Justia Tax Law Opinion Summaries

In 2025, the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors faced significant federal funding cuts for healthcare and social services due to the passage of H.R. 1 by Congress. Anticipating a loss of over $1 billion in funding within five years, the Board declared an emergency and resolved to place a general sales tax measure (Measure A) on the ballot for a special election. The proposed tax was intended to offset the funding shortfall and maintain critical county services. The Board unanimously passed a resolution and urgency ordinance with detailed findings about the impacts of H.R. 1, the necessity for immediate action, and the risks of waiting for the next general election.Plaintiffs, county residents, filed a preelection complaint and petition for writ of mandate in the Santa Clara County Superior Court. They challenged the sufficiency of the emergency declaration under article XIII C, section 2 of the California Constitution and Proposition 218, and the format and impartiality of the ballot question and analysis. After expedited proceedings, the trial court found the emergency declaration valid, denied the writ petition on that ground, and directed modifications to some ballot language. Measure A was subsequently approved by voters.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Sixth Appellate District, reviewed the case. It held that the “cases of emergency” clause in article XIII C, section 2 should be interpreted according to its ordinary meaning, permitting local governments to declare emergencies broadly when unforeseen circumstances require immediate action. The court found the Board’s emergency declaration reasonable and supported by legislative findings. Any error in the trial court’s evidentiary rulings was not prejudicial. The court declined to review the ballot language and impartial analysis issues as moot and not of broad public interest. The order denying the writ of mandate and judgment was affirmed. View "Holtz v. Moreles" on Justia Law

The case centers on a charge imposed by a local water district in Tehama County, California. In 2022, the district adopted a resolution requiring all landowners in the county to pay an annual “well registration charge” of $0.29 per acre for three years, regardless of whether their property used groundwater or had a well. The stated purpose was to fund the administrative costs of a groundwater well registration program. The district later adopted additional resolutions to implement waivers for certain parcels and continued collecting the charge for noncompliant parcels. David Garst, trustee of a trust owning 40 parcels in the county, paid the charge and subsequently challenged its validity, arguing it violated California constitutional provisions adopted by Propositions 218 and 26.The Superior Court of Tehama County reviewed the case and conducted a bench trial. The court found that the district acted in good faith and imposed the charge for a legitimate purpose, but concluded the charge was not related to any specific government service or benefit provided to the landowners. The court determined the well registration charge amounted to a tax rather than a regulatory fee. The trial court issued a writ of mandate directing the district to rescind the charge, refund all collected sums, and cease further collection.The California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, reviewed the district’s appeal. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s judgment as modified, holding that the well registration charge was an unconstitutional tax under Article XIII C of the California Constitution because it was imposed broadly without a nexus to regulated activity or specific government service. The court struck the provision requiring the district to refund the charge, finding Garst had not complied with the procedural requirements of the Government Claims Act. The remainder of the trial court’s judgment was affirmed. View "Garst v. Tehama County Flood Control & Wat. Conservation Dist." on Justia Law

A company serving as the project administrator for several partially income-restricted apartment complexes operated with the aim of providing affordable housing for middle-income tenants maintained constructive possession and control over the properties, which are owned by a local Joint Powers Authority (JPA) and thus exempt from ad valorem property taxation under the California Constitution. The company received significant fees and bond revenues from its administration of the complexes. The county assessor determined that the company’s exclusive control and financial benefits met the statutory criteria for a taxable “possessory interest,” and assessed property taxes accordingly. The company initially contested the tax assessments before the Orange County Assessment Appeals Board but filed a separate action for declaratory relief in superior court before the administrative proceedings concluded, seeking a declaration that neither it nor its tenants were liable for these taxes.The Superior Court of Orange County denied the county’s special motion to strike the complaint under California’s anti-SLAPP statute (Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16), finding that the company’s declaratory relief claim did not arise from the county assessor’s protected activity under the statute’s first prong. The court did not reach the question of whether the company could show a likelihood of success on the merits under the statute’s second prong.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, conducted a de novo review and held that the claim for declaratory relief did arise from the assessor’s protected speech, petitioning, and advocacy activities under section 425.16. The appellate court reversed the order denying the anti-SLAPP motion and remanded the matter with instructions for the trial court to determine whether the company can demonstrate a probability of prevailing on the merits under the second prong of the anti-SLAPP statute. View "Waterford Property Co. v. County of Orange" on Justia Law

A Texas resident, who works as a radiologist, entered into an independent contractor agreement with a California-based medical corporation. From his home in Texas, he analyzed medical images sent from facilities both in California and other states, using equipment, software, and support provided by the corporation. He was required to maintain medical licenses in multiple states and was compensated monthly by the corporation based on the number of images reviewed. After being prompted by California’s Franchise Tax Board, he filed California tax returns for the relevant years and later sought a refund, which was not granted.The Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco granted summary judgment in favor of the Franchise Tax Board. The court concluded that the radiologist operated a sole proprietorship carrying on a “unitary business” within and without California, and thus was properly taxed under California Code of Regulations, title 18, section 17951-4(c). The trial court found that his activities constituted a unitary business because he performed the same business function across state lines without sufficiently distinct separation.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. It reversed the trial court’s judgment, holding that the Franchise Tax Board failed to demonstrate as a matter of law that the radiologist operated a unitary business as required under regulation 17951-4(c). The appellate court found that the unitary business theory had historically only been applied to multiple business entities that are commonly owned and integrated, and not to a sole proprietorship engaging in a single business activity. The judgment granting summary judgment to the Board was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Garcia-Rojas v. Franchise Tax Board" on Justia Law

