Justia Tax Law Opinion Summaries

Owners of timeshare estates in a resort sued the County of Riverside, challenging the legality of an annual fee charged for separate property tax assessments. The owners argued that the fee exceeded the reasonable cost of providing the assessment, constituting a tax that required voter approval, which had not been obtained. The trial court rejected the owners' argument and ruled in favor of the County.The Superior Court of Riverside County entered judgment for the County, finding that the fee did not exceed the reasonable cost of providing the separate assessment. The court considered various costs, including those related to a new computer system and assessment appeals, even though these costs were not included in the original budget used to set the fee.The Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, State of California, reversed the trial court's decision. The appellate court held that the County did not meet its burden to prove that the $23 fee was not a tax requiring voter approval under Article XIII C of the California Constitution. The court found that the County's methodology for setting the fee was flawed, as it included costs unrelated to the specific service of providing separate timeshare assessments and did not accurately reflect the actual cost of the service. The court also ruled that the trial court erred in considering costs incurred after the fiscal year used to set the fee.The appellate court remanded the case for further proceedings to determine the appropriate refund amount and to decide on the declaratory, injunctive, and/or writ relief sought by the owners. The County must prove the reasonable and necessary costs of providing the separate assessment service, excluding costs for valuing the timeshare project as a whole. View "Scott v. County of Riverside" on Justia Law

Utility companies operating in Placer County, California, filed a complaint against the County and the Board of Equalization, seeking a refund of taxes. They alleged that the tax rate imposed on their state-assessed property was unconstitutionally higher than the rate imposed on locally-assessed property. The tax rate for state-assessed property is calculated under Revenue and Taxation Code section 100, while locally-assessed property is taxed under a different formula. The utility companies argued that this discrepancy violated article XIII, section 19 of the California Constitution, which mandates that utility property be taxed to the same extent and in the same manner as other property.The Superior Court of Placer County sustained the County's demurrer, effectively dismissing the complaint. The trial court relied on the precedent set by the appellate court in County of Santa Clara v. Superior Court, which held that the tax rates imposed on utility property were constitutional. The utility companies acknowledged that the Santa Clara decision was binding on the trial court but maintained that they had a good faith basis for their claims on appeal.The California Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District reviewed the case. The court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the utility companies had not established that the trial court erred. The appellate court found that the utility companies did not present a valid basis for defining comparability to state a valid claim. The court noted that while the utility companies argued for comparable tax rates, they failed to provide a clear standard or formula to determine what constitutes comparability. Consequently, the court held that the utility companies did not meet their burden of proving that the County's tax rates were unconstitutional. View "Pacific Bell Telephone Co. v. County of Placer" on Justia Law

Medtronic USA, Inc. (Medtronic) manufactures insertable cardiac monitors (RICMs) that are implanted in a patient's chest to monitor heart rhythms and detect cardiac arrhythmias. The California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (Tax Department) collected sales tax on these devices. Medtronic argued that the devices should be exempt from sales tax under Revenue and Taxation Code section 6369 and Regulation 1591, which define "medicines" exempt from tax. After exhausting administrative remedies, Medtronic filed a lawsuit seeking a refund of the collected taxes, totaling $3,329,195.79, but the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Tax Department.The trial court ruled that the RICMs did not qualify as "medicines" under the relevant tax exemption statutes and regulations. Medtronic appealed the decision, arguing that both the Tax Department and the trial court misinterpreted the law. The appeal was heard by the Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District, Division Two.The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that the RICMs are not exempt from sales tax. The court found that the devices are classified as "instruments, apparatus, contrivances, appliances, devices, or other mechanical, electronic, optical, or physical equipment," which are explicitly excluded from the definition of "medicines" under section 6369, subdivision (b)(2). Additionally, the court determined that the RICMs do not "assist the functioning of any natural organ" as required by subdivision (c)(2) for exemption, as their primary function is diagnostic rather than directly aiding organ function. The court emphasized that tax exemptions must be clearly mandated by statute and are strictly construed against the taxpayer. View "Medtronic USA v. Department of Tax and Fee Administration" on Justia Law

