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.com75. The State's demands for property to which it is not entitled under the law isconsistent with the State's practice of utilizing its Statute as a source of generating substantialrevenue for the State in an arbitrary and capricious manner and without any basis in law or fact.76. The State's demand for abandoned and unclaimed property to which it is notentitled constitutes a taking from CA.77. Based in part upon the fact that the State knows that many of its demands areimproper under well-established legal principles, the State is acting arbitrarily and capriciouslyin seeking to maximize state revenue at the expense of the corporations that chose to organize inDelaware.CA's Response to the State's Improper Demands78. CA requested additional time to assess the State's January 15 th demand andanalyze the discrepancy between the State's demand and CA's calculation of the amount owed tothe State, which was based on CA's self-audit and records.79. On or about February 12, 2008, CA notified the State that it disputed the amountof abandoned property identified by the State as being owed to it, and provided materials to theState in support of its calculation of the amount owed to the State. A true and accurate copy of aletter from CA to Camilla M. Ridgeway, dated February 12, 2008, is attached hereto as ExhibitC.80. CA agreed to pay some of the increased amount reflected in the State's demand ina showing of good faith and in an effort to compromise and resolve its differences with the State.CA also specifically addressed the inaccuracies contained in the State's calculation in manycategories of property, and provided additional information to the State in order to clarify thoseissues for the State.- 54 –