Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
14 California opinions name it 3 courts 1978–2023 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Esberg v. Union Oil Companyred2 sentences2021(See § 1611.6.) As noted above, section 1611.5 requires a county board to fairly disclose how it determined all material points raised by a party in its petition or at the tax refund hearing. (§ 1611.5.) Thus, when read in context with section 1611.5, the second clause of section 1611.6 permits an award of attorney fees only if the court remands the matter to the board with directions to make findings that “fairly disclose the board’s determination” on the point at issue, including a “statement of the method or methods of valuation used in appraising the property.” (See §§ 1611.5, 1611.6; see 2020(See § 1611.6.) As noted above, section 1611.5 requires a county board to fairly disclose how it determined all material points raised by a party in its petition or at the tax refund hearing. (§ 1611.5.) Thus, when read in context with section 1611.5, the second clause of section 1611.6 permits an award of attorney fees only if the court remands the matter to the board with directions to make findings that “fairly disclose the board’s determination” on the point at issue, including a “statement of the method or methods of valuation used in appraising the property.” (See §§ 1611.5, 1611.6; see | 2 | 2 |
Signal Oil & Gas Co. v. Bradburygreen2 sentences2000Geneva misreads Signal Oil, because that decision stands for the proposition that the general statutes governing claims against public entities (former Gov.Code, § 29700 et seq.), including a provision by which a board's inaction would automatically be deemed a rejection, did not apply to the procedure for presentation of a tax refund claim, which was governed by its own specific, separate and exclusive statutory scheme. ( Signal Oil, supra, at pp. 46-47 , 6 Cal.Rptr. 736 .) Here, we do not incorporate a mandatory constructive rejection rule from another statute to change the structure of the 1978The tax payments here were neither made under protest nor refunded by court order. 9 This legislative plan is continued in the recently enacted sections derived from the former sections of the Revenue and Taxation Code discussed above. (§§ 5150, 5151.) The importance of notice in the legislative plan is also seen in the requirement that a tax refund claim must be presented to and denied by the County before a court action for refund may be legally commenced. (§§ 5140, 5141, 5142, former §§ 5103, 5104; Signal Oil & Gas Co. v. Bradbury (1960) 183 Cal.App.2d 40, 43-56 [ 6 Cal.Rptr. 736 ].) | 1 | 2 |
Wallace Berrie & Co. v. State Board of Equalizationgreen1 sentence2023McKnight, supra, 110 Cal.App.4th at pp. 986–987.) Thus, the requirement of administrative exhaustion does not force us to “ignore actual notice the [FTB] may have had from sources other than the four corners of the initial claim.” (Id. at p. 987; accord, Franchise Tax Bd. Limited Liability Corp. Tax Refund Cases (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 369, 386 ; see also Wallace Berrie & Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization (1985) 40 Cal.3d 60, 66, fn. 2 [exhaustion challenge rejected when issue was implicit in claim and Board’s trial stance showed it was aware of issue].) We construe a tax refund claim 12 liberall | 1 | 1 |
In re Franchise Tax Bd. Ltd. Liab. Corp. Tax Refund Casesgreen1 sentence2023McKnight, supra, 110 Cal.App.4th at pp. 986–987.) Thus, the requirement of administrative exhaustion does not force us to “ignore actual notice the [FTB] may have had from sources other than the four corners of the initial claim.” (Id. at p. 987; accord, Franchise Tax Bd. Limited Liability Corp. Tax Refund Cases (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 369, 386 ; see also Wallace Berrie & Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization (1985) 40 Cal.3d 60, 66, fn. 2 [exhaustion challenge rejected when issue was implicit in claim and Board’s trial stance showed it was aware of issue].) We construe a tax refund claim 12 liberall | 1 | 1 |
King v. State Board of Equalizationgreen2 sentences2018In *645 *248 Chula Vista , an electrical contractor entered into a contract with the United States for the installation of electrical cable, and was assessed a use tax for the cable used in the construction project. ( Id . at p. 448, 125 Cal.Rptr. 827 .) The taxpayer-like MCI here-brought a tax refund claim against CDTFA, arguing that the cable was not tangible personal property under section 6016.5. ( Chula Vista , at pp. 448-449, 125 Cal.Rptr. 827 .) The court held that the term "line" as used in section 6016.5 referred "to the line as a whole and not to its component parts such as the cable 2018In *645 *248 Chula Vista , an electrical contractor entered into a contract with the United States for the installation of electrical cable, and was assessed a use tax for the cable used in the construction project. ( Id . at p. 448, 125 Cal.Rptr. 827 .) The taxpayer-like MCI here-brought a tax refund claim against CDTFA, arguing that the cable was not tangible personal property under section 6016.5. ( Chula Vista , at pp. 448-449, 125 Cal.Rptr. 827 .) The court held that the term "line" as used in section 6016.5 referred "to the line as a whole and not to its component parts such as the cable | 1 | 1 |