Carlos and Ana Carachure filed a lawsuit against the City of Azusa, claiming the City violated article XIII D of the California Constitution by charging sewer and trash franchise fees that exceeded the cost of providing those services and using the fees to fund general city services. The City argued that the Carachures failed to exhaust their administrative remedies because they did not follow the statutory procedures for a refund, which require paying the fees under protest and filing a claim for a refund. The trial court agreed with the City and entered judgment in its favor.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County ruled that the Carachures were required to file a claim for a refund with the City before seeking judicial relief, as they claimed the fees were illegally collected or assessed. The court denied the Carachures' petition for a writ of mandate and entered judgment for the City. The Carachures filed a motion for a new trial and to vacate the judgment, arguing the trial court relied on inapplicable property tax cases and the current version of the Revenue and Taxation Code. The trial court denied the motion.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District, Division Seven, reviewed the case and reversed the trial court's judgment. The appellate court held that the Carachures' constitutional challenge to the City's collection and use of franchise fees seeks relief outside the scope of the statutory claims procedure for refunds. The court concluded that the Carachures did not have to file a claim for a refund before bringing this action, as their challenge was not an action for a refund governed by section 5472 and Article 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. The judgment was reversed, allowing the Carachures to proceed with their constitutional claims. View "Carachure v. City of Azusa" on Justia Law

Great Oaks Water Company, a private water retailer, sued the Santa Clara Valley Water District, alleging that the district’s groundwater pumping charges were unlawful taxes levied without voter approval, violating Proposition 26. Great Oaks argued that the charges exceeded the reasonable costs of the governmental activity and were unfairly allocated, benefiting other water users to which Great Oaks had no access. Additionally, Great Oaks contended that the district’s use of ad valorem property taxes to subsidize agricultural groundwater pumping charges was unconstitutional.The trial court ruled in favor of the water district, finding that the groundwater charges did not exceed the costs of the district’s overall water management program. The court held that it was reasonable to use these charges to pay for the program because non-agricultural groundwater pumpers, like Great Oaks, received significant benefits from it. The charges were deemed reasonably allocated on a volumetric basis, and the agricultural discount was found constitutionally valid as it was funded by ad valorem property taxes, not by non-agricultural pumpers.The California Court of Appeal for the Sixth Appellate District affirmed the trial court’s decision. The appellate court concluded that the groundwater charges were not “taxes” under Proposition 26 because they fell under exceptions for specific benefits conferred or government services provided directly to the payor. The court found that the water district proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the charges were no more than necessary to cover the reasonable costs of the governmental activity and that the costs were fairly allocated to Great Oaks. The court also upheld the use of ad valorem taxes to fund the agricultural discount, finding no violation of the California Constitution or the Water Code. View "Great Oaks Water Co. v. Santa Clara Valley Water Dist." on Justia Law

The case involves five public utilities operating in California, including Pacific Bell Telephone Company and AT&T Mobility LLC, which challenged the property tax rates imposed by Merced County for the fiscal years 2017-2018 and 2018-2019. The utilities argued that the tax rates applied to their properties exceeded the permissible rates under Section 19 of Article XIII of the California Constitution, which they interpreted as requiring utility property to be taxed at the same rate as non-utility property.In the Superior Court of Merced County, the utilities sought partial refunds of the property taxes paid, claiming that the tax rates levied on them were higher than the average tax rates in the county. The County demurred, relying on the precedent set by the Sixth District in County of Santa Clara v. Superior Court, which held that Section 19 does not mandate the same tax rate for utility property as for locally assessed property. The utilities conceded that Santa Clara was binding but sought to challenge its holding on appeal. The Superior Court dismissed the case, and the utilities filed a timely notice of appeal.The California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the lower court's judgment. The court held that Section 19 of Article XIII of the California Constitution does not require utility property to be taxed at the same rate as non-utility property. Instead, the court interpreted the relevant language as an enabling clause, allowing utility property to be subject to taxation, rather than a limiting clause mandating equal tax rates. The court found that the historical context, language, and structure of Section 19 supported this interpretation, and thus, Merced County's application of the tax rates did not violate the constitutional provision. View "Pacific Bell Telephone Co. v. County of Merced" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Ahmad Skouti and Faten M. Kour purchased a citrus orchard using proceeds from a jury award for the destruction of their grapevines. Under Internal Revenue Code section 1033, taxpayers can avoid recognizing gain from involuntary conversions if they purchase similar property. The Franchise Tax Board (Board) determined that the citrus orchard was not similar to the grapevines and denied the plaintiffs the benefit of section 1033. After exhausting administrative remedies, the plaintiffs filed a complaint in the trial court seeking a tax refund.The Superior Court of Sacramento County reviewed the case. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment. The trial court granted the Board’s motion and denied the plaintiffs’ motion, concluding that the citrus orchard, which included both land and mature trees, was not sufficiently similar to the grapevines to qualify for nonrecognition of gain under section 1033. The plaintiffs appealed this decision.The California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the trial court’s decision, agreeing with the Board that the properties were not similar under section 1033. The court held that the plaintiffs’ investment in grapevines, which are agricultural fixtures, was not equivalent to an investment in land with citrus trees. The court emphasized that the risks and management associated with grapevines were different from those associated with land containing citrus trees. Therefore, the plaintiffs did not achieve a sufficient continuity of investment to justify nonrecognition of the gain. The judgment of the trial court was affirmed, and the plaintiffs’ appeal was denied. View "Skouti v. Franchise Tax Board" on Justia Law

