Annie H. Huang
Partner

Ms. Huang is a member of the Tax Section. Ms. Huang focuses on state and local tax matters, including income, franchise, property, and sales and use taxes. Her practice consists of state and local tax controversies at both administrative and judicial levels, tax planning and transactional work. Ms. Huang regularly practices before the California Franchise Tax Board (“FTB”) and the California State Board of Equalization (“SBE”). She has also represented multinational businesses in tax disputes with other jurisdictions.

Prior to joining the firm in 2001, Ms. Huang was a Tax Counsel to one of the State Board of Equalization Members. Her responsibilities included advising the Board Member on administrative appeals, as well as regulatory and legislative proposals, relating to income and property taxes.

Ms. Huang has been a speaker on state tax issues before such groups as the California Tax Policy Conference, the Council on State Taxation (COST), Tax Executives Institute (TEI), and the Institute for Professionals in Taxation (IPT).

• Apple v. Franchise Tax Board
• Case involving complex unitary business issues pertaining to the taxation of foreign dividends and the disallowance of interest expense deductions in a water's edge setting. In the first published court decision dealing with the interest expense issues, the California Court of Appeal concluded that Apple's interest expense deductions should be fully allowed.
  
  Beneficial New Jersey v. State of New Jersey 
• The lead case in New Jersey involving the interest add-back provisions and in which the New Jersey Tax Court concluded that the taxpayer's interest expense deductions should be allowed under the unreasonable exception.
  
  General Electric Company v. Franchise Tax Board
• Case challenging the validity of California’s controversial amnesty penalty.
  
  McGraw-Hill Companies v. Franchise Tax Board
• Refund action involving the issue whether a book publisher's use of the mark-to-market method of accounting for its customer paper, which was allowed for federal income tax purposes, should be allowed for California purposes.
  
  Beneficial California
• SBE appeal involving expense attribution issues. The taxpayer received dividends from an insurance subsidiary which were held to be deductible under California Revenue and Taxation Code ("R&TC") Section 24410. The FTB then attempted to disallow a portion of the taxpayer's interest expense deduction under R&TC Section 24425. We successfully argued that no interest expense deductions should be disallowed since there was no connection between the interest expense and the deductible dividends.
   
  Save Mart Supermarkets
• SBE appeal involving the issue whether the taxpayer was a qualified taxpayer for purposes of the Manufacturers' Investment Credit ("MIC"). In the first MIC case decided by the SBE, we successfully argued that the taxpayer's meat processing and bakery activities qualified for the MIC.
  
  Esprit de Corp.
• SBE appeal involving the issue whether interest expense incurred to fund a leveraged buyout is business or non-business. We successfully argued that the expense was non-business wholly allocable to California, the state of commercial domicile.

• Chambers USA, Tax: State & Local—California (2007-2008)
• Legal 500 US, Tax Controversy (2010-2012)
• Tax Disputes/Controversy Leaders' Guide, International Tax Review (2011)

Chair, Taxation Section, Barristers Club, Bar Association of San Francisco (2005-2006)

Past Chair, State and Local Tax Committee of the California State Bar Taxation Section (2007-2008)