Case # | Name | Category | Court | Judge | Published |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
18-17004
|
Gilbert v. U.S.
District court was correct that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs' suit for declaratory judgment related to federal tax obligations. |
Tax |
|
D. Forrest | May 21, 2021 |
19-73078
|
Patients Mutual Assistance Collective v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Tax Court did not err in concluding that plaintiff's inventory cost is determined by Treas. Reg. Section 1.471-3(b), which applies to purchaser and reseller of the products it sells. |
Tax |
|
D. Bress | Apr. 23, 2021 |
A160161
|
Silva v. Humboldt County
County's measure amendments impermissibly broadened scope of tax by imposing taxes on property owners subject to commercial marijuana cultivation permit regardless of whether they cultivated marijuana. |
Tax |
|
J. Humes | Apr. 8, 2021 |
19-55585
|
U.S. v. Boyd
31 U.S.C. Section 5321(a)(5)(A) authorizes IRS to impose only one non-willful penalty when an untimely, but accurate, Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts form is filed, no matter number of accounts. |
Tax |
|
M. Bennett | Mar. 25, 2021 |
B298278
|
Modification: LA Live Properties, LLC v. County of Los Angeles
Trial court correctly concluded that plaintiff's claim for refund of property taxes was not reviewable on the merits because plaintiff did not exhaust its administrative remedies. |
Tax |
|
L. Edmon | Mar. 19, 2021 |
A159181
|
Modification: Ashford Hospitality v. City and County of San Francisco
Trial court properly concluded that defendant's transfer tax did not violate Equal Protection Clause. |
Tax |
|
S. Pollak | Mar. 10, 2021 |
A159181
|
Ashford Hospitality v. City and County of San Francisco
Trial court properly concluded that defendant's transfer tax did not violate Equal Protection Clause. |
Tax |
|
S. Pollak | Mar. 3, 2021 |
B298278
|
LA Live Properties, LLC v. County of Los Angeles
Trial court correctly concluded that plaintiff's claim for refund of property taxes was not reviewable on the merits because plaintiff did not exhaust its administrative remedies. |
Tax |
|
L. Edmon | Mar. 2, 2021 |
A157983
|
Modification: Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. v. City and County of San Francisco
Proposition 13 did not compel a two-thirds supermajority vote to approve voter initiatives. |
Tax |
|
M. Simons | Feb. 24, 2021 |
A157983
|
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. v. City and County of San Francisco
Proposition 13 did not compel a two-thirds supermajority vote to approve voter initiatives. |
Tax |
|
M. Simons | Jan. 29, 2021 |
B302708
|
Chinese Theatres, LLC v. County of Los Angeles
Property owner not entitled to attorney fees under Revenue and Taxation Code Section 1611.6 because trial court did not order County Assessment Appeals Board to make new findings on remand. |
Tax |
|
L. Lavin | Jan. 6, 2021 |
A158725
|
Phillis v. County of Humboldt
Foreclosure sales are not 'open market transactions' supporting application of Revenue and Taxation Code Section 110's purchase price presumption as measure of value. |
Tax |
|
J. Kline | Jan. 5, 2021 |
A156315
|
Letterman Digital Arts Ltd. v. City and County of San Francisco
Trial court properly sustained without leave to amend city's demurrer because taxes and fees plaintiff paid to city did not contravene provisions of Presidio Trust Act. |
Tax |
|
S. Pollak | Jan. 4, 2021 |
B298794
|
Prang v. Amen
Respondent's petition for writ of administrative mandate was properly granted because 'stock' under Revenue and Taxation Code Section 62(a)(2) applies to all classes of stock, including both voting and non-voting stock. |
Tax |
|
L. Rubin | Dec. 8, 2020 |
B299132
|
Humphreville v. City of Los Angeles
City's ongoing practice of transferring surplus from Department of Water and Power's revenue fund to City's General Fund did not constitute tax. |
Tax |
|
B. Hoffstadt | Dec. 7, 2020 |
D074877
|
Mahon v. City of San Diego
City's 'Undergrounding Surcharge' was compensation validly given in exchange for franchise rights and thus was not a tax subject to voter approval under Proposition 218. |
Tax |
|
C. Aaron | Nov. 25, 2020 |
18-35956
|
U.S. v. Allahyari
District court erred by holding that defendant's 2005 deed of trust was not entitled to priority over later-recorded federal tax liens. |
Tax |
|
J. Tunheim | Nov. 16, 2020 |
A159144
|
Manson Construction Co. v. County of Contra Costa
Vessel Use Exemption to property taxation did not apply to plaintiff's vessels, which were not 'engaged in the transportation of freight' within the meaning of the exemption. |
Tax |
|
I. Petrou | Nov. 4, 2020 |
18-17036
|
U.S. v. Sanmina Corp.
