DOCSLIB.ORG

Download All Court Cases

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Download All Court Cases Court Cases Affiliate and Subsidiary Companies The Los Angeles Municipal Code was amended to provide for the following on January 1, 2002. The term “gross receipts” as used in this article shall not include any amount received from or charged to any person which is a related entity to the taxpayer. A person is a related entity to a taxpayer if 80% or more of the ownership interests in both value and voting power of said person and the taxpayer are held, directly or indirectly, by the same person or persons. Notwithstanding the foregoing, any amount received from or charged to any person which is a related entity to a taxpayer shall be included in “gross receipts” when said amount is compensation for activities, including, but not limited to, selling, renting and service, performed by the taxpayer for any person which is not a related entity to the taxpayer. These court cases continue to be used as they define issues not only for related companies but also for other companies doing business in the City of Los Angeles. CITY OF LOS ANGELES v. SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC. (1975) 46 Cal. App. 3d 950 The taxpayer provides billing services and collections for its subsidiaries, and provides personnel to its subsidiaries. The subsidiaries reimburse the taxpayer for the salaries of the persons who serve the subsidiaries. The court ruled that “ the entire payroll, regardless of what form of or for when work was performed,” was the taxpayer’s own obligation, and reimbursement of the salaries were taxable gross receipts. CITY OF LOS ANGELES V. CLINTON MERCHANDISING CORPORATION (1962) 58 Cal. 2d 675 The court affirmed City of Los Angeles’ position that taxpayer providing merchandise to affiliates was subject to taxation pursuant to LAMC Sec. 21.166 (Wholesale) rather than LAMC Sec. 21.79 (Commission Brokers). A secondary issue, in regards to LAMC Sec. 21.190 (Professions / Occupations) activity, decided by the court was that the taxpayer was subject to taxation pursuant to Sec. 21.190 (Professions/Occupations) only for revenue received for services it rendered to its affiliates. The court held that receipts received from its affiliates as an agent of the affiliates were not subject to taxation. 1 REXALL DRUG COMPANY v. PETERSON (1952) 113 Cal. App. 2d 528 The taxpayer provided administrative services for its subsidiaries and charged each subsidiary its proportionate cost. The court rejected the taxpayer’s claim that receipts received for the administrative services provided on a nonprofit basis were not subject to taxation by the City of Los Angeles. The court was not persuaded by the taxpayer’s following arguments that: (a) a business may not be taxed unless it is conducted for a profit or for livelihood; (b) Rexall was not an independent contractor. Administrative Remedy CITY OF LOS ANGELES v. CENTEX TELEMANAGEMENT, INC. (1994) 29 Cal. App. 4th 1384 Neither the City nor the taxpayer can bring a lawsuit until all administrative remedies have been exhausted per the provisions of Sec. 21.16 LAMC (Assessment-Administrative Remedy). The Statute of Limitation is tolled and no litigation may be instituted until the administrative procedures are exhausted. Claims Against The Application of the LAMC HOSPITAL MEDICAL COLLECTIONS, INC. v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES (1976) 65 Cal. App. 3d 46 The court found that the taxpayers, which were collection agencies, were taxable on the entire gross receipts earned, including amounts paid as commissions to independent collection contractors. ALCO PLATING CORP. v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES (1974) 39 Cal. App. 948 The City may tax at different rates businesses primarily engaged in manufacturing and selling, and businesses primarily engaged in providing a service. THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES v. W.J. TANNAHILL, et al (1951) 105 Cal. App. 2d 541 The City can adopt a rational classification, like Sec. 21.195 (Trucking / Hauling), which affects equally all persons of the same class; it is lawful to tax trucks operated for hire based upon their unladen weights and amount of use. 2 Constitutionality of the Tax TIMES MIRROR COMPANY ET AL V. CITY OF LOS ANGELES (1987) 192 Cal. App. 3d 170 The City of Los Angeles Business Tax levied against newspaper companies was Constitutional; the First Amendment does not exempt newspapers from generally applicable economic regulations and taxes. Failure To Pay Business Tax DAVID B. EDWARDS V. CITY OF LOS