benefit conferred privilege in California

2021(Farm Bureau, supra, 51 Cal.4th at pp. 436-437.) As the Supreme Court observed in Farm Bureau, “We have recognized that ‘ “tax” has no fixed meaning, and that the distinction between taxes and fees is frequently “blurred,” taking on different meanings in different contexts. [Citations.]’ ” (Farm Bureau, supra, 51 Cal.4th at p. 437 ; see also Sinclair Paint Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization (1997) 15 Cal.4th 866, 874 (Sinclair Paint).) Ordinarily taxes are imposed for revenue purposes and not in return for a specific benefit conferred or privilege granted.

2017To the extent fees exceed a reasonable amount in relation to the benefits or costs underlying their imposition, they are taxes. ( Sinclair Paint at p. 881, 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 447 , 937 P.2d 1350 ; Knox, supra , 4 Cal.4th at p. 142, fn. 15 , 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 159 , 841 P.2d 144 .) In the course of our analysis, we observed that, "[i]n general, taxes are imposed for revenue purposes, rather than in return for a specific benefit conferred or privilege granted," and we looked to whether the primary purpose of a charge was to generate revenue. ( Sinclair Paint, supra , 15 Cal.4th at p. 874 , 64 Cal.Rptr.2

2017Partnership v. City and County of San Francisco [(1987)] 199 Cal.App.3d [1498,] 1504; Terminal Plaza Corp. v. City and County of San Francisco (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 892, 905 []; Mills v. County of Trinity (1980) 108 Cal.App.3d 656, 660 []; County of Fresno v. Malmstrom (1979) 94 Cal.App.3d 974, 983-984 [].) In general, taxes are imposed for revenue purposes, rather than in return for a specific benefit conferred or privilege granted.

2017Partnership v. City and County of San Francisco [(1987)] 199 Cal.App.3d [1496,] 1504 [ 246 Cal.Rptr. 21 ]; Terminal Plaza Corp. v. City and County of San Francisco (1986) 111 Cal.App.3d 892, 905 [ 223 Cal.Rptr. 379 ]; Mills v. County of Trinity (1980) 108 Cal.App.3d 656, 660 [ 166 Cal.Rptr. 674 ]; County of Fresno v. Malmstrom (1979) 94 Cal.App.3d 974, 983-984 [ 156 Cal.Rptr. 777 ].) In general, taxes are imposed for revenue purposes, rather than in return for a specific benefit conferred or privilege granted.

2015(Sinclair Paint Co. [(1997) 15 Cal.4th 866 ,] 874 [the term ‘tax’ has ‘no fixed 6 meaning’]; see also Richmond v. Shasta Community Services Dist. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 409, 421 [defining ‘tax’ vis-à-vis ‘assessment’ in determining voter enactment requirements]; San Marcos Water Dist. [(1986) 42 Cal.3d 154 ,] 160–162 [defining taxable ‘fee’ vis-à- vis exempt ‘special assessment’ for purposes of public entity’s exemption from taxes]; United Business Com. v. City of San Diego (1979) 91 Cal.App.3d 156, 165 [defining ‘tax’ vis-à-vis ‘fee’ for purposes of determining municipality’s power to levy tax].)

2013(Sinclair Paint Co., supra, at p. 874 [the term “tax” has “no fixed meaning”]; see Richmond v. Shasta Community Services Dist. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 409, 421 [ 9 Cal.Rptr.3d 121 , 83 P.3d 518 ] (Richmond) [defining “tax” vis-a-vis “assessment” in determining voter enactment requirements]; San Marcos Water Dist., supra, at pp. 160-162 [defining taxable “fee” vis-á-vis exempt “special assessment” for purposes of public entity’s exemption from taxes]; United Business Com. v. City of San Diego (1979) 91 Cal.App.3d 156, 165 [ 154 Cal.Rptr. 263 ] [defining “tax” vis-a-vis “fee” for purposes of determini

2021(Farm Bureau, supra, 51 Cal.4th at pp. 436-437.) As the Supreme Court observed in Farm Bureau, “We have recognized that ‘ “tax” has no fixed meaning, and that the distinction between taxes and fees is frequently “blurred,” taking on different meanings in different contexts. [Citations.]’ ” (Farm Bureau, supra, 51 Cal.4th at p. 437 ; see also Sinclair Paint Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization (1997) 15 Cal.4th 866, 874 (Sinclair Paint).) Ordinarily taxes are imposed for revenue purposes and not in return for a specific benefit conferred or privilege granted.