Chula Vista Electric Co. v. State Board of Equalizationgreen2 sentences2018In *645 *248 Chula Vista , an electrical contractor entered into a contract with the United States for the installation of electrical cable, and was assessed a use tax for the cable used in the construction project. ( Id . at p. 448, 125 Cal.Rptr. 827 .) The taxpayer-like MCI here-brought a tax refund claim against CDTFA, arguing that the cable was not tangible personal property under section 6016.5. ( Chula Vista , at pp. 448-449, 125 Cal.Rptr. 827 .) The court held that the term "line" as used in section 6016.5 referred "to the line as a whole and not to its component parts such as the cable 2018In *645 *248 Chula Vista , an electrical contractor entered into a contract with the United States for the installation of electrical cable, and was assessed a use tax for the cable used in the construction project. ( Id . at p. 448, 125 Cal.Rptr. 827 .) The taxpayer-like MCI here-brought a tax refund claim against CDTFA, arguing that the cable was not tangible personal property under section 6016.5. ( Chula Vista , at pp. 448-449, 125 Cal.Rptr. 827 .) The court held that the term "line" as used in section 6016.5 referred "to the line as a whole and not to its component parts such as the cable | 1 | 1 |
Stenocord Corp. v. City & County of San Franciscogreen2 sentences2010Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies/Alter Ego Standing “Ordinarily a taxpayer seeking relief from an erroneous assessment must exhaust available administrative remedies before resorting to the courts. [Citations.]” (Stenocord Corp. v. City etc. of San Francisco (1970) 2 Cal.3d 984, 987 [ 88 Cal.Rptr. 166 , 471 P.2d 966 ].) It is uncontroverted that Corporation did not file a tax refund claim and was not identified as *1164 an applicant in the administrative proceedings. 2010Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies/Alter Ego Standing “Ordinarily a taxpayer seeking relief from an erroneous assessment must exhaust available administrative remedies before resorting to the courts. [Citations.]” (Stenocord Corp. v. City etc. of San Francisco (1970) 2 Cal.3d 984, 987 [ 88 Cal.Rptr. 166 , 471 P.2d 966 ].) It is uncontroverted that Corporation did not file a tax refund claim and was not identified as *1164 an applicant in the administrative proceedings. | 1 | 1 |
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Ass'n v. City of Los Angelesgreen1 sentence2008We find no basis in Woosley, supra, 3 Cal.4th 758 , or its progeny for the overbroad statement in Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. v. City of Los Angeles, supra, 79 Cal.App.4th at page 249, that “class-action-type lawsuits seeking a refund of fees and taxes are barred unless each plaintiff has first filed an administrative refund claim with the City,” particularly as applied to claims against local public entities that are not governed by specific tax refund statutes. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
J. H. McKnight Ranch, Inc. v. Franchise Tax Board
green
2 sentences2023McKnight, supra, 110 Cal.App.4th at pp. 986–987.) Thus, the requirement of administrative exhaustion does not force us to “ignore actual notice the [FTB] may have had from sources other than the four corners of the initial claim.” (Id. at p. 987; accord, Franchise Tax Bd. Limited Liability Corp. Tax Refund Cases (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 369, 386 ; see also Wallace Berrie & Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization (1985) 40 Cal.3d 60, 66, fn. 2 [exhaustion challenge rejected when issue was implicit in claim and Board’s trial stance showed it was aware of issue].) We construe a tax refund claim 12 liberall 2018McKnight, supra, 110 Cal.App.4th at p. 988 , 2 Cal.Rptr.3d 339 .) This is in recognition " ' " 'that many, if not most, applicants are [laypeople] who would be denied hearings if formalized technical rules were followed.' " ' " ( Ibid. ) And, in Preston v. State Board of Equalization (2001) 25 Cal.4th 197 , 105 Cal.Rptr.2d 407 , 19 P.3d 1148 , our Supreme Court held that a tax refund claim "sufficiently raises any contention that is intertwined with or clearly implied from contentions explicitly raised in the claim." ( Id. at pp. 203, 206, 105 Cal.Rptr.2d 407 , 19 P.3d 1148 .) As set forth abo | 3 | 2018–2023 |
County of San Diego v. San Diego NORML
green
