In re Rowley, 208 B.R. 942 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1997)
          Husband and wife did not fail to file mandatory “return” for purposes of discharge by failing to notify state when I.R.S. imposes tax deficiency assessment.

In re Vitaliano, 178 B.R. 205 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1995)
          I.R.S. agent’s report on changes in individual’s tax returns not “notice” to state tax board for purposes of statute that sets time limits for board’s assessing deficiency based upon changes.

          “[O]ther than a tax specified in section 523(a)(1)(B) or 523(a)(1)(C) of this title, not assessed before, but assessable, under applicable law or by agreement, after, the commencement of this case . . .

           “The trial court rule that since the taxes were properly assessable (and did not come within the definition of 11 U.S.C. section 523(a)(1)(B) or (C)), they were allowed priority claims under 11 . . . ”

In re Camilli,  94 F.3d 1330 (9th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, Camilli v. Industrial Com’n of Arizona, 519 U.S. 1113 (1997)
          Claim by state agency for reimbursement of workers’ compensation benefits paid to debtor’s employee does not constitute nondischargeable excise tax. It is a fee.

In re Bracey, 170 B.R. 398 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1994), aff’d in part and reversed in part, 77 F.3d 294 (9th Cir. 1996)
          Discharge of Franchise Tax Board obligations - when a protest is “filed.” See also In re King, 961 F.2d 1423 (9th Cir. 1992).

In re King, 122 B.R. 383 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1991), aff’d, 961 F.2d 1423 (9th Cir. 1992)
          Tax assessment not dischargeable when 60 day final period fell within 240 days of petition

In re George, 95 B.R. 718 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1989), aff’d, George v. Calif. State Bd. Of Equalization, 905 F.2d 1540 (9th Cir. 1990)
          Responsible officer liability is a nondischargeable tax.