Justia Tax Law Opinion Summaries

The dispute centers on groundwater management in the Tulare Lake groundwater subbasin, a high-priority basin under California’s Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (the Act). Local groundwater agencies developed and submitted a sustainability plan for the subbasin, but the Department of Water Resources twice found the plan inadequate. Following these determinations, the State Water Resources Control Board designated the Tulare subbasin as probationary, triggering state intervention and new monitoring, reporting, and fee requirements. In response, Kings County Farm Bureau and other parties filed a writ of mandate and complaint, challenging the State Board’s authority and actions, including the probationary designation and associated fees.The Superior Court of Kings County reviewed the Farm Bureau’s claims. It granted a preliminary injunction halting the State Board’s implementation of the probationary designation and denied in part the State Board’s demurrer to the complaint. Specifically, the trial court dismissed the equal protection claim with leave to amend but allowed the Farm Bureau to proceed on claims alleging improper underground regulations, unconstitutional fees, and general declaratory relief. The State Board then sought appellate review of the trial court’s order overruling its demurrer.The California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, reviewed the trial court’s decision de novo. It held that the Act exempts the State Board’s actions under the relevant statutory sections from the Administrative Procedures Act, precluding claims based on alleged underground regulations. The court further found that challenges to the extraction fees as unlawful taxes are barred by the “pay first” rule, requiring payment before judicial review. Finally, the court determined that declaratory relief is unavailable where the Legislature has provided a writ of mandate as the exclusive remedy. The appellate court issued a writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate its order overruling the demurrer and to grant the demurrer without leave to amend as to the sixth, seventh, and ninth causes of action. View "State Water Resources Control Bd. v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

The City of Los Angeles implemented the recycLA program in 2017, establishing exclusive franchise agreements with private waste haulers to provide waste collection services for commercial and multi-unit residential properties. Under these agreements, haulers paid the City a percentage of their gross receipts as a franchise fee. Several property owners and tenants who paid for waste hauling services under this system filed a consolidated class action against the City, alleging that the franchise fees were actually an unlawful tax imposed without voter approval, in violation of Proposition 218 and related constitutional provisions. The plaintiffs sought refunds of the alleged illegal taxes and declaratory relief regarding the validity of the fees.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County considered the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. While the court found the proposed class sufficiently numerous and ascertainable, and agreed that the question of whether the franchise fees constituted an illegal tax was subject to common proof, it identified a fundamental problem: not all proposed class members suffered an economic loss, as some landlords and property owners may have passed the cost of the fees on to tenants. The court concluded that entitlement to refunds was not susceptible to common proof and that individual issues predominated over common ones. It also found that a class action was not the superior method for resolving the dispute, due to the risk of unjust enrichment and the complexity of determining who actually bore the cost of the fees. The court denied class certification.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the trial court’s order under the substantial evidence standard. The appellate court affirmed the denial of class certification, holding that the trial court did not err in finding that individual issues predominated and that class treatment was not superior. The order denying class certification was affirmed. View "Leeds v. City of L.A." on Justia Law

The case concerns a challenge to the validity of Measure C, a citizens’ initiative placed on the ballot by the City of San Diego for the March 2020 election. Measure C proposed an increase in the city’s transient occupancy tax, with revenues earmarked for homelessness programs, street repairs, and convention center improvements. The measure also authorized the City to issue bonds repaid from the new tax revenues. Measure C received 65.24 percent of the vote, and the city council subsequently passed resolutions declaring the measure approved and authorizing the issuance of related bonds.After the election, Alliance San Diego and other plaintiffs filed actions challenging the City’s resolution declaring Measure C had passed, arguing it was invalid. The City responded with a validation complaint seeking judicial confirmation of the validity of Measure C and the related bond resolutions. California Taxpayers Action Network (CTAN) and other opponents answered, contending that Measure C required a two-thirds vote and was not a bona fide citizens’ initiative. The Superior Court of San Diego County initially granted a motion for judgment on the pleadings, finding that a two-thirds vote was required, and entered judgment against the City. On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, reversed and remanded for further proceedings to determine whether Measure C was a bona fide citizens’ initiative.On remand, the trial court conducted a bench trial and rejected CTAN’s arguments, finding that it had subject matter jurisdiction, the case was ripe, the special fund doctrine exempted the bonds from the two-thirds vote requirement, and Measure C was a bona fide citizens’ initiative requiring only a simple majority vote. The California Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s judgment, holding that Measure C and the related bond resolutions were valid, and that the trial court properly excluded certain hearsay evidence. View "Alliance San Diego v. California Taxpayers Action Network" on Justia Law

