Justia Tax Law Opinion Summaries

Carlton Loeber, the trustor of an irrevocable trust owning two undeveloped properties within the Lakeside Joint School District, sought to place an initiative on the ballot to exempt taxpayers over 65 from any district parcel tax on undeveloped parcels. The district declined to call the election, citing cost concerns and legal objections. Loeber filed a petition for a writ of mandate to compel the district to place the initiative on the ballot. The trial court dismissed the petition, ruling that Loeber lacked standing.The trial court found that Loeber did not have a direct and substantial interest in the initiative because he did not personally own property in the district and failed to show that the trust could qualify for the exemption. The court also rejected Loeber’s public interest standing argument, noting the lack of public engagement and the significant cost to the district. The court concluded that the public need was not weighty enough to warrant the application of the public interest exception.The California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, reviewed the case and determined that Loeber had standing under the public interest exception, given the significant public right at issue concerning the initiative power. However, the court concluded that the proposed initiative did not fall within the scope of Article XIII C, Section 3 of the California Constitution, which allows initiatives to reduce or repeal local taxes. The court held that the initiative, which sought to create a new exemption for certain taxpayers, did not constitute "reducing" a tax within the meaning of the constitutional provision. Consequently, the district was not obligated to call an election on the initiative. The judgment was modified to deny the writ petition and affirmed as modified. View "Loeber v. Lakeside Joint School District" on Justia Law

In 2015, GPT Maple Avenue Owner, LP (GPT) purchased a property that was subject to a lease to Equinix, LLC (Equinix). At the time of GPT’s acquisition, the remaining term of the lease was 26 years. The Los Angeles County Assessor’s Office (Assessor) determined that GPT’s acquisition resulted in a “change in ownership” permitting reassessment for property tax purposes because, at the time of the sale, the remaining term of the lease was under 35 years. This was based on the statutes implementing Proposition 13, which state that whether the transfer of a lessor’s interest in taxable real property results in a change in ownership generally depends on the length of the remaining lease term at the time of the transfer.Equinix appealed the Assessor’s 2015 change in ownership determination to the Los Angeles County Assessment Appeals Board, which found in favor of the county. Equinix and GPT then presented a refund claim to the county, which the county denied. Equinix and GPT filed a lawsuit, and the trial court ruled in favor of the county, concluding that, under the “express language” of the relevant statutes, the sale of the Property to GPT in March 2015 resulted in a change in ownership because at the time of sale the remaining term of Equinix’s lease was less than 35 years.In the Court of Appeal of the State of California Second Appellate District Division One, the court affirmed the trial court’s decision. The court found that under the unambiguous language of the relevant statute, the 2015 transaction is a change in ownership permitting reassessment. The court rejected the appellants' arguments that the statute is inconsistent with Proposition 13 and another section in the statutory scheme. The court also rejected the appellants' argument that the statute is inconsistent with the overarching rules set forth in another section of the law. The court concluded that the Legislature was not required to adhere to the task force’s recommendations and that the statute as enacted did not render the law illogical. View "Equinix LLC v. County of Los Angeles" on Justia Law

This case involves a dispute over the taxation of cell phones sold in California as part of a "bundled transaction," in which a consumer purchases the phone at a reduced price from a wireless service provider in exchange for signing a contract for future wireless service. The plaintiffs challenged a state regulation that calculates sales tax on the full, unbundled price of the phone, rather than the discounted price paid by the consumer. They argued that this regulation violated the Revenue and Taxation Code and was not properly adopted under the Administrative Procedures Act.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Third Appellate District, rejected these arguments. It concluded that the Department of Tax and Fee Administration could allocate a portion of the contract price in a bundled transaction to the cell phone and tax it accordingly. It also found that the regulation was properly adopted under the Administrative Procedures Act.The court noted that, while services are not taxable under California law, the sale of a cell phone as part of a bundled transaction is not a true discount because the wireless service provider recoups the cost of the phone through the service contract. Therefore, the Department could reasonably allocate a portion of the contract price to the phone and tax it accordingly. The court also concluded that the regulation had been properly adopted under the Administrative Procedures Act, rejecting the plaintiffs' arguments that the Department had failed to properly assess the regulation's economic impact and provide adequate notice to the public.As a result, the court reversed the portion of the lower court judgment that invalidated the regulation and prohibited the Department from applying it to bundled transactions. It remanded the case with instructions to deny the plaintiffs' petition for a writ of prohibition. View "Bekkerman v. California Department Of Tax and Fee Administration" on Justia Law

