California Supreme Court Civil Issues Pending: Taxation and Assessments
[UPDATED THROUGH APRIL26, 2012]
Can a Corporation Correct Its Suspended Status and Salvage an Appeal Initiated While Suspended? If a corporation’s corporate status is suspended due to nonpayment of taxes at the time it files a notice of appeal, can the appeal proceed if the corporation thereafter revives its status even if it does not do so until the time for filing the notice of appeal has expired? Bourhis v. Lord, S199887 and S199889 (opinions below, A133177 and A132136, respectfully, each nonpublished), review granted 3/21/12.
Is a Levy by a Fire Protection District Valid? Was the levy imposed by defendant for the purpose of funding fire protection services a valid assessment within the meaning of California Constitution, article XIII D, section 2, subdivision (b)? Concerned Citizens for Responsible Government v. West Point Fire Protection Dist., S195152 (opinion below C061110, formerly 196 Cal.App.4th 1427, review granted on 10/19/11.
How Are Emission Reduction Credits Affected by Limitations on the Taxation of Intangible Property? How do limitations on the taxation of intangible property (see Cal. Const., art. XIII, § 2; Rev. & Tax. Code, §§ 110, 212; Roehm v. County of Orange (1948) 32 Cal.2d 280) apply to the assessment of a power plant subject to annual assessment by the State Board of Equalization (Cal. Const., art. XIII, § 19), when the owner of the plant used emission reduction credits (see Health & Saf. Code, § 40709) to offset its emissions and obtain authorization to construct the plant? Elk Hills Power, LLC v. Board of Equalization, S194121 (opinion below D056943, formerly 195 Cal.App.4th 285), review granted 8/24/11.
Can a County Include Monies Diverted to a City Under Rev. & Tax Code §§ 97.68 and 97.70 When Determining Its Share of County Costs? Does Revenue and Taxation Code § 97.75 prohibit a county from taking into account property tax revenues diverted from the county’s Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund to a city under §§ 97.68 and 97.70 when determining, pursuant to § 95.3, the city’s share of costs incurred by the county in the assessment, collection, and allocation of property taxes? City of Alhambra v. County of Los Angeles, S185457 (opinion below B218347, formerly 186 Cal.App.4th 537), review granted 10/20/10. The petition for review is here.
Can a Consumer Sue a Retailer For Erroneously Charging Sales Tax? Does art. XIII, § 32 of the California Constitution or Rev. and Tax. Code § 6932 bar a consumer from filing a lawsuit against a retailer under the Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 et seq.) or the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (Civ. Code, § 1750 et seq.) alleging that the retailer charged sales tax on transactions that were not taxable? Loeffler v. Target Corp., S173972 (opinion below B199287, formerly 173 Cal.App.4th 1229), review granted 9/9/09. Update: 11/19/09: Review granted in Yabsley v. Cingular Wireless, LLC, S176146 (opinion below B198827, formerly 176 Cal.App.4th 1156), and briefing deferred pending decision in Loeffler.
Does Voucher From Designated Agency Constitute Conclusive or Prima Facie Evidence that Employer Is Entitled to Enterprise Zone Tax Credit? (1) When an employer claims an income tax credit under Revenue and Taxation Code section 23622.7 for wages allegedly paid to a “qualified employee” in an enterprise zone, does the certifying voucher obtained from a designated public agency constitute conclusive proof the employer is entitled to the tax credit? (2) If not, does the voucher constitute prima facie evidence that the employer is entitled to the credit and shift to the Franchise Tax Board the burden of proving that the employee was not a “qualified employee”? Dicon Fiberoptics v. Franchise Tax Bd., S173860 (opinion below B202997, formerly 173 Cal.App.4th 1082), review granted 8/19/09. Update 2/1/12: Oral argument scheduled for March 6, 2012. The briefs are here. Update March 6, 2012: Case argued and submitted. Update April 26, 2012: Opinion issued. The Court reversed the lower court’s holding that a certification issued by a governmental agency for purposes of the hiring tax credit under Revenue and Taxation Code section 23622.7 constitutes “prima facie proof of a worker is a ‘qualified employee,’ “which shifts to the Franchise Tax board the “burden of demonstrating an employee is not a qualified worker for which no voucher should have issued.” In all other respects, the Franchise Tax Board does not challenge the Court of Appeal’s judgment, and it is affirmed.