2021(Farm Bureau, supra, 51 Cal.4th at pp. 436-437.) As the Supreme Court observed in Farm Bureau, “We have recognized that ‘ “tax” has no fixed meaning, and that the distinction between taxes and fees is frequently “blurred,” taking on different meanings in different contexts. [Citations.]’ ” (Farm Bureau, supra, 51 Cal.4th at p. 437 ; see also Sinclair Paint Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization (1997) 15 Cal.4th 866, 874 (Sinclair Paint).) Ordinarily taxes are imposed for revenue purposes and not in return for a specific benefit conferred or privilege granted.

2017Partnership v. City and County of San Francisco [(1987)] 199 Cal.App.3d [1498,] 1504; Terminal Plaza Corp. v. City and County of San Francisco (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 892, 905 []; Mills v. County of Trinity (1980) 108 Cal.App.3d 656, 660 []; County of Fresno v. Malmstrom (1979) 94 Cal.App.3d 974, 983-984 [].) In general, taxes are imposed for revenue purposes, rather than in return for a specific benefit conferred or privilege granted.

2017Partnership v. City and County of San Francisco [(1987)] 199 Cal.App.3d [1496,] 1504 [ 246 Cal.Rptr. 21 ]; Terminal Plaza Corp. v. City and County of San Francisco (1986) 111 Cal.App.3d 892, 905 [ 223 Cal.Rptr. 379 ]; Mills v. County of Trinity (1980) 108 Cal.App.3d 656, 660 [ 166 Cal.Rptr. 674 ]; County of Fresno v. Malmstrom (1979) 94 Cal.App.3d 974, 983-984 [ 156 Cal.Rptr. 777 ].) In general, taxes are imposed for revenue purposes, rather than in return for a specific benefit conferred or privilege granted.

2017(Shapell Industries, Inc. v. Governing Board (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 218, 240 []; County of Fresno v. Malmstrom, supra, 94 Cal.App.3d at p. 983 [‘Taxes are raised for the general revenue of the governmental entity to pay for a variety of public services.’].)” (Sinclair Paint, supra, 15 Cal.4th at p. 874 .) As noted in the quote above, in general taxes are imposed for revenue purposes, that is for “the general revenue of the governmental entity to pay for a variety of public services” quoting County of Fresno v. Malmstrom, supra, 94 Cal.App.3d at page 983 .

2017(Shapell Industries, Inc. v. Governing Board (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 218, 240 , [ 1 Cal.Rptr.2d 818 ]; County of Fresno v. Malmstrom, supra, 94 Cal.App.3d at p. 983 [‘Taxes are raised for the general revenue of the governmental entity to pay for a variety of public services.’].)” (Sinclair Paint, supra, 15 Cal.4th at p. 874.) As noted in the quote above, in general taxes are imposed for revenue purposes, that is for “the general revenue of the governmental entity to pay for a variety of public services.” (County of Fresno v. Malmstrom, supra, 94 Cal.App.3d at p. 983.) The majority reasons that, b

2017Partnership v. City and County of San Francisco [(1987)] 199 Cal.App.3d [1498,] 1504; Terminal Plaza Corp. v. City and County of San Francisco (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 892, 905 []; Mills v. County of Trinity (1980) 108 Cal.App.3d 656, 660 []; County of Fresno v. Malmstrom (1979) 94 Cal.App.3d 974, 983-984 [].) In general, taxes are imposed for revenue purposes, rather than in return for a specific benefit conferred or privilege granted.

2017Partnership v. City and County of San Francisco [(1987)] 199 Cal.App.3d [1496,] 1504 [ 246 Cal.Rptr. 21 ]; Terminal Plaza Corp. v. City and County of San Francisco (1986) 111 Cal.App.3d 892, 905 [ 223 Cal.Rptr. 379 ]; Mills v. County of Trinity (1980) 108 Cal.App.3d 656, 660 [ 166 Cal.Rptr. 674 ]; County of Fresno v. Malmstrom (1979) 94 Cal.App.3d 974, 983-984 [ 156 Cal.Rptr. 777 ].) In general, taxes are imposed for revenue purposes, rather than in return for a specific benefit conferred or privilege granted.