ANGELES (1941) 48 Cal. App. 2d 62 The taxpayer was subject to taxation pursuant to LAMC Sec. 21.99 (Hotel, Apartment, etc.) for the rental of apartments. Additionally, the taxpayer was subject to prosecution for failure to pay the business tax. Independent Contractor/Agent PROGRAMMING-ENTERPRISES, INC, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES (1989) 215 Cal. App. 3d 281 The taxpayer employment agency argued that monies received to pay the salaries of independent contractors should not be taxable gross receipts. The court ruled in favor of the City of Los Angeles on three issues. First, taxpayer’s claim that it acted as the agent of an independent contractor and, therefore, the exemption found in LAMC Sec. 21.190(c)(6) (Professions / Occupations) should apply to a percentage of taxpayer’s gross receipts was rejected. The gross receipts were not received by the taxpayer on behalf of another. Second, the taxpayer’s gross receipts for work performed by independent contractors were found not to be subject to apportionment given that the taxpayer had neither property nor employees located outside the city. Third, the taxpayer’s gross receipts derived from work performed by independent contractors was not subject to taxation pursuant to LAMC Sec. 21.189.1 (Miscellaneous Services-Temporary Help Agency) since the taxpayer was not supplying its own employees to others on a temporary basis. 3 CITY OF LOS ANGELES v. H.R. SHERWOOD et al (1978) 85 Cal. App. 3d 347 The court rejected the taxpayer’s contention that it operated as an agent, and determined it to be an independent contractor whose gross receipts were taxable. Furthermore, it was determined that certain receipts were not collected by the taxpayer on behalf of another as claimed and that said receipts were subject to taxation. INDEPENDENT CASTING-TELEVISION, INC. v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES (1975) 49 Cal. App. 3d 502 Plaintiff casting agency sued for a tax refund, claiming that gross receipts did not include monies it received to pay the extras’ salaries. The court ruled that the taxpayer was not due a refund of taxes paid since it determined that the taxpayer was the employer of extras placed with producers. It was held that taxpayer was not acting in the capacity of agent and was subject to tax on its reimbursed wages. AMERICAN PRESIDENT LINES, LTD. V. FRANCHISE TAX BOARD (1970) 3 Cal. App. 3d 587 The court ruled that a taxpayer’s actions as an independent contractor on behalf of another party cannot be considered acts of the other party, and the taxpayer’s gross receipts include amounts earned as an independent contractor. In “Lieu Tax” Or Gross Premium Tax CALIFORNIA FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASOCIATION et al., v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES (1995) 50 Cal. 3d 402 All Savings and Loan Associations are exempt from the City’s business tax since they pay an “in lieu” tax to the State of California and have a financial institution status. MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES (1990) 50 Cal. 3d 402 Insurance companies that pay the “in lieu” tax or the gross premiums tax are exempt from paying the city’s business tax. 4 Professional License vs Municipal Taxation FRANKLIN v. PETERSON (1948) 87 Cal. App. 2d 727 The issuance of a professional license by the State of California does not carry with it an exemption from municipal taxation. The City’s business tax ordinance does not attempt to regulate the professions, business or occupations that are subject to tax. It provides only for a license for revenue purposes, and is not a regulatory measure affecting the business or profession so taxed, and thus is constitutional. Proration of the Annual Minimum Business Tax CITY OF SAN JOSE v. RUTHROFF & ENGLEKIRK CONSULTING STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS, INC., (1982) 131 Cal. App. 3d 462 The Court of Appeals held that a minimum annual city business tax must be prorated to reflect the amount of business actually conducted within the taxing city. Out-of-city taxpayers shall remit a business tax which reflects the amount of business actually conducted within the City of Los Angeles. 