valuation principle in California

2023(See Assessor’s Handbook, supra, at p. 85 [noting challenges in verifying income are attributable to personal property because personal property “is significantly influenced by business activity, personal services, sales or services directly related to the rented property . . . or other non-property factors”]; Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. County of 22 Butte (1974) 37 Cal.App.3d 461, 470 [discussing limitations of income approach]; cf. Next Century, supra, 29 Cal.App.5th at p. 723 [“the Board has the power to disregard a valuation analysis it determines for good reason is unpersuasive, and to rejec

2023(See Assessor’s Handbook, supra, at p. 85 [noting challenges in verifying income are attributable to personal property because personal property “is significantly influenced by business activity, personal services, sales or services directly related to the rented property . . . or other non-property factors”]; Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. County of Butte (1974) 37 Cal.App.3d 461, 470 [discussing limitations of income approach]; cf. Next Century, supra, 29 Cal.App.5th at p. 723 [“the Board has the power to disregard a valuation analysis it determines for good reason is unpersuasive, and 22 to rejec

2023(See Assessor’s Handbook, supra, at p. 85 [noting challenges in verifying income are attributable to personal property because personal property “is significantly influenced by business activity, personal services, sales or services directly related to the rented property . . . or other non-property factors”]; Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. County of 22 Butte (1974) 37 Cal.App.3d 461, 470 [discussing limitations of income approach]; cf. Next Century, supra, 29 Cal.App.5th at p. 723 [“the Board has the power to disregard a valuation analysis it determines for good reason is unpersuasive, and to rejec

2023(See Assessor’s Handbook, supra, at p. 85 [noting challenges in verifying income are attributable to personal property because personal property “is significantly influenced by business activity, personal services, sales or services directly related to the rented property . . . or other non-property factors”]; Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. County of Butte (1974) 37 Cal.App.3d 461, 470 [discussing limitations of income approach]; cf. Next Century, supra, 29 Cal.App.5th at p. 723 [“the Board has the power to disregard a valuation analysis it determines for good reason is unpersuasive, and 22 to rejec

2021Section 2000, which governs shareholder purchases initiated to avoid dissolution of a closely held corporation, “does not permit a lack of control discount when determining the fair value of a minority shareholder interest.” (Goles v. Sawhney (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 1014, 1019 ; see Ronald v. 4-C’s Electronic Packaging, Inc. (1985) 168 Cal.App.3d 290, 298-299 ; Brown, supra, 91 Cal.App.3d at p. 486 .) Appellant claims such discounts should similarly be disallowed here.

2021Section 2000, which governs shareholder purchases initiated to avoid dissolution of a closely held corporation, “does not permit a lack of control discount when determining the fair value of a minority shareholder interest.” (Goles v. Sawhney (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 1014, 1019 ; see Ronald v. 4-C’s Electronic Packaging, Inc. (1985) 168 Cal.App.3d 290, 298-299 ; Brown, supra, 91 Cal.App.3d at p. 486 .) Appellant claims such discounts should similarly be disallowed here.

2009(See Brown v. Allied Corrugated Box Co. (1979) 91 Cal.App.3d 477, 482 [ 154 Cal.Rptr. 170 ] [considering the effect of pending wrongful death litigation against the corporation on the fair value determination under former §§ 4658 & 4659, now § 2000].) Expert testimony can be received during the valuation hearing as to the effect of pending litigation on the fair value of the corporation’s shares.

2009(See Brown v. Allied Corrugated Box Co. (1979) 91 Cal.App.3d 477, 482 [ 154 Cal.Rptr. 170 ] [considering the effect of pending wrongful death litigation against the corporation on the fair value determination under former §§ 4658 & 4659, now § 2000].) Expert testimony can be received during the valuation hearing as to the effect of pending litigation on the fair value of the corporation’s shares.

2020(Kuperman v. San Diego County Assessment Appeals Bd. No. 1 (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 918, 926 (Kuperman) [so holding]; see also, Harmony Gold U.S.A., Inc. v. County of Los Angeles (2019) 31 Cal.App.5th 820, 826 (Harmony Gold) [“Examples of nonjudgmental error include . . . incorrectly concluding a change of ownership took place.”]; Little v. Los Angeles County Assessment Appeals Bds. (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 915, 926 [same].) 2.

2020If an assessor is seeking to reassess the property because he or she made an error in valuing the property during a prior assessment—that is, if the assessor is seeking to reassess to fix an error “involv[ing] the exercise of [the] assessor’s judgment as to value”— then the assessor must act “within four years” after the “assessment year for which the [allegedly incorrect] base year value was first established,” unless the valuation error “result[ed] from the taxpayer’s fraud, concealment, misrepresentation, or failure to” furnish required information. (§ 51.5, subds. (b) & (c); Montgomery War

2020If an assessor is seeking to reassess the property because he or she made an error in valuing the property during a prior assessment—that is, if the assessor is seeking to reassess to fix an error “involv[ing] the exercise of [the] assessor’s judgment as to value”— then the assessor must act “within four years” after the “assessment year for which the [allegedly incorrect] base year value was first established,” unless the valuation error “result[ed] from the taxpayer’s fraud, concealment, misrepresentation, or failure to” furnish required information. (§ 51.5, subds. (b) & (c); Montgomery War

2020(Kuperman v. San Diego County Assessment Appeals Bd. No. 1 (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 918, 926 (Kuperman) [so holding]; see also, Harmony Gold U.S.A., Inc. v. County of Los Angeles (2019) 31 Cal.App.5th 820, 826 (Harmony Gold) [“Examples of nonjudgmental error include . . . incorrectly concluding a change of ownership took place.”]; Little v. Los Angeles County Assessment Appeals Bds. (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 915, 926 [same].) 2.