A property owner operating a shopping mall in Orange County, California, faced significant restrictions on access and operations due to government orders issued during the COVID-19 pandemic. These restrictions, which included closures and limited entry, led the owner to file applications with the county tax assessor seeking disaster-related property tax relief under Revenue and Taxation Code section 170, subdivision (a)(1), on the basis that the pandemic and resulting government responses had caused a loss in property value through restricted access.The Orange County tax assessor summarily denied the applications, stating there was no physical damage to the property. The owner appealed this decision to the Orange County Assessment Appeals Board No. 1. The Board found it had jurisdiction but determined that relief under section 170(a)(1) required evidence of physical damage to the property, either direct or indirect, and that neither the pandemic nor the associated government orders constituted such damage. The Board’s decision made further proceedings unnecessary. The property owner then sought review in the Superior Court of Orange County, which, after a court trial, agreed with the Board’s interpretation and ruled that the owner was not entitled to relief because there was no physical damage to the property as required by the California Constitution and relevant statutes.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case de novo. The court held that, to obtain reassessment under section 170(a)(1), physical damage to the property—either direct or indirect—remains a constitutional requirement. The court found that neither the presence of the virus nor government-imposed access restrictions amounted to physical damage. The judgment of the trial court was affirmed, and both parties’ requests for judicial notice were denied. View "The Retail Property Trust v. Orange County Assessment" on Justia Law

A city-owned zoo in Alameda County is managed through a contract with a nonprofit corporation. In 2022, local voters approved an initiative, Measure Y, which imposed a parcel tax to fund zoo operations. The measure specified that tax revenue would be placed in a city fund and distributed to the “Zoo Operator” for certain uses. Measure Y identified the Conservation Society of California, the current nonprofit operator, by name and assigned it specific duties and powers related to the new tax revenue. The measure stated it would take effect if approved by a simple majority of voters and received 63.1% support.Following the election, the Alameda County Taxpayers’ Association and an individual filed a reverse validation action in the Superior Court of Alameda County, seeking to invalidate Measure Y. They argued that the measure violated article II, section 12 of the California Constitution by naming a private corporation to perform functions or have duties, and that the measure required a two-thirds supermajority to pass. The trial court sustained demurrers to the supermajority claims, finding only a simple majority was needed, and granted judgment on the pleadings as to the constitutional claims. The court concluded that any reference to the Conservation Society was either not a violation or, if so, was severable, leaving the rest of the measure valid. Judgment was entered for the city and the Conservation Society.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four, found that Measure Y’s references to the Conservation Society as the “Zoo Operator” violated article II, section 12 because they assigned specific functions and duties to a named private corporation. However, the court held these references could be severed without affecting the remainder of the measure, which would remain valid. The court further held that only a simple majority vote was required for passage. The trial court’s judgment was affirmed as modified to reflect severance. View "Alameda County Taxpayers' Assn., Inc. v. City of Oakland" on Justia Law

Several subsidiaries of a major entertainment company providing video streaming services were notified by the City of Santa Barbara that they owed significant sums in unpaid video users’ taxes, penalties, and interest for the period from 2018 to 2020. The City’s demand was based on a 2008 ordinance, approved by local voters, which imposed a tax on those using “video services” in the city. The ordinance defined “video services” broadly, including services delivered by Internet Protocol. The companies argued that their streaming services did not fall under the ordinance because streaming platforms do not provide a “channel” as contemplated by the ordinance, instead relying on customers’ independently obtained Internet services.Following the City’s deficiency notice, the companies appealed administratively. An independent hearing officer upheld the City’s position, concluding that the ordinance applied to video streaming. The companies then sought judicial review in the Superior Court of Santa Barbara County by filing a petition for a writ of administrative mandate. The trial court denied their petition, determining that the ordinance was intended to apply to streaming, that its enforcement did not violate federal or state law, and that the City was not required to provide additional notice before enforcement.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Six, affirmed the lower court’s judgment. The appellate court held that the ordinance, as approved by the electorate, applies to providers of video streaming services and that the ordinary, non-technical meaning of “channel” should govern. The court further held that applying the tax to streaming services does not violate the Internet Tax Freedom Act, the First Amendment, or the California Constitution, nor did the City’s delayed enforcement require additional voter approval or special notice under state law. The judgment denying the companies’ petition was affirmed. View "Disney Platform Distribution, Inc. v. City of Santa Barbara" on Justia Law