5 46 Cal. App. 3d 950, *; 1975 Cal. App. LEXIS 1821, **; 120 Cal. Rptr. 600, *** CITY OF LOS ANGELES, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant and Respondent Civ. No. 44622 Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District, Division One 46 Cal. App. 3d 950; 1975 Cal. App. LEXIS 1821; 120 Cal. Rptr. 600 April 9, 1975 PRIOR HISTORY: [**1] Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. C-3548, James D. Tante, Judge. DISPOSITION: We conclude that respondent's entire payroll, including all officers' salaries, for the calendar years 1968, 1969 and 1970, and its assumed reimbursement therefor constitute its gross receipts subject to business tax. Although in its complaint plaintiff prays for recovery of $ 2,240.46, we cannot determine either from the pleading or the record exactly what this sum covers -- whether it represents taxes only or includes penalties and/or interest -- or even whether such computation is correct, thus, we reverse the judgment and remand the cause to the superior court to make such determination in accord with the views expressed in this opinion. CASE SUMMARY PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff city sought review of a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which held that defendant corporation owed back taxes to the city.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • “Chief Justice Roger J. Traynor's Tax Philosophy” Mirit Eyal-Cohen
    PREVENTIVE TAX POLICY: CHIEF JUSTICE ROGER J. TRAYNOR'S TAX PHILOSOPHY ∗ MIRIT EYAL-COHEN © TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction 2 II. Incoherent Fiscal Practices and Too Much Law 4 III. Preventive Tax Policy 7 A. Traynor's Tax Education and His Encounter with Stanley Surrey 7 B. Ex Ante Preventive Tax Policy 8 C. Ex Post Tax Policy 9 IV. Preventive Tax Policy – Defeated? 11 A. Traynor’s System of Tax Adjudication 11 B. Today’s Implementation of Preventive Tax Measures 18 V. Conclusion 21 ∗ S.J.D. Candidate, University of California, Los Angeles. I would like to thank Julie Makinen, Kirk Stark, Steven Bank and Ilan Benshalom for their insightful comments on drafts of this paper. I also thank the California Supreme Court Historical Society for choosing this paper as winner of the 2007 Writing Competition. Finally, I am grateful to my family, most especially my husband Tamir for his constant love and support. I. INTRODUCTION Roger J. Traynor was appointed to the Supreme Court of California in 1940 and served as its Chief Justice from 1964 to 1970. He is best known today for his judicial innovations in the fields of conflict of laws, product liability, and civil procedure.1 His decisions on miscegenation, divorce, police searches and product liability were ahead of his time, and led California’s legal system into the future. His most significant opinions included rejecting the legal prohibition of inter-racial marriages, adopting no-fault divorce, restricting police searches and applying a strict standard of liability in product defect cases.2 However, few would trace Roger J.
    [Show full text]
  • Stone & Youngberg
    OFFICIAL STATEMENT NEW ISSUE NO RATING In the opinion of Bond Counsel, under existing laws, regulations, rulings and judicial decisions, interest on the Bonds is exempt from State of California personal income taxes, is excluded from gross income for purposesof income taxation by the United States of America, and is not an item of tax preference for purposes of the alternative min,imum tax imposed by the United States on individuals and corporations, subject to certain qual�fications more particularly described under the heading "TAX EXEMPTION" herein. STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE $12,815,000 COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 89-1 (REDHAWK) OF THE TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT SPECIAL TAX BONDS, SERIES 1990 Dated: December 15, 1990 Due: September l, as shown The Bonds are being issued to finance the construction and acquisition of certainschool, day care and reclaimed water facilities and other public improvements as further described herein to serve property located within Community Facilities District No. 89-1 (Redhawk) of the Temecula Valley Unified School District (the "District"), located in the County of Riverside, State of California. The Bonds are authorized to be issued pursuant to the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982, as amended (Sections 53311 et seq. of the Government Code of the State of California) and a resolution adopted by the GoverningBoard of the Temecula Valley Unified School District (the "School District") acting as the legislative body of the District, approving execution of an Administration Agreement by and between the School District on behalf of the District and Bank of America National Trust and Savings Association, as fiscal agent ("Fiscal Agent") dated as of December 15, 1990 ("Administration Agreement") which establishes the terms and conditions governing the Bonds and any Additional Bonds (as definedherein).