2015(Sinclair Paint Co. [(1997) 15 Cal.4th 866 ,] 874 [the term ‘tax’ has ‘no fixed 6 meaning’]; see also Richmond v. Shasta Community Services Dist. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 409, 421 [defining ‘tax’ vis-à-vis ‘assessment’ in determining voter enactment requirements]; San Marcos Water Dist. [(1986) 42 Cal.3d 154 ,] 160–162 [defining taxable ‘fee’ vis-à- vis exempt ‘special assessment’ for purposes of public entity’s exemption from taxes]; United Business Com. v. City of San Diego (1979) 91 Cal.App.3d 156, 165 [defining ‘tax’ vis-à-vis ‘fee’ for purposes of determining municipality’s power to levy tax].)

2013(Sinclair Paint Co., supra, at p. 874 [the term “tax” has “no fixed meaning”]; see Richmond v. Shasta Community Services Dist. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 409, 421 [ 9 Cal.Rptr.3d 121 , 83 P.3d 518 ] (Richmond) [defining “tax” vis-a-vis “assessment” in determining voter enactment requirements]; San Marcos Water Dist., supra, at pp. 160-162 [defining taxable “fee” vis-á-vis exempt “special assessment” for purposes of public entity’s exemption from taxes]; United Business Com. v. City of San Diego (1979) 91 Cal.App.3d 156, 165 [ 154 Cal.Rptr. 263 ] [defining “tax” vis-a-vis “fee” for purposes of determini

2008(See Isaac v. City of Los Angeles (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 586, 596-597 [ 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 752 ] (Isaac).) In Isaac , the court described user fees as “those which are charged only to the person actually using the service; the amount of the charge is generally related to the actual goods or services provided.” (Id. at p. 597.) Thus, a user fee is “payment for a specific commodity purchased.” (Ibid/, see also Utility Audit Co., Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 950, 957 [ 5 Cal.Rptr.3d 520 ] [sewer service fees].) Despite these classifications, a revenue measure “may have attributes

2008(See Isaac v. City of Los Angeles (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 586, 596-597 [ 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 752 ] (Isaac).) In Isaac , the court described user fees as “those which are charged only to the person actually using the service; the amount of the charge is generally related to the actual goods or services provided.” (Id. at p. 597.) Thus, a user fee is “payment for a specific commodity purchased.” (Ibid/, see also Utility Audit Co., Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 950, 957 [ 5 Cal.Rptr.3d 520 ] [sewer service fees].) Despite these classifications, a revenue measure “may have attributes

2016(Kern, supra, 19 Cal.App.4th at p. 1422 .) The Supreme Court has noted that “ ‘ “tax” has no fixed meaning, and that the distinction between taxes and fees is frequently “blurred,” taking on different meanings in different contexts. [Citations.]’ [Citation.]” (California Farm Bureau Federation v. State Water Resources Control Bd. (2011) 51 Cal.4th 421, 437-438 (Farm Bureau.) However, the Supreme Court has also provided guidance on how to focus on the question at hand: “Ordinarily taxes are imposed for revenue purposes and not ‘in return for a specific benefit conferred or privilege granted. [C

2008Scientists v. Department of Fish & Game (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 935, 944 [ 94 Cal.Rptr.2d 535 ]; Northwest Energetic Services, LLC v. California Franchise Tax Bd. (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 841, 854 [ 71 Cal.Rptr.3d 642 ] (Northwest Energetic).) Our Supreme Court in Sinclair, supra, 15 Cal.4th at pages 873-874, discussed “certain general guidelines used in determining whether ‘taxes’ are involved in particular situations.” 6 As the court noted: “The cases recognize that ‘tax’ has no fixed meaning, and that the distinction between taxes and fees is frequently ‘blurred,’ taking on different meanings i

2015(Sinclair Paint Co. [(1997) 15 Cal.4th 866 ,] 874 [the term ‘tax’ has ‘no fixed 6 meaning’]; see also Richmond v. Shasta Community Services Dist. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 409, 421 [defining ‘tax’ vis-à-vis ‘assessment’ in determining voter enactment requirements]; San Marcos Water Dist. [(1986) 42 Cal.3d 154 ,] 160–162 [defining taxable ‘fee’ vis-à- vis exempt ‘special assessment’ for purposes of public entity’s exemption from taxes]; United Business Com. v. City of San Diego (1979) 91 Cal.App.3d 156, 165 [defining ‘tax’ vis-à-vis ‘fee’ for purposes of determining municipality’s power to levy tax].)

