Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The prior owners were unable to pay the property taxes on the shopping center beginning in 2010. When petitioner purchased the property, taxes assessed for fiscal years 2010-2011, 2011-2012, and 2012-2013 were delinquent, totaling $568,627.94. Petitioner requested that the tax collector cancel penalties. Revenue and Taxation Code section 4985.2(a) provides that a penalty resulting from failure to make a timely property tax payment may be canceled if the failure “is due to reasonable cause and circumstances beyond the taxpayer’s control ... notwithstanding the exercise of ordinary care in the absence of willful neglect, provided the principal payment for the proper amount of the tax due is made.” The tax collector determined only $2,670.10 of the $142,521.68 in penalties should be waived, because the statement for the second installment of taxes due in the 2012-2013 fiscal year had been mailed to the previous owners’ address. The trial court dismissed the owner’s suit, concluding that writ of mandate was not the appropriate remedy and payment of the tax was a prerequisite to cancellation of penalties and the taxes had not been paid. The court of appeal affirmed. View "Ashlan Park Center, LLC v. Crow" on Justia Law

The law firm challenged the validity and scope of Proposition Q, which amended the Payroll Expense Tax Ordinance of the City and County of San Francisco (San Francisco Bus. & Tax Reg. Code, article 12-A, 901). Plaintiff paid the payroll expense tax calculated under Proposition Q, and the city rejected its Administrative claim. The firm sought a refund of that portion of the tax that it paid on the profits distributed to its equity partners. The court of appeal dismissed an appeal, ruling that some portion of the firm’s profit distributions to its equity partners represents “compensation for services,” to be included in the payroll expense tax base and that Proposition Q does not violate either article XIIIC of the California Constitution. View "Coblentz, Patch, Duffy & Bass, LLP v. City & Co. of San Francisco" on Justia Law

The Fresno County Assessor audited the partnership regarding personal property for tax years 1994-2001, which resulted in assessment of additional taxes for farm equipment. In 2007, the partnership attempted to apply for changed assessment to cancel the assessment under Revenue and Taxation Code section 4986 on the ground that it did not own that personal property. The Assessment Appeals Board returned the applications as untimely. In 2010, the partnership sought a declaratory judgment that the subject properties did not exist and the assessments should be cancelled. The trial court dismissed on the ground that it was seeking to enjoin the collection of property taxes in violation of the California Constitution. The court concluded that the partnership was required to first pay the tax and then seek a refund. By checks in 2011-2012, the partnership paid the disputed taxes in full, with penalties and interest. The partnership’s refund claims were rejected, so it filed suit. The trial court concluded that the partnership was required to seek reduction of the assessment and that the action was barred for failure to do so. The court of appeal reversed, noting the partnership’s argument that it did not own the assessed property on the applicable dates, so that the assessments were “nullities.” View "Williams & Fickett v. Cnty. of Fresno" on Justia Law

The State Board of Equalization (SBE) interprets the Uniform Local Sales and Use Tax Law 7200 and the California Sales and Use Tax Law 6001 so that retail sales of tangible personal property stored, used, or consumed in California are subject to state sales tax when a California business is involved in the sale and title passes to the customer in California. If these conditions are not satisfied, the sale is subject to a use tax. Sales subject to state sales tax are subject to local sales tax; if state use tax applies, local use tax applies. Local sales tax revenue goes to the city where the sale was consummated while local use tax revenue is distributed out of a countywide pool. The city in which the sale was transacted usually receives less when use tax is imposed. Cities sued, claiming that all sales negotiated in a business in their city should be subject to local sales tax, even when the item is shipped from out of state to the consumer and the transaction is, therefore, subject to state use tax. The trial court agreed with the cities, but denied retroactive relief. The court of appeal reversed, in favor of SBE’s use of the Uniform Commercial Code to determine when title passed. View "So. San Francisco v. Bd. of Equalization" on Justia Law