    [Show full text]
  • California Commission on Tax Policy in the New Economy. the Commission’S Charter Is Defined by Revenue and Taxation Code Sections 38061-38067
    California Commission on Tax Policy in the New Economy Final Report DECEMBER 2003 California Commission on Tax Policy in the New Economy Final Report DECEMBER 2003 California Commission on Tax Policy in the New Economy 900 “N” Street, Suite 300, Sacramento, CA 95814 916-653-6742 Fax: 916-653-1764 _______________________________________________________ TO: The Honorable Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor Members of the California Senate and Assembly FROM: William J. Rosendahl Chairman, California Commission on Tax Policy in the New Economy RE: Final Report DATE: December 2003 On behalf of the Commissioners and Ex-Officio Members of the California Commission on Tax Policy in the New Economy, I am pleased to present our Final Report. This report documents the work of the Commission over the past two years and contains the Commissioners’ final recommendations. It further develops the themes and issues contained in our Interim Report, November 25, 2002, and our Options for Revising the California Tax System, June 15, 2003. The Proceedings of the Commission are included in the attached CD. After 17 hearings and over 140 speakers, the Commission has accumulated a wealth of information concerning tax policy in California. Videotapes of each hearing were also produced. Many of these hearings were simultaneously webcast so that California citizens could follow and participate in the Commission’s work. Should you so desire, the Commission has volunteered to continue its work with selected outreach to key Legislature Committee Chairs and their staffs, as well as with your financial advisory team, to facilitate bipartisan agreements and legislation to help restore a solid foundation for California’s economic future.
    [Show full text]
  • California's Contributions to State and Local Taxation Frank M
    BYU Law Review Volume 1979 | Issue 4 Article 4 11-1-1979 California's Contributions to State and Local Taxation Frank M. Keesling Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/lawreview Part of the Taxation-State and Local Commons Recommended Citation Frank M. Keesling, California's Contributions to State and Local Taxation, 1979 BYU L. Rev. 809 (1979). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/lawreview/vol1979/iss4/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Brigham Young University Law Review at BYU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in BYU Law Review by an authorized editor of BYU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. California's Contributions to State and Local Taxation Frank M. Keesling* California is noted for many things, including various geo- graphical, environmental, and sociological phenomena. For ex- ample, the San Andreas Fault commences in Mexico and contin- ues northward throughout most of California. From it has ema- nated a great many earthquakes, one of which, with the resulting fire, nearly destroyed San Francisco in 1906. In terms of sheer beauty, it is difficult to match the Yosemite Valley-a gorgeous glacial-carved niche in the Sierra Nevada-or the majestic red- wood~,~some of which are among the largest and oldest living things. Many find a walk through a redwood grove to be an awe- inspiring and soul-satisfying experience. The gold rush of 1849,2 the eath her,^ the smog,4and weirdo cults too numerous to men- tion are all associated with California.
    [Show full text]
  • California Property Tax Apportionment System
    Exhibit F‐2 40 pages SQUAW VALLEY PUBLIC SERVICE DISTRICT California Property Tax Apportionment System DATE: August 28, 2018 TO: District Board of Directors FROM: Mike Geary, General Manager SUBJECT: Information Only ‐ California Property Tax Apportionment System BACKGROUND: The District Board was requested by a member of the Board of Directors of the Squaw Valley Mutual Water Company (MWC) to consider allocating a portion of the District’s property tax revenue used to fund expenses related to the District’s water system to customers of the MWC. The basis for the request is that the District receives property tax revenue from all property owners in Olympic Valley which are used to benefit the District’s water customers by offsetting their user fees while customers of the MWC do not receive any benefit. As the MWC is not a governmental agency (e.g., a taxing entity) and is a private corporation, it does not receive property tax revenue. The District uses property tax revenues to fund its water, sewer collection, fire protection and emergency medical services (EMS). The following table shows how the District allocated its property tax revenues between those services over the last ten fiscal years. It does not include water and sewer rate revenues: Fiscal Year Tax Revenue Fire Water Sewer 2018‐2019$ 3,530,497 $ 3,412,997 $ ‐117,500 $ 2017‐2018$ 3,448,583 $ 3,379,611 $ 68,972 $ ‐ 2016‐2017$ 3,342,349 $ 3,157,996 $ ‐184,353 $ 2015‐2016$ 3,298,009 $ 2,773,179 $ ‐524,830 $ 2014‐2015$ 3,015,928 $ 2,688,493 $ 153,615 $ 173,820 2013‐2014$ 2,903,880 $ 2,627,109 $ 256,153 $ 20,618 2012‐2013$ 2,882,549 $ 2,598,525 $ 216,016 $ 68,008 2011‐2012$ 2,799,511 $ 2,427,616 $ 312,970 $ 58,925 2010‐2011$ 2,874,088 $ 2,448,166 $ 322,320 $ 103,602 2009‐2010$ 3,225,523 $ 2,512,555 $ 408,878 $ 304,090 305 Squaw Valley Road P.