The defendant was convicted in 2003 of voluntary manslaughter, robbery, possession of a firearm, and received various sentence enhancements, including a prior strike, a firearm enhancement, and seven prior prison term enhancements, resulting in a sentence of 42 years and four months. Two restitution fines of $5,000 each were also imposed. In 2023, following legislative changes, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation identified the defendant as eligible for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.75, which invalidated certain prior prison term enhancements. The defendant sought to have those enhancements stricken and also requested further modifications, including striking the prior strike and firearm enhancement, and imposing a lesser term for the manslaughter conviction.At the Superior Court of Sacramento County, during the resentencing hearing held in October 2024, the court struck the seven prior prison term enhancements, reducing the sentence to 35 years and four months. However, the court declined to strike the prior strike and firearm enhancement, and reimposed the original restitution fines and victim restitution. The updated abstract of judgment noted the restitution fines were “stayed.” The defendant appealed, raising constitutional and statutory challenges to the reimposition of the upper term, the denial of his request to strike the firearm enhancement under section 1385, and the continued imposition of the restitution fine.The California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, held that the trial court did not err by reimposing the upper term for voluntary manslaughter without requiring new findings of aggravating circumstances under amended section 1170, subdivision (b), because section 1172.75, subdivision (d)(4) exempts previously imposed upper terms from these requirements. The court also found no abuse of discretion or statutory error in declining to dismiss the firearm enhancement, as no applicable mitigating factors were established. However, the court concluded that the restitution fine originally imposed in 2003 must be vacated under section 1465.9, as more than ten years had elapsed. The judgment was affirmed as modified to vacate the restitution fine. View "P. v. Salstrom" on Justia Law

Disney Platform Distribution, BAMTech, and Hulu, subsidiaries of the Walt Disney Company, provide video streaming services to subscribers in the City of Santa Barbara. In 2022, the City’s Tax Administrator notified these companies that they had failed to collect and remit video users’ taxes under Ordinance 5471 for the period January 1, 2018, through December 31, 2020, resulting in substantial assessments. The companies appealed to the City Administrator, and a retired Associate Justice served as hearing officer, ultimately upholding the Tax Administrator’s decision.Following the administrative appeal, the companies sought judicial review by filing a petition for a writ of administrative mandate in the Superior Court of Santa Barbara County. The trial court denied their petition, finding that the Ordinance does apply to video streaming services and rejecting arguments that the Ordinance violated the Internet Tax Freedom Act, the First Amendment, and Article XIII C of the California Constitution. The trial court also found there was no violation of Public Utilities Code section 799’s notice requirements, as the City’s actions did not constitute a change in the tax base or adoption of a new tax.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Six, affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The court held that the Ordinance applies to video streaming services, interpreting the term “channel” in its ordinary, non-technical sense and finding that the voters intended technological neutrality. The court further held that the Ordinance does not violate the Internet Tax Freedom Act because video streaming subscriptions and DVD sales/rentals are not “similar” under the Act. Additionally, the court concluded the tax is not a content-based regulation of speech under the First Amendment, and that delayed enforcement did not constitute a tax increase requiring additional voter approval or notice under the California Constitution or Public Utilities Code section 799. View "Disney Platform Distribution v. City of Santa Barbara" on Justia Law

This case concerns the State Water Resources Control Board's intervention in the Tulare Lake groundwater subbasin pursuant to California’s Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (the Act). After local agencies in the subbasin submitted a groundwater sustainability plan that the Department of Water Resources twice determined to be inadequate, the State Board designated the basin as probationary in April 2024. This designation triggered state-imposed monitoring, reporting, and fee obligations on certain groundwater extractors. In response, the Kings County Farm Bureau and others filed a petition for writ of mandate and complaint, asserting that the State Board exceeded its authority and challenging the validity of the designation and associated fees on several grounds.The Superior Court of Kings County addressed both a demurrer filed by the State Board and a request from the Farm Bureau for a preliminary injunction. The trial court dismissed the equal protection claim with leave to amend, but overruled the demurrer as to claims that (1) the State Board used improper “underground regulations” not adopted under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), (2) the imposed extraction fee constituted an unlawful tax, and (3) general declaratory relief was appropriate. The trial court also granted a preliminary injunction, temporarily halting the State Board’s enforcement activities.The California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, reviewed the trial court’s order overruling the demurrer. The appellate court held that all actions by the State Board taken under sections 10735.2 and 10735.8 of the Act—including the designation of a probationary basin—are exempt from the APA unless the State Board voluntarily opts to adopt regulations using APA procedures. Therefore, the claim for improper “underground regulations” could not proceed. The court also held that a challenge to the extraction fee as an unlawful tax was barred by the constitutional “pay first” rule, as no exception applied. Lastly, the court determined that declaratory relief was unavailable because the Legislature provided for review of State Board actions exclusively by writ of mandate. The appellate court ordered the trial court to grant the demurrer without leave to amend as to these three claims. View "State Water Resources Control Bd. v. Superior Court" on Justia Law