2013The Mosquito Assessment Is Not a “Tax” In determining whether the mosquito assessment is a tax, we start with the generic definition. “[T]axes are imposed for revenue purposes, rather than in return for a specific benefit conferred or privilege granted. [Citations.]” (Sinclair Paint Co., supra, 15 Cal.4th at p. 874 ; see San Marcos Water Dist., supra, 42 Cal.3d at p. 162 ; Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency v. Amrhein (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 1364, 1381 [ 59 Cal.Rptr.3d 484 ].) To be sure, the Legislature and voters have adopted different definitions of “tax” tailored to specific purposes.

2008Scientists v. Department of Fish & Game (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 935, 944 [ 94 Cal.Rptr.2d 535 ]; Northwest Energetic Services, LLC v. California Franchise Tax Bd. (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 841, 854 [ 71 Cal.Rptr.3d 642 ] (Northwest Energetic).) Our Supreme Court in Sinclair, supra, 15 Cal.4th at pages 873-874, discussed “certain general guidelines used in determining whether ‘taxes’ are involved in particular situations.” 6 As the court noted: “The cases recognize that ‘tax’ has no fixed meaning, and that the distinction between taxes and fees is frequently ‘blurred,’ taking on different meanings i

2008Scientists v. Department of Fish & Game (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 935, 944 [ 94 Cal.Rptr.2d 535 ]; Northwest Energetic Services, LLC v. California Franchise Tax Bd. (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 841, 854 [ 71 Cal.Rptr.3d 642 ] (Northwest Energetic).) Our Supreme Court in Sinclair, supra, 15 Cal.4th at pages 873-874, discussed “certain general guidelines used in determining whether ‘taxes’ are involved in particular situations.” 6 As the court noted: “The cases recognize that ‘tax’ has no fixed meaning, and that the distinction between taxes and fees is frequently ‘blurred,’ taking on different meanings i

2017To the extent fees exceed a reasonable amount in relation to the benefits or costs underlying their imposition, they are taxes. ( Sinclair Paint at p. 881, 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 447 , 937 P.2d 1350 ; Knox, supra , 4 Cal.4th at p. 142, fn. 15 , 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 159 , 841 P.2d 144 .) In the course of our analysis, we observed that, "[i]n general, taxes are imposed for revenue purposes, rather than in return for a specific benefit conferred or privilege granted," and we looked to whether the primary purpose of a charge was to generate revenue. ( Sinclair Paint, supra , 15 Cal.4th at p. 874 , 64 Cal.Rptr.2

2017To the extent fees exceed a reasonable amount in relation to the benefits or costs underlying their imposition, they are taxes. ( Sinclair Paint at p. 881, 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 447 , 937 P.2d 1350 ; Knox, supra , 4 Cal.4th at p. 142, fn. 15 , 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 159 , 841 P.2d 144 .) In the course of our analysis, we observed that, "[i]n general, taxes are imposed for revenue purposes, rather than in return for a specific benefit conferred or privilege granted," and we looked to whether the primary purpose of a charge was to generate revenue. ( Sinclair Paint, supra , 15 Cal.4th at p. 874 , 64 Cal.Rptr.2

2013The Mosquito Assessment Is Not a “Tax” In determining whether the mosquito assessment is a tax, we start with the generic definition. “[T]axes are imposed for revenue purposes, rather than in return for a specific benefit conferred or privilege granted. [Citations.]” (Sinclair Paint Co., supra, 15 Cal.4th at p. 874 ; see San Marcos Water Dist., supra, 42 Cal.3d at p. 162 ; Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency v. Amrhein (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 1364, 1381 [ 59 Cal.Rptr.3d 484 ].) To be sure, the Legislature and voters have adopted different definitions of “tax” tailored to specific purposes.

