CA, Inc.'s Answer and Counterclaim - Reed Smith

From the state tax library of Reed Smith LLPwww.reedsmith.com/DEtaxfor other related documents, please email ksollie@reedsmith.comThe State's Improper Demand for Documents and Use of Estimation53. During the VDA process, it became apparent to CA that the State’s goal was nolonger to act as its citizens’ custodian to reunite property owners with their property, but insteadthe State has used the Statute to attempt to maximize state revenue through baseless andunsupportable demands.54. This goal of maximizing revenue, rather than determining the proper amountactually owed by CA, is reflected in the State's ever-changing demands for information from CAduring the VDA process, all for the purpose of creating a pretext to estimate funds allegedlyowed to the State, rather than determining the actual funds owed to the State pursuant to CA’sbooks and records.55. As previously described, under the Supreme Court’s priority rules, where acompany’s records indicate the last known address of the Owner of abandoned property, thatproperty escheats first to the state of that address.56. In the many instances where CA's books and records show the last known addressfor the property now in dispute, only a small percentage of those addresses are located inDelaware.57. Since CA’s clear records would result in an “unacceptable” payment to the State,however, the State has simply refused, without any basis in fact or law and in an arbitrary andcapricious manner, to accept CA's books and records as proof of CA's abandoned propertyliability. Instead, regardless of what information CA has provided to the State, the State hasdemanded more, raising the bar to the point that it is nearly, if not entirely, impossible for CA tosatisfy the State's demands. Ironically, the State deems reliable any information that CAprovides which indicates that an estimation is warranted.- 47 –