2020(Kuperman v. San Diego County Assessment Appeals Bd. No. 1 (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 918, 926 (Kuperman) [so holding]; see also, Harmony Gold U.S.A., Inc. v. County of Los Angeles (2019) 31 Cal.App.5th 820, 826 (Harmony Gold) [“Examples of nonjudgmental error include . . . incorrectly concluding a change of ownership took place.”]; Little v. Los Angeles County Assessment Appeals Bds. (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 915, 926 [same].) 2.

2009(See Matter of Penepent Corp. (2001) 96 N.Y.2d 186, 194 [ 726 N.Y.S.2d 345 , 750 N.E.2d 47 ].) However, the appraisers clearly stated in their report and responses to interrogatories that they did not attempt to value Cotton’s derivative claims, nor did they take the derivative claims into account in determining the fair value of Cotton’s shares.

2009(See Matter of Penepent Corp. (2001) 96 N.Y.2d 186, 194 [ 726 N.Y.S.2d 345 , 750 N.E.2d 47 ].) However, the appraisers clearly stated in their report and responses to interrogatories that they did not attempt to value Cotton’s derivative claims, nor did they take the derivative claims into account in determining the fair value of Cotton’s shares.

2001(In re Marriage of Czapar (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 1308, 1318 [ 285 Cal.Rptr. 479 ].) The Stevenot court held that the duty of good faith “requires the disclosure of all community assets, but not their valuation unless the valuation or factors affecting the valuation are peculiarly within the knowledge of one spouse, and reasonable inquiry and use of discovery proceedings by the other spouse would fail to disclose them.” (In re Marriage of Stevenot, supra, 154 Cal.App.3d at p. 1070 .) Unhappy with this conclusion, the Legislature passed Assembly Bill No. 2194 in 1989.

2001(In re Marriage of Czapar (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 1308, 1318 [ 285 Cal.Rptr. 479 ].) The Stevenot court held that the duty of good faith “requires the disclosure of all community assets, but not their valuation unless the valuation or factors affecting the valuation are peculiarly within the knowledge of one spouse, and reasonable inquiry and use of discovery proceedings by the other spouse would fail to disclose them.” (In re Marriage of Stevenot, supra, 154 Cal.App.3d at p. 1070 .) Unhappy with this conclusion, the Legislature passed Assembly Bill No. 2194 in 1989.

1993(See People v. Cotton (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 1072, 1086 [ 284 Cal.Rptr. 757 ].) However, Foster has given no hint of the nature of any showing he might have made at a valuation hearing to contest the victim’s figure.

1993(See People v. Cotton (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 1072, 1086 [ 284 Cal.Rptr. 757 ].) However, Foster has given no hint of the nature of any showing he might have made at a valuation hearing to contest the victim’s figure.

1978(See Albers v. County of Los Angeles, 62 Cal.2d 250, 268 [ 42 Cal.Rptr. 89 , 398 P.2d 129 ].) As we have explained, loss of income, as such, is not constitutionálly compensable in eminent domain as an item of enhanced damages. *763 The cases cited by Sunny Crest (Kimball Laundry Co. v. U. S., 338 U.S. 1 [ 93 L.Ed. 1765 , 69 S.Ct. 1434 ]; U. S. v. General Motors Corp., 323 U.S. 373 [ 89 L.Ed. 311 , 65 S.Ct. 357 ]; United States v. 37.15 Acres of Land, etc. (S.D.Cal. 1948) 77 F.Supp. 798 ; United States v. Certain Parcels of Land (S.D.Cal. 1945) 63 F.Supp. 175 ) simply involve application of the

1978(See Albers v. County of Los Angeles, 62 Cal.2d 250, 268 [ 42 Cal.Rptr. 89 , 398 P.2d 129 ].) As we have explained, loss of income, as such, is not constitutionálly compensable in eminent domain as an item of enhanced damages. *763 The cases cited by Sunny Crest (Kimball Laundry Co. v. U. S., 338 U.S. 1 [ 93 L.Ed. 1765 , 69 S.Ct. 1434 ]; U. S. v. General Motors Corp., 323 U.S. 373 [ 89 L.Ed. 311 , 65 S.Ct. 357 ]; United States v. 37.15 Acres of Land, etc. (S.D.Cal. 1948) 77 F.Supp. 798 ; United States v. Certain Parcels of Land (S.D.Cal. 1945) 63 F.Supp. 175 ) simply involve application of the