicable law for both policies and procedures. Here is more information on NPAs.
In FTB’s response, FTB doubled down and again cited the irrelevant tax codes, which is a felony under TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242, Color of Law. This circles back to issue #1, where I asked FTB to stop having their staff improperly cite laws in order to protect them from federal prosecution under this federal law. I actually sent a response email to FTB in which I wrote:
“I want to start by saying that I am extremely disappointed in FTB’s board, executives and HR for allowing Ms. Jones to be set up as a patsy again this year. This policy of having employees sign letters containing fraud that were authored by the legal department is unconscionable. Why doesn’t FTB make the authors of letters take responsibility for the words they wrote? Every one of you should be ashamed of yourself for allowing Ms. Jones to be thrown under the bus to protect people like Bill Hilson. I believe Mr. Hilson presented himself as a sociopath in his retirement speech, especially when he talked about FTB’s systematic denial of due process laws in a tone and context that indicated that he believed that this outlandish violation of our constitutional protections, which are clearly laid out in the Bill of Rights #5 – 7, made FTB virtuous.”
In FTB’s response, they also wrote: “The payment becomes effective upon the proposed assessment becoming final and is credited the day the payment is received for the purpose of calculating interest.” This was an admission of how the embezzlement and racketeering scheme works! Notices of Proposed Assessments can only be issued on accounts with outstanding tax liabilities based on a status single with zero deductions. If you have paid enough in to cover the liability, they cannot legally issue this notice. So what they do is credit the payments AFTER the notice is issued and the window to protest has passed. Then they backdate the payments to make it look like they were credited the day you made the payment. However, since they have “an outstanding liability” listed on the NPA, they charge you interest on this fraudulently assessed “outstanding liability.” Only payments made AFTER the liability is fraudulently imposed are credited towards the interest that fraudulently accrued.
Furthermore, I believe this answer was deceptive as it implied all estimated tax payments are applied immediately after the assessment becomes final. That is not the case. FTB requires married couples to make joint estimated tax payments. Only payments made by single people have their payments credited after the NPA liability becomes final. As is discussed further in Issue 6, FTB claims that jointly made estimated tax payments cannot be applied per “California law” because FTB can’t apply a joint payment until after they recognize the couple as married — which isn’t until that year’s tax return is filed and processed.
FTB also wrote: “FTB does not deny the right to protest proposed assessments based on the status of payments for the taxable year at issue.” In the email, I asked for clarification of this statement. We’ll see if they respond, but I believe this is more deception: since FTB’s policies and procedures are to not apply estimated tax payments until after the NPA is issued, that means that FTB denies all protests made on the grounds that the NPA was fraudulently issued. They used the words “FTB does not deny the right to protest” — they accept your protest and then say no, its not a valid reason, which is not the same as denying you the opportunity to protest.
Issue 6: FTB claims that California law requires them to treat people as unmarried every year until after their joint tax return is filed. As stated above in Issue 5, FTB will not credit joint payments until after that year’s tax return is filed and processed, so married people are required to pay the entire tax liability again, as if FTB had never received any of the funds. These additional payments — which would not be due had the joint payments been credited — are treated as if the person is single. I believe the failure to apply the joint payments to be embezzlement and the requirement to pay funds in excess of what is due to be unlawful enrichment. So why does FTB require payments be made jointly prior to an NPA being issued, but doesn’t require them to be made jointly after the liability is imposed? FTB also imposes two tax penalties, one on each spouse, instead of one joint penalty. I believe the false imposition of penalties to be racketeering. I believe that financially penalizing people on the basis of marital status to be a violation of the 14th amendment.
For nine years now, I have asked FTB to disclose which laws it utilizes to justify this business practice. In the written version, I pointed out the laws FTB had cited in previous ATBOR Responses and during my court case were either irrelevant or didn’t say what FTB claimed they said. I asked them to end this practice — since they had yet to come up with a relevant statute, this practice was clearly unlawful.
In FTB’s response, they doubled down. They wrote: “Your request that FTB conform to particular IRS guidelines was raised at previous Taxpayers’ Bill of Rights Hearings… FTB responded to this concern… As previously stated, FTB cannot enact, amend, or repeal laws. You can contact your state legislators regarding any suggested changes to California law.”
Remember, the focus is on what FTB doesn’t say. In this year’s letter, they again claimed treating married people as unmarried was a law but didn’t cite a statute. Saying something is a law when it isn’t is a felony under TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242, Color of Law. This circles back to issue #1, where I asked FTB to stop having their staff improperly cite laws in order to protect them from federal prosecution under this federal law. But they threw Ms. Jones under the bus and had her commit yet another felony count of fraud.
Issue 7: In September 2025, I made a public comment expressing many concerns about FTB’s program to pay NGOs $10 – $20 million a year to hunt down illegal aliens and sign them up for tax identification numbers (ITIN). FTB failed to respond, so I remade all the comments/concerns in the written version.
FTB did respond to some of the concerns raised. First of all, I asked whether FTB was issuing ITIN numbers separate from the federal government. FTB responded factually — but deceptively — by saying that ITIN numbers were issued by the federal government. Remember, the focus is on what they don’t say — they didn’t deny that they were issuing their own tax ID numbers.