2013The Mosquito Assessment Is Not a “Tax” In determining whether the mosquito assessment is a tax, we start with the generic definition. “[T]axes are imposed for revenue purposes, rather than in return for a specific benefit conferred or privilege granted. [Citations.]” (Sinclair Paint Co., supra, 15 Cal.4th at p. 874 ; see San Marcos Water Dist., supra, 42 Cal.3d at p. 162 ; Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency v. Amrhein (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 1364, 1381 [ 59 Cal.Rptr.3d 484 ].) To be sure, the Legislature and voters have adopted different definitions of “tax” tailored to specific purposes.

2013Taxes ordinarily are imposed to raise revenue for the government (California Farm Bureau Federation v. State Water Resources Control Bd. (2011) 51 Cal.4th 421, 437 [ 121 Cal.Rptr.3d 37 , 247 P.3d 112 ] [“Ordinarily taxes are imposed for revenue purposes and not ‘in return for a specific benefit conferred or privilege granted.’ ”]; Sinclair Paint, supra, 15 Cal.4th at p. 874 [“In general, taxes are imposed for revenue purposes, rather than in return for a specific benefit conferred or privilege granted.”]; Morning Star Co. v. Board of Equalization (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 737, 750 [ 135 Cal.Rptr.

2013Taxes ordinarily are imposed to raise revenue for the government (California Farm Bureau Federation v. State Water Resources Control Bd. (2011) 51 Cal.4th 421, 437 [ 121 Cal.Rptr.3d 37 , 247 P.3d 112 ] [“Ordinarily taxes are imposed for revenue purposes and not ‘in return for a specific benefit conferred or privilege granted.’ ”]; Sinclair Paint, supra, 15 Cal.4th at p. 874 [“In general, taxes are imposed for revenue purposes, rather than in return for a specific benefit conferred or privilege granted.”]; Morning Star Co. v. Board of Equalization (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 737, 750 [ 135 Cal.Rptr.

2013Taxes ordinarily are imposed to raise revenue for the government (California Farm Bureau Federation v. State Water Resources Control Bd. (2011) 51 Cal.4th 421, 437 [ 121 Cal.Rptr.3d 37 , 247 P.3d 112 ] [“Ordinarily taxes are imposed for revenue purposes and not ‘in return for a specific benefit conferred or privilege granted.’ ”]; Sinclair Paint, supra, 15 Cal.4th at p. 874 [“In general, taxes are imposed for revenue purposes, rather than in return for a specific benefit conferred or privilege granted.”]; Morning Star Co. v. Board of Equalization (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 737, 750 [ 135 Cal.Rptr.

2013Taxes ordinarily are imposed to raise revenue for the government (California Farm Bureau Federation v. State Water Resources Control Bd. (2011) 51 Cal.4th 421, 437 [ 121 Cal.Rptr.3d 37 , 247 P.3d 112 ] [“Ordinarily taxes are imposed for revenue purposes and not ‘in return for a specific benefit conferred or privilege granted.’ ”]; Sinclair Paint, supra, 15 Cal.4th at p. 874 [“In general, taxes are imposed for revenue purposes, rather than in return for a specific benefit conferred or privilege granted.”]; Morning Star Co. v. Board of Equalization (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 737, 750 [ 135 Cal.Rptr.

2008Scientists v. Department of Fish & Game (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 935, 944 [ 94 Cal.Rptr.2d 535 ]; Northwest Energetic Services, LLC v. California Franchise Tax Bd. (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 841, 854 [ 71 Cal.Rptr.3d 642 ] (Northwest Energetic).) Our Supreme Court in Sinclair, supra, 15 Cal.4th at pages 873-874, discussed “certain general guidelines used in determining whether ‘taxes’ are involved in particular situations.” 6 As the court noted: “The cases recognize that ‘tax’ has no fixed meaning, and that the distinction between taxes and fees is frequently ‘blurred,’ taking on different meanings i