In the case before the Court of Appeal of the State of California First Appellate District Division Two, the appellant, Debra Abney, challenged the decision of the State Department of Health Care Services and the City and County of San Francisco to consider money garnished from her Social Security payments as income for the purposes of determining her eligibility for benefits under Medi-Cal.Abney's Social Security payments were being reduced by nearly $600 each month to satisfy a debt she owed to the IRS. The authorities considered this garnished money as income, which led to Abney being ineligible to receive Medi-Cal benefits without contributing a share of cost. Abney argued that the money being garnished was not income “actually available to meet her needs” under the regulations implementing the Medi-Cal program.The trial court rejected Abney's argument, and she appealed. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's decision. The Court of Appeal held that the tax garnishment was "actually available" to meet Abney's needs because it benefitted her financially by helping to extinguish her debt to the IRS. Therefore, the garnished money was correctly considered as income for the purpose of calculating her eligibility for the Medi-Cal program. View "Abney v. State Dept. of Health Care Services" on Justia Law

In this case, the Greenspan family bought a home in Long Beach, California, for $900,000 in 2014. The land was valued at $540,000 and the improvements (the home itself) at $360,000. Two years later, the Greenspans demolished the original residence, except for the garage, and built a new home on the property. The County of Los Angeles then reappraised the property, reducing the value of the improvements to $40,000 and increasing the value of the land to $860,000. The County then added the appraised value of the new construction to the newly allocated land and improvement values. The Greenspans contested this reappraisal, arguing that the County's reallocation of their base-year land and improvement value was contrary to law. The trial court found in favor of the County, and the Greenspans appealed.The Court of Appeal of the State of California Second Appellate District reversed the trial court's decision. The court found that the County's automatic reallocation of the base-year value for the entire structure removed, leaving only a "credit" for the remaining garage, was contrary to Revenue and Taxation Code sections 51 and 75.10, which require that a property owner receive a reduction in previously assessed base values for portions of any property removed. The court held that the County's automatic reappraisal policy, based on the assumption that a property owner bought the property for the land value alone if substantial renovation occurred within two years, was inconsistent with Proposition 13 and statutory valuation standards. The court remanded the case to the trial court with directions to enter a new judgment vacating the decision of the Board and remanding the matter for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Greenspan v. County of Los Angeles" on Justia Law

Proposition 39 established a program to promote the creation of clean energy jobs. Under Proposition 39, a multistate business must apportion its tax based on a single factor—in-state sales. The proposition further provided for cable companies spending $250 million or more in California on certain expenditures to exclude half of their in-state sales when apportioning, thus lowering their tax burden under the single factor tax regime. Paintiff One Technologies, LLC, a Texas-based provider of credit score and credit reporting services, paid tax to California calculated under the single-factor method. Plaintiff then filed a complaint for refund against Defendant Franchise Tax Board (the Board). Plaintiff alleged Proposition 39 was invalid under the single-subject rule for ballot initiatives. The trial court disagreed and sustained the Board’s demurrer.   The Second Appellate District affirmed. The court held that Proposition 39 did not violate the single-subject rule. The purpose of the proposition was to fund a clean energy job creation program by raising taxes on some multistate businesses. The provisions of the proposition were both reasonably germane and functionally related to that purpose because those provisions established a funding mechanism and the means of directing that funding to clean energy job creation. The special rules for cable companies reflect a determination by the proposition’s drafters that some businesses should bear the funding burden more than others, but that is still within the scope of the proposition’s purpose. View "One Technologies, LLC v. Franchise Tax Bd." on Justia Law