Several utility companies operating in California, including in Ventura County, challenged the property tax rates applied to their state-assessed utility property. They argued that the method used to calculate the debt service component of their property tax rate resulted in a higher rate than that applied to locally assessed, nonutility property (referred to as “common property”). The utilities claimed this disparity violated section 19 of article XIII of the California Constitution, which states that utility property “shall be subject to taxation to the same extent and in the same manner as other property.”The utilities filed suit in the Ventura County Superior Court against the County of Ventura and the California State Board of Equalization, seeking partial refunds for property taxes paid between 2018 and 2023. The County demurred, relying on recent appellate decisions that had rejected similar claims. The parties stipulated that the decision in County of Santa Clara v. Superior Court was binding for purposes of this case, and the trial court sustained the demurrer, entering judgment in favor of the County and the Board.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Six, reviewed the case de novo. The court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, holding that article XIII, section 19 does not require that utility property be taxed at the same or a comparable rate as nonutility property. Instead, the provision is an enabling clause that allows utility property to be subject to property taxation, but does not mandate rate equivalence. The court also found that the general uniformity requirement in article XIII, section 1 does not override the Legislature’s authority to implement reasonable distinctions in tax treatment for utility property. The judgment in favor of the County and the Board was affirmed. View "Pacific Bell Telephone Co. v. County of Ventura" on Justia Law

Several public utility companies challenged the property tax rates imposed by a California county, arguing that the “debt service component” of the county’s property tax rate for utility property was higher than the average rate for non-utility (common) property. The utilities claimed this violated article XIII, section 19 of the California Constitution, which states that utility property “shall be subject to taxation to the same extent and in the same manner as other property.” The utilities sought a partial refund of property taxes for several fiscal years, asserting that the constitutional provision required rate equality between utility and common property.The Superior Court of Riverside County allowed two local water districts to intervene, as they relied on property tax revenue for bond payments. The county demurred, relying on a recent decision from the California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, which had rejected a similar claim by utilities in another county. The utilities conceded that this precedent was binding on the trial court but preserved their arguments for appeal. The trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend and dismissed the case.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the case. It considered the text, structure, and legislative history of article XIII, section 19, as well as recent appellate decisions from other districts. The court held that the constitutional provision does not require that utility and common property be taxed at the same rates. Instead, it authorizes local ad valorem taxation of utility property, replacing the prior system of state-level in-lieu taxation, but does not impose a rate limitation. The court also found that prior California Supreme Court precedent did not mandate rate equality. The judgment dismissing the utilities’ lawsuit was affirmed. View "Pacific Bell Telephone Co. v. County of Riverside" on Justia Law

A company that sells jet fuel paid sales tax on all of its jet-fuel sales and later sought a refund, arguing that it should have been taxed on only 20 percent of those sales. The company’s position was based on a 1971 legislative amendment that partially exempted jet-fuel sales from local sales tax, and it contended that a 1991 legislative change eliminating this exemption was invalid because it was not approved by local voters as required by Proposition 62, which mandates voter approval for new or increased local taxes. The relevant counties had adopted ordinances in 1956 that imposed sales tax on all tangible personal property and included provisions automatically incorporating future amendments to the state’s sales tax laws, provided they were not inconsistent with the local ordinances.The Superior Court of Fresno County ruled in favor of the company, finding that the counties’ ordinances did not automatically incorporate the 1991 legislative change eliminating the jet-fuel exemption. The court concluded that the counties failed to pass new local ordinances implementing the change and that the full taxation of jet fuel without voter approval violated Proposition 62. The court ordered a refund and granted declaratory relief, allowing the company to pay tax only on 20 percent of future jet-fuel sales.The California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, reversed the trial court’s judgment. The appellate court held that the counties’ ordinances did automatically and lawfully incorporate the 1991 legislative elimination of the jet-fuel sales exemption. The court further held that Proposition 62 did not apply because the elimination of a tax exemption is not itself the imposition of a new tax; rather, it is a revision to an exemption within an existing, all-encompassing tax. Therefore, voter approval was not required for the change, and the company was not entitled to a refund. View "Southwest Jet Fuel Co. v. Dept. of Tax and Fee Administration" on Justia Law