District court did not clearly err in concluding that appellant expressly waived attorney-client privilege by disclosing memoranda to its attorney for purpose of obtaining non-legal valuation analysis. |
Tax |
|
C. Callahan | Aug. 10, 2020 |
S252915
|
Wilde v. City of Dunsmuir
City's water rates fall within exemption for tax levies under Article II, Section 9(a) of California Constitution and therefore were not subject to referendum process. |
Tax |
|
L. Kruger | Aug. 4, 2020 |
A155034
|
Church v. San Mateo County Assessment Appeals Bd.
Trial court erroneously rejected appeals board's determination that additional costs identified by county assessor should not have been included in assessing value of appellant's property for purposes of property tax. |
Tax |
|
S. Pollak | Jul. 20, 2020 |
19-35184
|
BNSF Railway v. Oregon Dep't of Revenue
Under 49 U.S.C. Section 11501(b)(4), railroads may challenge discriminatory property taxes--even those masquerading as tax exemptions. |
Tax |
|
V. Chhabria | Jul. 9, 2020 |
A154691
|
Steuer v. Franchise Tax Board
Entire amount of trust income derived from California sources may be taxed regardless of trust fiduciaries' residency. |
Tax |
|
T. Jackson | Jul. 2, 2020 |
17-72874
|
Organic Cannabis Foundation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Petitions could not be deemed timely under Internal Revenue Code mailbox rule because particular FedEx service used was not on IRS's formal list of designated delivery services. |
Tax |
|
D. Collins | Jun. 19, 2020 |
B294400
|
California Dept. of Tax and Fee Administration v. Superior Court (Kintner)
Government Code Section 11350 does not create exemption to Article XIII, Section 32 of California Constitution's requirement that taxpayers pay tax before they can challenge its assessment. |
Tax |
|
B. Hoffstadt | May 11, 2020 |
B291341
|
County Inmate Telephone Service Cases
Inmates in county jails did not have standing to sue for unlawful taxes paid by telecommunications companies, which passed on that cost to inmates. |
Tax |
|
E. Grimes | Apr. 30, 2020 |
18-16053
|
Badgley v. U.S.
When a grantor derives substantial present economic benefit from property, she retains the enjoyment of that property for purposes of 26 U.S.C. Section 2036(a). |
Tax |
|
C. Lucero | Apr. 29, 2020 |
B292613
|
Los Angeles Leadership Academy v. Prang
Charter Schools Act does not suggest that charter schools are to be treated as public school districts for taxation purposes. |
Tax |
|
E. Grimes | Mar. 12, 2020 |
H044904
|
HGST, Inc. v. County of Santa Clara
Revenue and Taxation Code Section 531.4 mandates assessment as required by law of any portion of property which is wholly or partly inaccurately reported. |
Tax |
|
M. Greenwood | Mar. 2, 2020 |
16-70496
|
Altera Corp. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Dissent to en banc denial found Treasury's explanation for decision lacked evidentiary support, and majority's decision potentiated a circuit split while inviting uncertainty for businesses relying on the well-settled 'arm's length' standard. |
Tax |
|
Nov. 13, 2019 |