2008Scientists v. Department of Fish & Game (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 935, 944 [ 94 Cal.Rptr.2d 535 ]; Northwest Energetic Services, LLC v. California Franchise Tax Bd. (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 841, 854 [ 71 Cal.Rptr.3d 642 ] (Northwest Energetic).) Our Supreme Court in Sinclair, supra, 15 Cal.4th at pages 873-874, discussed “certain general guidelines used in determining whether ‘taxes’ are involved in particular situations.” 6 As the court noted: “The cases recognize that ‘tax’ has no fixed meaning, and that the distinction between taxes and fees is frequently ‘blurred,’ taking on different meanings i

2008Scientists v. Department of Fish & Game (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 935, 944 [ 94 Cal.Rptr.2d 535 ]; Northwest Energetic Services, LLC v. California Franchise Tax Bd. (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 841, 854 [ 71 Cal.Rptr.3d 642 ] (Northwest Energetic).) Our Supreme Court in Sinclair, supra, 15 Cal.4th at pages 873-874, discussed “certain general guidelines used in determining whether ‘taxes’ are involved in particular situations.” 6 As the court noted: “The cases recognize that ‘tax’ has no fixed meaning, and that the distinction between taxes and fees is frequently ‘blurred,’ taking on different meanings i

2008Scientists v. Department of Fish & Game (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 935, 944 [ 94 Cal.Rptr.2d 535 ]; Northwest Energetic Services, LLC v. California Franchise Tax Bd. (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 841, 854 [ 71 Cal.Rptr.3d 642 ] (Northwest Energetic).) Our Supreme Court in Sinclair, supra, 15 Cal.4th at pages 873-874, discussed “certain general guidelines used in determining whether ‘taxes’ are involved in particular situations.” 6 As the court noted: “The cases recognize that ‘tax’ has no fixed meaning, and that the distinction between taxes and fees is frequently ‘blurred,’ taking on different meanings i

2008(See Isaac v. City of Los Angeles (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 586, 596-597 [ 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 752 ] (Isaac).) In Isaac , the court described user fees as “those which are charged only to the person actually using the service; the amount of the charge is generally related to the actual goods or services provided.” (Id. at p. 597.) Thus, a user fee is “payment for a specific commodity purchased.” (Ibid/, see also Utility Audit Co., Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 950, 957 [ 5 Cal.Rptr.3d 520 ] [sewer service fees].) Despite these classifications, a revenue measure “may have attributes

2008(See Isaac v. City of Los Angeles (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 586, 596-597 [ 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 752 ] (Isaac).) In Isaac , the court described user fees as “those which are charged only to the person actually using the service; the amount of the charge is generally related to the actual goods or services provided.” (Id. at p. 597.) Thus, a user fee is “payment for a specific commodity purchased.” (Ibid/, see also Utility Audit Co., Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 950, 957 [ 5 Cal.Rptr.3d 520 ] [sewer service fees].) Despite these classifications, a revenue measure “may have attributes

2007(Orange County Water Dist. v. Farnsworth, supra, 138 Cal.App.2d at p. 530 .) Under modem law, the central distinction between a tax and a fee appears to be- that a tax is “imposed for revenue purposes, rather than in return for a specific benefit conferred or privilege granted. [Citations.]” (Sinclair Paint Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization (1997) 15 Cal.4th 866, 874 [ 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 447 , 937 P.2d 1350 ]; see Barratt American Inc. v. City of Rancho Cucamonga (2005) 37 Cal.4th 685, 700 [ 37 Cal.Rptr.3d 149 , 124 P.3d 719 ].) The augmentation charge here exposes the falseness of this supposed di

2007(Orange County Water Dist. v. Farnsworth, supra, 138 Cal.App.2d at p. 530 .) Under modem law, the central distinction between a tax and a fee appears to be- that a tax is “imposed for revenue purposes, rather than in return for a specific benefit conferred or privilege granted. [Citations.]” (Sinclair Paint Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization (1997) 15 Cal.4th 866, 874 [ 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 447 , 937 P.2d 1350 ]; see Barratt American Inc. v. City of Rancho Cucamonga (2005) 37 Cal.4th 685, 700 [ 37 Cal.Rptr.3d 149 , 124 P.3d 719 ].) The augmentation charge here exposes the falseness of this supposed di