    [Show full text]
  • California Municipal Finance Authority
    NEW ISSUE – BOOK-ENTRY ONLY RATING: Standard & Poor’s “A+” (See “RATING” herein) In the opinion of Bond Counsel, under existing law interest on the Series A Bonds and the Series B Bonds is exempt from personal income taxes of the State of California and, assuming compliance with the tax covenants described herein, interest on the Series A Bonds is excluded pursuant to section 103(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 from the gross income of the owners thereof for federal income tax purposes and is not an item of tax preference for purposes of the alternative minimum income tax imposed on corporations and individuals. The Authority has taken no action to cause, and does not intend for, interest on the Series B Bonds to be excluded pursuant to section 103(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 from the gross income of the owners thereof for federal income tax purposes. See “TAX MATTERS” herein. CALIFORNIA MUNICIPAL FINANCE AUTHORITY $15,160,000 $220,000 Revenue Bonds (Oxnard Fire Station Project) Revenue Bonds (Oxnard Fire Station Project) 2014 Series A 2014 Series B (Taxable) Dated: Date of Delivery Due: December 1, as shown on the inside cover The $15,160,000 California Municipal Finance Authority Revenue Bonds (Oxnard Fire Station Project) 2014 Series A (the “Series A Bonds”) and the $220,000 California Municipal Finance Authority Revenue Bonds (Oxnard Fire Station Project) 2014 Series B (Taxable) (the “Series B Bonds,” and together with the Series A Bonds, the “Bonds”) will be issued as fully-registered bonds registered in the name of a nominee of The Depository Trust Company, New York, New York (“DTC”), which will act as securities depository for the Bonds.
    [Show full text]
  • The Bank and Corporation Franchise Tax Act (1932)
    University of California, Hastings College of the Law UC Hastings Scholarship Repository Taxation & Traynor The onorH able Roger J. Traynor Collection 1932 The aB nk and Corporation Franchise Tax Act Roger J. Traynor Follow this and additional works at: http://repository.uchastings.edu/tax Part of the Banking and Finance Law Commons, and the Tax Law Commons Recommended Citation Roger J. Traynor, The Bank and Corporation Franchise Tax Act (1932). Available at: http://repository.uchastings.edu/tax/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the The onorH able Roger J. Traynor Collection at UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Taxation & Traynor by an authorized administrator of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A Ik IA/Z £5 Z j -APT d CORPORATION CH$ TAX ACT YNo OS O LAWW'F CALUFORNIA Am' ,4j 'Z4 f olM 4Z.::? ,4.:t, pI [ON LAWS e,1o~~ Mj.1o Pc~weLQ 4. ~ I~ 4. 1 t 8 * The BANK and CORPORATION FRANCHISE TAX ACT BY ROGER J. TRAYNOR CHAPTER XX. THE E1ANK AND CORPORATION FRANCHISE TAX ACT.a Sec. 550. Act of 1929 Amended. 551. Corporations Taxable. 552. What Is Meant by "Doing Business?" 553. Business Trusts. 554. Income Reported to Federal Government Is the Basis of the Computation of the Tax. 555. Adjustments; Tax Exempt Interest. 556. Stock Dividends and Subscription Rights. 557. Liquidating Dividends. 558. Dividends Paid in Property Other Than Cash. 559. Dividends From Earnings Accumulated Prior to Effective Date of the Act.
