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.com277. Pursuant to Sections 7 through 9 of Article I of the Constitution of the State, theState cannot deprive CA of property without due process of law.278. The Disputed Amount represents property that is owned by CA.279. By virtue of its June 2008 Demand, the State is attempting to deprive CA ofproperty in the form of the Disputed Amount.280. The State's effort to collect the Disputed Amount deprives CA of due process oflaw because CA has no right to appeal the State's calculation of CA's abandoned property, or itsefforts to collect the Disputed Amount from CA, to an administrative tribunal.281. The State's effort to collect the Disputed Amount further deprives CA of dueprocess of law because CA has no right to appeal the State's calculation of CA's abandonedproperty, or its efforts to collect the Disputed Amount from CA, to a Delaware court.282. Pursuant to the applicable Delaware regulations and statutes, CA therefore has noability to be heard or to otherwise present an appeal before an administrative or judicial tribunalregarding the State's improper efforts to deprive CA of its property.283. The Statute purports to abrogate the statutes of limitations of Delaware and everyother state, to the extent the Statute authorizes the State to escheat property that is no longerowned by a purported Owner because that Owner's rights in the property has expired due to theapplicable statute of limitations.284. The Statute purports to authorize the State to escheat property in such a mannerthat the State may exert rights greater than the rights of the purported Owners of the property.285. The Statute unconstitutionally impairs a Holder's right to contract, in violation ofthe Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments and the Contract Clause of the United States Constitution.- 81 –