Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

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