Franchise Tax Board v. Superior Court, 125 Cal. Rptr. 3d 158

Gonzales, as personal representative of his son's estate, sought a 2006 refund of state personal income taxes for 2000 and 2001 and demanded a jury trial.
Gonzales alleged payment of over $15 million under a tax amnesty with reservation of the right to seek a refund.
The trial court denied the Franchise Tax Board's (FTB) motion to strike the jury demand; the Court of Appeal initially allowed a jury trial in the refund action.
The Court of Appeal granted review and held there is a state constitutional right to a jury trial in a state income tax refund action; the Supreme Court granted review to decide otherwise.
Statutes governing income tax refunds (Rev. & Tax. Code § 19381 et seq.) are silent on the right to a jury trial; the issue is whether the California Constitution guarantees a jury trial in such statutory refund actions.
The Supreme Court held that article I, section 16 of the California Constitution does not require a jury trial in a statutory action for a state income tax refund.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the taxpayer has a jury trial right in a state income tax refund action	Gonzales argues the gist is legal, so a jury trial is constitutionally guaranteed.	FTB argues refunds are statutory actions distinct from common-law actions and not entitled to a jury trial.	No constitutional right to a jury trial in statutory tax refund actions.
Whether statutory tax refunds are legally same as common-law actions for refunds against tax collectors	Court of Appeal relied on common-law gist and historical refunds against collectors.	Statutory refund actions are a legislative creation, not a common-law assumpsit-like action.	Statutory refund actions are fundamentally different from common-law actions; no jury trial right.

C & K Engineering Contractors v. Amber Steel Co., 23 Cal.3d 1 (Cal. 1978) (establishes the 'gist' test for jury trial right)
Corder v. Corder, 41 Cal.4th 644 (Cal. 2007) (limits on applying jury trial right; analyzes nature of action)
Crouchman v. Superior Court, 45 Cal.3d 1167 (Cal. 1988) (limits of jury trial in certain proceedings)
People v. One 1941 Chevrolet Coupe, 37 Cal.2d 283 (Cal. 1951) (gist-test and nature of action for jury trial)
Southern Service Co., Ltd. v. Los Angeles, 15 Cal.2d 1 (Cal. 1940) (statutory refund actions differ from common law; involuntary payment scope)
Hellman v. City of Los Angeles, 147 Cal. 653 (Cal. 1905) (statutory refund provisions abrogating common-law rule)
Wickwire v. Reinecke, 275 U.S. 101 (U.S. 1927) (Seventh Amendment not always controlling in tax refunds)
Elliott v. Swartwout, 35 U.S. 137 (U.S. 1836) (early refund action against collectors; evolving remedies)
City of Philadelphia v. The Collector, 72 U.S. 720 (U.S. 1866) (refund as money had and received theory; statutory context)