    [Show full text]
  • Propositions 26 and 218 IMPLEMENTATION GUIDE | MAY 2019
    Propositions 26 and 218 IMPLEMENTATION GUIDE | MAY 2019 Copyright ©2019 League of California Cities® All rights reserved. This publication, or parts thereof, may not be reproduced in any form without the permission of the League of California Cities®. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The League of California Cities gratefully acknowledges the contributions of Propositions 26 and 218 Implementation Guide Committee for their hard work and dedication in drafting this guide: Impletmentation Guide Committee City Attorneys’ Department Officer Liaison Michael G. Colantuono, Chair Damien Brower, 2nd Vice President Colantuono, Highsmith & Whatley, PC City Attorney, City of Brentwood City Attorney, Auburn and Grass Valley John Bakker League of California Cities’ Staff Meyers, Nave, Riback, Silver & Wilson City Attorney, City of Dublin Patrick Whitnell, General Counsel Buck Delventhal Corrie Manning, Senior Deputy General Counsel Deputy City Attorney, City and County of San Francisco Alison Leary, Deputy General Counsel Ryan Thomas Dunn Colantuono, Highsmith & Whatley, PC Janet Leonard, Legal Services Manager Ben Fay Jarvis, Fay, Doporto & Gibson, LLP Daniel S. Hentschke Attorney at Law This publication is provided for general information only and is not offered or intended as legal advice. Adam W. Hoffman Hanson Bridgett, LLP Readers should seek the advice of an attorney when confronted with legal issues and attorneys should Mark E. Mandell Mandell Municipal Consulting perform an independent evaluation of the issues raised in these materials. Gabriel McWhirter Jarvis, Fay, Doporto & Gibson, LLP Trisha Ortiz Richards, Watson & Gershon Kelly J. Salt Best, Best & Krieger, LLP Kevin D. Siegel Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP Betsy Strauss Special Counsel, League of California Cities Sky Woodruff Meyers, Nave, Riback, Silver & Wilson City Attorney, El Cerrito and Larkspur Copyright © 2019 by the League of California Cities®, Sacramento, California All rights reserved.
    [Show full text]
  • Reevaluating the California Sales Tax: Exemptions, Equity, Effectiveness, and the Need for a Broader Base *
    Reevaluating the California Sales Tax: Exemptions, Equity, Effectiveness, and the Need for a Broader Base * TABLE OF CONTENTS l. INTRODUCTION . 1682 IL THE RISE OF CALIFORNIA'S SALES TAX . 1691 III. THE SALES TAX SYSTEM IN CALIFORNIA TODAY . 1699 A. Revenue, Rate, and Expenses . 1699 B. Rulemaking and Compliance . 1700 C. Exemptions and Exclusions . 1702 IV. AN ANALYSIS OF THE CURRENT SYSTEM AGAINST ITS ORIGINAL GOALS . 1708 A. Revenue Generation . 1708 B. Fairness I: Equity . 1714 I. The Historical Debate . 1714 2. Vertical Equity . 1717 3. Horizontal Equity . 1721 C. Administration, Reporting, and Collection . 1723 I. Costs . 1723 2. Compliance . 1729 3. Confusion . 1735 4. Consequences . 1746 D. Fairness II: Neutrality . 1751 V. A LOOK AT SOME ALTERNATIVES . 1756 A. Broadening the Tax Base . 1756 I. Taxing Services . 1758 2. Eliminating Exemptions . 1765 3. Sales Tax Credits . 1767 B. Revising the Tax Structure . 1769 V. CONCLUSION . 1777 * The author wishes to express his gratitude to Prof. Adrienne P. Jeffrey for her thought-provoking discussions and practical guidance, to Prof. Lester B. Snyder for his insightful and challenging comments, and to Marc Matys for living through it all. 1681 If the sales tax is to continue as a successful revenue measure, it must be kept on as broad a base as possible. Its principal value as a source ofpublic funds is the universality of its application. One additional exemption will undoubtedly lead to another. Soon others will follow, supported by the argument that they are fully as meritorious as those allowed previously. Exemptions, reasonable enough when considered individually, will form a vicious cycle destroying the usefulness of the measure, and will plunge the State back into the "tax crisis" from which it was rescued through the adoption of the Sales Tax Act.