2 sentences2019Such applications for reassessment and tax refund actions based thereon are related to but clearly distinct from the " 'subject of [Proposition 13]' " and are something "that the initiative 'does not specifically authorize or prohibit.' " ( County of San Diego v. San Diego NORML (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 798 , 830, 81 Cal.Rptr.3d 461 .) Section 80 thus does not run afoul of article II of the California Constitution. ( County of San Diego v. San Diego NORML, supra , at p. 830, 81 Cal.Rptr.3d 461 .) The prospective assessment limit in section 80, subdivision (a)(5) is constitutional and bars the ta 2019Such applications for reassessment and tax refund actions based thereon are related to but clearly distinct from the " 'subject of [Proposition 13]' " and are something "that the initiative 'does not specifically authorize or prohibit.' " ( County of San Diego v. San Diego NORML (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 798 , 830, 81 Cal.Rptr.3d 461 .) Section 80 thus does not run afoul of article II of the California Constitution. ( County of San Diego v. San Diego NORML, supra , at p. 830, 81 Cal.Rptr.3d 461 .) The prospective assessment limit in section 80, subdivision (a)(5) is constitutional and bars the ta | 2 | 2019–2019 |
Preston v. State Board of Equalization
green
2 sentences2018McKnight, supra, 110 Cal.App.4th at p. 988 , 2 Cal.Rptr.3d 339 .) This is in recognition " ' " 'that many, if not most, applicants are [laypeople] who would be denied hearings if formalized technical rules were followed.' " ' " ( Ibid. ) And, in Preston v. State Board of Equalization (2001) 25 Cal.4th 197 , 105 Cal.Rptr.2d 407 , 19 P.3d 1148 , our Supreme Court held that a tax refund claim "sufficiently raises any contention that is intertwined with or clearly implied from contentions explicitly raised in the claim." ( Id. at pp. 203, 206, 105 Cal.Rptr.2d 407 , 19 P.3d 1148 .) As set forth abo 2018McKnight, supra, 110 Cal.App.4th at p. 988 , 2 Cal.Rptr.3d 339 .) This is in recognition " ' " 'that many, if not most, applicants are [laypeople] who would be denied hearings if formalized technical rules were followed.' " ' " ( Ibid. ) And, in Preston v. State Board of Equalization (2001) 25 Cal.4th 197 , 105 Cal.Rptr.2d 407 , 19 P.3d 1148 , our Supreme Court held that a tax refund claim "sufficiently raises any contention that is intertwined with or clearly implied from contentions explicitly raised in the claim." ( Id. at pp. 203, 206, 105 Cal.Rptr.2d 407 , 19 P.3d 1148 .) As set forth abo | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Claxton v. Waters
green
2 sentences2017For this reason, we conclude that our holding should apply only prospectively. " 'Although as a general rule judicial decisions are to be given retroactive effect [citation], there is a recognized exception when a judicial decision changes a settled rule on which the parties below have relied. [Citations.] "[C]onsiderations of fairness and public policy may require that a decision be given only prospective application. [Citations.] Particular considerations relevant to the retroactivity determination include the reasonableness of the parties' reliance on the former rule, the nature of the chan 2017For this reason, we conclude that our holding should apply only prospectively. " 'Although as a general rule judicial decisions are to be given retroactive effect [citation], there is a recognized exception when a judicial decision changes a settled rule on which the parties below have relied. [Citations.] "[C]onsiderations of fairness and public policy may require that a decision be given only prospective application. [Citations.] Particular considerations relevant to the retroactivity determination include the reasonableness of the parties' reliance on the former rule, the nature of the chan | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Woosley v. State of California
green
1 sentence2008We find no basis in Woosley, supra, 3 Cal.4th 758 , or its progeny for the overbroad statement in Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. v. City of Los Angeles, supra, 79 Cal.App.4th at page 249, that “class-action-type lawsuits seeking a refund of fees and taxes are barred unless each plaintiff has first filed an administrative refund claim with the City,” particularly as applied to claims against local public entities that are not governed by specific tax refund statutes. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
American Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corporation v. The United States
green
1 sentence1991Corp. v. United States (1963) 318 F.2d 915 [ 162 Ct. Cl. 106 ], the court concluded the legal basis for a tax refund claim was learned by an agent of Internal Revenue Service when he audited the taxpayer’s tax returns. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
American Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corp. v. United States
green
1 sentence1991Corp. v. United States (1963) 318 F.2d 915 [ 162 Ct. Cl. 106 ], the court concluded the legal basis for a tax refund claim was learned by an agent of Internal Revenue Service when he audited the taxpayer’s tax returns. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.