Serban worked as a massage therapist at Voda Spa. Serban and Voda Spa disagree as to why he left that work, but the trial court found Serban had good cause to leave and that finding was not challenged. They also disputed whether Serban was an employee or independent contractor. The California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board found that he was an employee, not an independent contractor, and the trial court agreed with the Board that its decision was not subject to judicial review because both the California Constitution and the Unemployment Insurance Code bar actions whose purpose is to prevent the collection of state taxes. The court of appeal reversed, agreeing that the case does not challenge the imposition of a tax.View "W. Hollywood Cmty. Health & Fitness Ctr. v. CA Unemp. Ins. Appeals Bd." on Justia Law

In this tax refund case, Chevron challenged the method by which the Kern County Assessor and Assessment Appeals Board valued oil and gas wells as new construction during three tax years, Rev. & Tax. Code, 5140 et seq. The trial court found that the Board used the wrong valuation method and remanded. Both parties appealed. The court concluded that Chevron has standing to maintain this action; concluded that the Board did not abuse its discretion or act contrary to law when it approved the assessor's valuation method; rejected Chevron's exemption argument; and reversed in part, affirming in part.View "Chevron USA v. County of Kern" on Justia Law

The issue this case presented for the Court of Appeal centered on a property tax refund action for the 2007 tax year filed by plaintiff, Verizon California Inc. The trial court dismissed the case after it sustained defendants’ demurrer without leave to amend. Defendants are the Board of Equalization and nine individual counties. Verizon owned property in 38 counties, but it sought a refund for taxes paid for the 2007 tax year only from nine counties. The trial court sustained the demurrer on the ground Verizon failed to name indispensable parties, i.e., 29 absent counties in which Verizon owns property, even though Verizon sought no refund from those counties, pursuant to Rev. & Tax. Code, secs. 741, 5148, subds. (e)-(g). With the statute of limitations having run on filing a complaint against the absent parties, the case was dismissed. After its review, the Court of Appeal concluded section 5148 did not require a plaintiff to name as a defendant every county in which it owns property, unless it is seeking a refund from the county. Furthermore, the Court concluded that in this case the trial court abused its discretion in finding the absent counties were indispensable parties: "There is no evidence in the record that the absent counties will necessarily be affected in the future by a change in the 2007 assessment, and the absent counties’ object in seeing that the Board appraise the property at its highest value in future tax years will be adequately litigated by the named defendants."View "Verizon California v. Bd. of Equalization" on Justia Law

Ardmore paid a county demand notice for a documentary transfer tax and then filed a tax refund action, contending that Revenue and Taxation Code section 11911 does not authorize a documentary transfer tax based on the change in ownership of a legal entity that owns the legal entity that holds title to realty. The court affirmed the trial court's entry of judgment for the county, concluding that section 11911 permits a documentary transfer tax when a transfer of interest in a legal entity results in a "change of ownership" within the meaning of Revenue and Taxation Code section 64, subdivision (c) or (d). Therefore, the county was permitted to impose a transfer tax.View "926 North Ardmore Ave., LLC v. County of L.A." on Justia Law

Nearly 15 years after the Orange County Assessor established the base year value used to assess real property taxes against plaintiff William Jefferson & Co., Inc.'s property, the company appealed to defendant Assessment Appeals Board claiming the Assessor made a clerical error in valuing the property. The Appeals Board conducted an evidentiary hearing and denied the appeal on the ground plaintiff had waited too long to challenge the Assessor's base year value determination. The Appeals Board found plaintiff based its appeal not on a clerical error but on the Assessor's error in judging the property's value, and therefore plaintiff failed to comply with Revenue and Taxation Code sections 51.5, subdivision (b), and 80, subdivision (a)(3), which required plaintiff to appeal within four years of the Assessor's base year value determination. Plaintiff filed suit seeking to compel the Appeals Board to grant its appeal and direct the Assessor to change the property's base year value. However, plaintiff failed to address the Appeals Board's determination that it lacked jurisdiction to grant plaintiff's appeal, instead relying on the Assessor's allegedly erroneous property valuation. The trial court granted the Appeals Board summary judgment because plaintiff challenged the merits of the Assessor's valuation and therefore had to bring this action against the County of Orange and not the Appeals Board. Finding no reversible error, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's decision. View "Wm. Jefferson & Co. v. Assessment Appeals Bd." on Justia Law