Petitioner FlightSafety International, Inc. appeals from the judgment entered after the trial court denied its two consolidated petitions for writs of mandate. The trial court found that FlightSafety was not entitled to mandamus relief because it had an adequate remedy at law, which it had bypassed. FlightSafety contended in the trial court that it was entitled to a decision by the Los Angeles County Assessment Appeals Board (AAB) on its assessment appeal applications within the two-year period specified in Revenue and Taxation Code section 1604, subdivision (c). FlightSafety argued the extensions had expired as a matter of law two years from the date of filing. It argued it therefore had not received timely hearings on its applications. FlightSafety asked the trial court to order the AAB to schedule hearings forthwith and, in the meantime, enter its own opinion of the value of its property on the tax assessment rolls. The trial court found writ relief was not available. Plaintiff contends the trial court erroneously found the extension agreements valid and mandamus relief unavailable.   The Second Appellate District affirmed. The court explained that none of the four cases relied upon by Petitioner considered whether the applicant had an adequate remedy for the AAB’s refusal to place the applicant’s opinion of value on the assessment rolls. Thus, none of the cases stand for the proposition that a tax refund action is an inadequate remedy in all cases seeking relief for an AAB’s action (or inaction) under section 1604. View "FlightSafety International v. L.A. County Assessment Appeals Bd." on Justia Law

Over the last five decades, California voters have adopted several initiatives limiting the authority of state and local governments to impose taxes without voter approval, including adding Article XIII C of the California Constitution, which requires local and regional governmental entities to secure voter approval for new or increased taxes and defines taxes broadly to include any charges imposed by those entities unless they fall into one of seven enumerated exceptions. The second exception covers charges for services or products that do not exceed reasonable costs. Boyd contends that the electricity rates charged by a regional governmental entity, 3CE, are invalid because they are taxes under Article XIII C that voters have not approved.The court of appeal affirmed the dismissal of the suit; 3CE’s rates are taxes under Article XIII C’s general definition of taxes, but they fall within the second exception because 3CE proved that its rates do not exceed its reasonable costs. View "Boyd v. Central Coast Community Energy" on Justia Law

Respondent Paramount Pictures Corporation (Paramount) sought a refund of taxes paid on its personal property for the 2011 tax year. Paramount first appealed to the Los Angeles County Assessment Appeals Board (the Board). The property was assessed a final value of $137,397,278. Following a hearing, the Board agreed with the valuation proposed by the Assessor and found that Paramount failed to carry its burden of demonstrating additional obsolescence. Paramount appealed the Board’s decision to the trial court. The trial court found: (1) the Board committed a methodological error in excluding Paramount’s initial income approach valuation and (2) the Board issued inadequate findings regarding the significance of Paramount’s pre-lien and post-lien sales of personal property. In a separate ruling, the trial court awarded Paramount attorney fees under Revenue and Taxation Code Section 1611.6, which allows a taxpayer to recover fees for services necessary to obtain proper findings from a county board. The County timely appealed both orders.   The Second Appellate District reversed the trial court’s decision, concluding the Board committed neither methodological error nor issued findings that were less than adequate within the meaning of section 1611.5. First, Paramount did not challenge the validity of the cost approach relied upon by the Assessor and Board, and it did not otherwise identify any legal error in the Board’s rejection of its income approach valuation. Second, the hearing transcripts adequately disclose its rulings and findings on the pre-lien and post-sales data. The court remanded so the trial court may consider the question of whether substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that Paramount failed to establish additional obsolescence. View "Paramount Pictures Corp. v. County of L.A." on Justia Law

The Westin St. Francis, in Union Square, is San Francisco’s third largest hotel. In return for a base management fee and an incentive fee, the Company manages and maintains the hotel, handles personnel and employment matters, provides advertising and promotional services, and provides all computer services, including reservations. In addition to renting its rooms, the Westin receives income from guest cancellations, no-shows, and attrition. The hotel also profits from in-room movies and guest laundry services provided by third parties. In 2015, BRE purchased Strategic, the owner of the Westin St. Francis and other hotels, triggering a reassessment. The Assessor assessed the hotel’s value at approximately $785 million. Strategic sought a refund. The trial court upheld the Board’s determination.The court of appeal held that the method used by the city to exclude the value of nontaxable, intangible assets from the assessed value of the hotel—i.e., the deduction of fees or expenses associated with the asset from the hotel’s future income stream—is legally incorrect. As a result, the assessed value of the hotel improperly subsumed the value of the management agreement, in-room movies, and guest laundry services. However, the assessed value properly included the cancellation/no-show/attrition income because that asset is a taxable attribute of the property. The court remanded for a redetermination of the taxable value of the hotel. View "SHR St. Francis, LLC v. City and County of San Francisco" on Justia Law