The case involves James B. Church & Associates, P.C. (the Church Firm), which served as legal counsel for Dennis Shogren, the personal representative of the estate of Loren R. Kirk, in a probate action. The estate beneficiaries, including Barbara Sagehorn and the Carter Beneficiaries, alleged that the Church Firm negligently failed to file a protective claim for a refund with the IRS or advise Shogren to do so. This failure purportedly resulted in the estate missing out on a potential $5,000,000 tax refund.The Superior Court of San Bernardino denied the Church Firm's special motion to strike the causes of action under the anti-SLAPP statute. The court found that the firm did not demonstrate that the causes of action arose from its constitutionally protected free speech or petitioning activities. The Church Firm appealed this decision.The Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, State of California, reviewed the case. The court conducted an independent review and agreed with the lower court's ruling. It determined that the alleged acts forming the basis of the petitioners' causes of action—specifically, the Church Firm's failure to file a protective claim for a refund and failure to advise Shogren to file such a claim—were not protected activities under the anti-SLAPP statute. The court emphasized that the anti-SLAPP statute protects statements or writings made before or in connection with an issue under consideration by a judicial body, not failures to act or speak.Therefore, the Court of Appeal affirmed the order denying the anti-SLAPP motion, concluding that the Church Firm did not meet its burden of proving that the causes of action arose from protected conduct. View "Callister v. James B. Church & Associates" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute between the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association (Howard Jarvis) and the Coachella Valley Water District (Water District). Howard Jarvis challenged the Water District's replenishment charges, alleging they violated Propositions 26 and 218 and unfairly subsidized large agricultural property owners. The lawsuit named the Water District, three board members, the general manager, and three consulting firms as defendants. The complaint included causes of action for writ of mandate, conversion, aiding and abetting, civil conspiracy, violation of the Unfair Competition Law (UCL), and declaratory relief.The Superior Court of Riverside County denied the defendants' anti-SLAPP motion, finding the public interest exemption applied. The court also sustained the defendants' demurrer to the first amended complaint, dismissing some causes of action without leave to amend and others with leave to amend. Howard Jarvis filed a second amended complaint, which the court again dismissed, finding the claims time-barred under the validation statutes. The court awarded Howard Jarvis over $180,000 in attorney's fees, deeming the anti-SLAPP motion frivolous.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the case. The court held that the public interest exemption to the anti-SLAPP statute did not apply because the lawsuit improperly targeted individual board members and the general manager for actions only the Water District could perform. The court found that most of the causes of action arose from protected activity and that Howard Jarvis failed to demonstrate a probability of success on the merits. Consequently, the anti-SLAPP motion should have been granted in large part, and the fee award was reversed. The court also affirmed the trial court's order sustaining the demurrer, as the remaining claims against the anti-SLAPP defendants were moot or failed as a matter of law. View "Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. v. Powell" on Justia Law

In 2020, Bryce D. Hovannisian and Lindsay E. Hovannisian purchased several tax-defaulted properties at a tax sale from the City of Fresno. Prior to the sale, the City had recorded special assessments for nuisance abatement costs and unpaid penalties against these properties. After the purchase, the County of Fresno issued tax bills to the appellants, which included these special assessments. The appellants sought to pay only the portion of the tax bills excluding the special assessments, arguing that the tax sale should have removed these liens. The County rejected their partial payments, leading the appellants to sue the City and the County to quiet title to the properties.The Superior Court of Fresno County sustained three separate demurrers filed by the City and the County, asserting that Revenue and Taxation Code section 4807 barred the suit as it impeded tax collection. The court granted leave to amend after the first two demurrers but denied it after the third. The court found that the appellants were required to pay the taxes and then seek a refund, rather than challenging the assessments prepayment.The California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, reviewed the case and affirmed the trial court's ruling. The appellate court held that the special assessments were collected at the same time and in the same manner as county taxes, thus falling under the definition of "taxes" in section 4801. Consequently, section 4807 barred the appellants' prepayment suit. The court also found that the appellants had an adequate remedy at law through a refund action, which precluded them from seeking equitable relief. The judgment of the lower court was affirmed, and the appellants were directed to pay the taxes and seek a refund if necessary. View "Hovannisian v. City of Fresno" on Justia Law