Meanwhile, I had made a request from the disclosure department asking what a FTB ID number was. The disclosure department stated: “To comply with Senate Bill 25, FTB systems assign a ten-digit identification number called an FTB-ID to replace the Social Security Number in any documents mailed to a taxpayer.” So the disclosure department admitted that FTB is issuing its own tax ID numbers, they just use a different name.
Senate Bill 25 led me down a rabbit hole. When I checked FTB’s website, I didn’t find anything about an SB 25 that had passed between 2023 and 2025 that seemed relevant. But I did find one that just passed the Assembly on January 22, 2026 and has not yet been signed into law.* Per AI: “California Senate Bill 25 allows nonresident aliens to file state tax returns without needing to provide a Social Security Number (SSN) or Individual Tax Identification Number (ITIN) indefinitely. This change simplifies the filing process for nonresident aliens in California.” (*Update: SB-25 was signed into law on Feb. 10, 2026).
One of the sources cited for information for that statement was CalMatters Digital Democracy, which stated that AB 1518 was passed in 2025 and codified as Revenue and Tax Code 18537. In reading the legislation, I saw that the same law had passed in 2020 as AB-2660 (chapter 102 Burke), but it was a temporary law that expired at the end of 2025. It was codified as Revenue and Tax Code 18624. The updated version is the same, it just makes the law permanent.
In reading AB-1518, I found some disturbing details that indicate the State is not only allowing human trafficking, it is profiting off of it. Group Tax returns are filed by employers on behalf of their illegal alien employees. The employers are only required to say how many illegal employees they have and the total amount of money the illegals were paid. The illegals are charged the highest tax rate, which is 12.3%. They are also required to pay an extra 1% mental health fee, which is normally only imposed on those who make $1 million or more per year. Everyone files as single, with no deductions or credits allowed.
Anyways, circling back to the FTB-ID numbers, the disclosure department indicated that they were already being issued even though the bill had not even been approved by the legislature at the time the letter was issued. I believe this indicates that, like AB-2660, there was probably previous legislation that had expired at the end of 2025. I am still working on digging up the previous statute number.
The next issue that FTB addressed was the request for more information about funding. They gave some vague, generic information and said to contact the California Department of Community Services and Development for more information.
FTB didn’t acknowledge or address my question about whether migrants were legally filing in California when they cannot legally file federally. They didn’t acknowledge or address my request that they audit Golden State Opportunity Fund, which looks like a money launderer. FTB didn’t acknowledge or address my request that FTB start paying tax preparers to file tax returns on behalf of people who qualify under VITA guidelines instead of having these people use unpaid volunteers or free online software so that these vulnerable people could have professional representation should FTB make “mistakes” on their account.
And finally, they didn’t acknowledge or address the fact that United Way of California is sending vulnerable people to known sexual predators for help to get a tax ID number/tax returns. I looked a while ago to see if Dreams for Change was still listed as a subsidiary of United Way. They had removed the subsidiary page and replaced it with a page showing where people could go to have their taxes done/help with getting a tax ID number (you have to fork over your contact info to access this information). I noticed that Dreams for Change was not listed. But Somali Family Services has been added, and so has Shinhan Bank.
I called Shinhan Bank and asked for help with preparing my taxes. The bank told me to contact Dreams for Change. Dreams for Change’s website confirms they help vulnerable people file tax returns request tax identification numbers. I left a message with the tax line on February 7, 2026. No call back. I left another message on February 16. I’ll update if they call me back.
I also called Somali Family Services. Their website does not specifically list help with tax identification numbers or income tax filings, but I am guessing those fall under Refugee Services. I left a message for them on February 7 and did not get a call back. I left another message on February 16. On February 17, they returned my call. They told me to fill out a form to sign up with their “partner organization.” It was not disclosed in the call nor on the form who the “partner organization” is.
It is important to note that I first asked FTB to stop sending people to these predators in September 2025. Since then, I’ve seen three more news reports about sexual assaults by Dreams for Change staff. And yet, FTB is still sending vulnerable people to them, just being sneakier about it. This is unconscionable.
Issue 8: Protests are denied through attrition; FTB doesn’t process the protest until well after the expiration date has passed. FTBs established practice is to move forward with unlawful collections against taxpayers without a review of the submitted protest even when the taxpayer has submitted their protest on time. FTB uses their own failure to process received protests in a timely manner as an excuse for fraudulently claiming that no timely protest was submitted to FTB by the taxpayer at all. To make the argument, I cited the turn times listed on FTB’s website.
In FTB’s response, they wrote: “NPA protests are mailed to a dedicated FTB address or filed online and are not processed by a collection business area, therefore not subject to the wait times referenced in your letter.” However, they did not state the turn-times for the NPA processing department. I sent a request to FTB’s disclosure department for the turn times for this department.
5 Replies to “Analyzing FTB’s Response to My 2025 Annual Taxpayer Bill of Rights Requests”
Comments are closed.