Starbuzz International, Inc. and Starbuzz Tobacco, Inc. distributed shisha, a product containing less than 50 percent tobacco, in California between October 2012 and September 2015. During this period, they paid over $2.8 million in excise taxes under the state’s Tobacco Products Tax Law, which imposed taxes on “tobacco products” as defined by statute. Starbuzz later filed refund claims, arguing their shisha did not meet the statutory definition and was not taxable. The Office of Tax Appeals (OTA) agreed, finding the definition ambiguous and resolving it in Starbuzz’s favor, granting full refunds. After a rehearing, a second OTA panel reaffirmed this decision.Following these administrative victories, Starbuzz requested payment of the refunds from the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration. The Department, however, declined to issue the refunds immediately, citing a statutory requirement to review whether Starbuzz had collected the excise tax from its customers and, if so, whether those amounts had been returned to them. Starbuzz filed a petition for writ of mandate in the Superior Court of Sacramento County, arguing the Department had a ministerial duty to pay the refunds and was barred by res judicata from conducting further review. The trial court rejected Starbuzz’s arguments and denied the petition, entering judgment for the Department.The California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, reviewed the case and affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The court held that the Department’s obligation to review for excess tax reimbursement under section 30361.5 was distinct from the refund claim adjudicated by the OTA. The court found that res judicata did not apply because the primary right at issue in the OTA proceedings (freedom from improper taxation) was different from the right asserted in the current action (immediate refund without review for excess reimbursement). Thus, the Department could require a review before issuing refunds. View "Starbuzz International v. Department of Tax and Fee Administration" on Justia Law

Owners of timeshare estates in a resort sued the County of Riverside, challenging the legality of the 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 requiring voter approval, which had not been obtained.The Superior Court of Riverside County rejected the owners' argument and entered judgment for the County. The court ruled that the fee did not exceed the reasonable cost of the assessment and was not a tax requiring voter approval. The court also considered additional costs not included in the original fee calculation, such as costs related to assessment appeals and a new computer system.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the case. The court found that the County's methodology for setting the fee was flawed. The County had used the assessor's entire budget for a previous fiscal year to calculate the fee, which included costs unrelated to the separate timeshare assessments. The court also noted that the County had not provided evidence of the actual cost of the separate assessments and had improperly included costs for services provided to all property owners.The Court of Appeal concluded that the County did not meet its burden to prove that the fee was not a tax. The court reversed the judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings to determine the appropriate refund amount and to address the owners' requests for declaratory, injunctive, and writ relief. The court emphasized that the fee must be limited to the reasonable cost of the separate assessments and must bear a fair relationship to the benefits received by the timeshare estate owners. View "Scott v. County of Riverside" on Justia Law

The case involves Pacific Bell Telephone Company and other utilities suing the County of Napa and the state Board of Equalization for a refund of property taxes and declaratory relief. The utilities argue that from 2018 to 2023, the tax rates used to compute the debt-service component of their property taxes were higher than those applied to other properties, violating the California Constitution's requirement that public utility property be taxed in the same manner as other property.In the lower court, the trial court sustained the respondents' demurrer to the utilities' complaint without leave to amend, based on the precedent set by the Sixth District Court of Appeal in County of Santa Clara v. Superior Court, which held that the California Constitution does not mandate that public utility property be taxed at the same rate as other property. The trial court entered judgment in favor of the respondents.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, agreeing with the reasoning in Santa Clara and another case, Pacific Bell Telephone Co. v. County of Merced. The court concluded that the constitutional provision does not require the same or comparable debt-service tax rates for public utility and nonutility property. The court also rejected the utilities' claim that the tax rates violated the principle of taxation uniformity embodied in the California Constitution. The judgment in favor of the respondents was affirmed. View "Pacific Bell Telephone Co. v. County of Napa" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Steve Rogers filed a lawsuit against the City of Redlands, alleging that the rates for the City’s solid waste collection included a surcharge for a City program to repair roads, which he claimed violated Vehicle Code section 9400.8. The trial was bifurcated into two phases. In phase one, the trial court determined that section 9400.8 was violated. In phase two, the court ruled that refunds were limited to those who paid under protest pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 5472. Both the City and Rogers appealed these rulings.The Superior Court of San Bernardino County initially reviewed the case. In phase one, the court found that the surcharge for the City’s pavement accelerated repair implementation strategy (PARIS) program constituted a charge for the privilege of using the City’s streets, thus violating section 9400.8. In phase two, the court concluded that Health and Safety Code section 5472 limited refunds to those who paid under protest, denying Rogers the retrospective remedies he sought.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s rulings. It agreed that the surcharge for the PARIS program was indeed a charge for the privilege of using the City’s streets, prohibited by section 9400.8. The court also upheld the trial court’s application of Health and Safety Code section 5472, which limited refunds to those who paid under protest. The appellate court found no error in the trial court’s decisions and affirmed the judgment in its entirety. View "Rogers v. City of Redlands" on Justia Law