    [Show full text]
  • October 2015 / $4
    LACBA DIRECTORYINSIDE THE MAGAZINE OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION 2015-16 OCTOBER 2015 / $4 EARN MCLE CREDIT PLUS New Trial NINGs Procedure page 34 page 29 Mediation Confidentiality in Divorce page 10 Advance Healthcare Directives page 17 Voice Dictation Software Uncertain page 40 Waivers Los Angeles lawyers Kenneth D. Sulzer (right) and Robert A. Escalante appraise the current state of of PAGA representative actions and class actions page 20 FEATURES 20 Uncertain Waivers BY KENNETH D. SULZER AND ROBERT A. ESCALANTE No California appellate court has ruled that manageability concerns obligate a court to strike PAGA representative actions 29 Maroney's Minefield BY MICHAEL SHIPLEY California offers a very narrow procedural gateway but broad substantive grounds for a new trial Plus: Earn MCLE credit. MCLE Test No. 250 appears on page 31. 34 Considering NINGs BY NEIL SCHOENBLUM AND CATHERINE COLOMBO Subject to caveats such as trustee residency, the Nevada incomplete gift non-grantor trust may benefit Californians with substantial investment assets Special Pullout Section 2015-2016 Los Angeles County Bar Association Directory Los Angeles Lawyer DEPARTME NTS the magazine of the Los Angeles County 8 On Direct 40 Computer Counselor Bar Association Silvia R. Argueta Directions for using voice recognition October 2015 INTERVIEW BY DEBORAH KELLY sofeware in legal practice BY PAUL D. SUPNIK Volume 38, No. 7 9 Barristers Tips Recent developments in special needs 44 Closing Argument COVER PHOTO: TOM KELLER trust caselaw What to do when a witness answers BY AURORA BASA “I don’t know” at trial BY MATTHEW D. TAGGART 10 Practice Tips The effect of Lappe upon mediation 42 Index to Advertisers confidentiality in divorce cases BY CLAUDIA RIBET LOS ANGELES LAWYER (ISSN 0162-2900) is published monthly, 43 CLE Preview except for a combined issue in July/August, by the Los Angeles County Bar Association, 1055 West 7th Street, Suite 2700, Los Angeles, CA 90017 (213) 896-6503.
    [Show full text]
  • Solving the Proposition 13 Puzzle: from Amador to Nordlinger--Judicial Challenges and Alternatives Steven T
    McGeorge Law Review Volume 24 | Issue 3 Article 18 1-1-1993 Solving the Proposition 13 Puzzle: From Amador to Nordlinger--Judicial Challenges and Alternatives Steven T. Lawrence University of the Pacific; cGeM orge School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/mlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Steven T. Lawrence, Solving the Proposition 13 Puzzle: From Amador to Nordlinger--Judicial Challenges and Alternatives, 24 Pac. L. J. 1769 (1993). Available at: https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/mlr/vol24/iss3/18 This Notes is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals and Law Reviews at Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in McGeorge Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Solving The Proposition 13 Puzzle: From Amador To Nordlinger -- Judicial Challenges And Alternatives The "American Dream" of purchasing one's first home has turned sour in California. After living in rental properties for 25 years, imagine the excitement of purchasing a first home in 1988 in the Baldwin Hills area of Los Angeles for $170,000. This starter home is a three bedroom modest affair, which is part of a tract of single family homes developed in 1947. The initial excitement, however, begins to fade when the total annual property tax bill is $1700. The excitement rapidly dissipates when one discovers that the next door neighbor in this tract development only pays $350 in annual property tax for a home which is slightly larger. The excitement completely disintegrates when one discovers that the property tax bill for the newly purchased Baldwin Hills home is roughly the same as a palatial Malibu beachfront home worth over $2,100,000! This exemplifies the disparity in California's property taxation system caused by Proposition 13.
    [Show full text]
  • 1994 Legislative Session
    Golden Gate University School of Law GGU Law Digital Commons California Senate California Documents 4-1994 Treading Water in a Sea of Recovery: If California is Ready for Economic Rebound, How Do We Restore Our Competitive Edge? Senate Select Committee on Business Development Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/caldocs_senate Part of the Legislation Commons Recommended Citation Senate Select Committee on Business Development, "Treading Water in a Sea of Recovery: If California is Ready for Economic Rebound, How Do We Restore Our Competitive Edge?" (1994). California Senate. Paper 190. http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/caldocs_senate/190 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the California Documents at GGU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in California Senate by an authorized administrator of GGU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Treading Water in a S Recovery If California is Ready for Economic Rebound, How Do We Restore Our Competitive Edge? The Senate Republican Caucus rhe Senate Select Committee on Business Development Senator Bill Leonard, Chairman April1994 762-S Treading Water in a Sea of Recovery If California is Ready for Economic Rebound, How Do We Restore Our Competitive Edge? The Senate Republican Caucus The Senate Select Committee on Business Development Senator Bill Leonard, Chairman April1994 • 1 12, 1994 Friends and Interested Parties: I recommend to your attention the enclosed report: TREADING WATER IN A SEA OF RECOVERY If California is Ready for Economic Rebound, How Do We Restore OUr Competitive Edge? In 1992, the Senate Republican Caucus and Senate Select Committee on Business Development released the first study of California's business environment.
    [Show full text]