Sonleitner v. Superior Court In and For Los Angeles County
Decision Date | 06 March 1958 |
Citation | 322 P.2d 496,158 Cal.App.2d 258 |
Parties | John P. SONLEITNER, doing business under the firm name and style of Sunlight Stations Company, Petitioner and Defendant, v. SUPERIOR COURT of the State of California, IN AND FOR the COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Respondent. Civ. 22927. |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Edward H. Blixt, Los Angeles, for petitioner.
Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., James E. Sabine, Asst. Atty. Gen., Dan Kaufmann, James C. Maupin, Deputy Attys. Gen., for the people, the real party in interest.
Petitioner seeks a peremptory writ of prohibition to prevent respondent court from proceeding without a jury in the case of People v. Sonleitner (L. A. Superior Court No. 105648). The complaint in that case alleges that during the period from November 1, 1951, to July 31, 1955 petitioner made taxable distributions of motor vehicle fuel within the state without possessing a distributor's license, and that the Board of Equalization ascertained as best it could the amount of the unlicensed distribution and determined the tax due, adding interest and a penalty of 100 percent of the amount of the tax, as prescribed by sections 7706 and 7727 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. The complaint further alleges that the determination of the Board became final and was not paid, and the total amount (about $130,000), together with additional penalties and interest, is presently due and owing. Petitioner raised several questions of fact by his answer, which included a general denial and four affirmative defenses.
Thereafter, the State filed a memorandum to set the matter for a nonjury trial. Defendant objected. The State then made a motion for trial without a jury; the court granted that motion and set the cause for trial.
The purpose of the instant proceeding is the collection of motor vehicle fuel license taxes under Part 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. The right to trial by jury is guaranteed in section 7 of Article I of the California Constitution. However, this guarantee extends only to those cases wherein the right to a jury trial existed at common law. People v. One 1941 Chevrolet Coupe, 37 Cal.2d 283, 286-287, 231 P.2d 832; Phyle v. Duffy, 34 Cal.2d 144, 148, 208 P.2d 668. Ripling v. Superior Court, 112 Cal.App.2d 399, 402, 247 P.2d 117, 119. It appears that the right to trial by jury has never been extended to cases involving the collection of taxes. In Hagar v. Board of Supervisors of Yolo County, 47 Cal. 222, 234, the court stated that 'the right of trial by jury, has no application to proceedings for the collection of taxes.' Although no other California case has specifically dealt with this issue (cf. People v. Skinner, 18 Cal.2d 349, 354-355, 115 P.2d 488, 149 A.L.R. 299), it is well settled in other jurisdictions that there is no right under the general constitutional provisions to a jury trial in statutory or summary proceedings for the collection of taxes. 1 The reasoning behind the denial of a jury trial in such proceedings is clear. To construe the constitutional jury trial guarantee as entitling a person to have a trial by jury on every demand made upon him for taxes would cause interference and delay in tax collection. Since tax collection proceedings traditionally have been summary in nature, such a construction of so important a constitutional provision could not have been intended. (See 3 Cooley, Taxation 2616-17 (4th ed.).) In other words, 'to pursue every delinquent liable to pay taxes through the forms of process and a jury trial would materially impede, if not wholly obstruct, the collection of the revenue; and it is not believed that such a mode was contemplated by the Constitution.' Cowles v. Brittain, 9 N.C. 204, 207; see, also, Cooley, op. cit. supra at 2619.
The only case upon which petitioner relies is Grossblatt v. Wright, 108 Cal.App.2d 475, 239 P.2d 19. In that case a private person commenced an action against his landlord to recover treble damages, attorney's fees and costs under the United States Housing and Rent Act of 1947, 50 U.S.C.A. Appendix, § 1881 et seq. because the latter demanded and accepted rent in amounts above the maximum prescribed rates. The court held that the action, though founded upon a statute which did not exist at common law, was essentially an action of debt, and the defendant was therefore entitled to a jury trial. The court observed (108 Cal.App.2d at page 486, 239 P.2d at page 26): 'A jury trial was a matter of right in the common-law action of debt, and consequently it exists in all civil actions under modern practice which formerly would have fallen within this form of action.' It is thus clear that the very basis upon which the Grossblatt case was decided makes it distinguishable from the case at bar. The cause of action in the Grossblatt case was the equivalent of a common law action of debt. But the cause of action here involved is not equivalent to an action of debt because taxes are not debts. People v. Hochwender, 20 Cal.2d 181, 183, 124 P.2d 823; Southern Service Co. v. County of Los Angeles, 15 Cal.2d 1, 11, 97 P.2d 963; Perry v. Washburn, 20 Cal. 318, 350; Courtney v. Byram, 54 Cal.App.2d 769, 771, 129 P.2d 721; Spurrier v. Neumiller, 37 Cal.App. 683, 690, 174 P. 338. In People v. Central Pacific R. R. Co., 105 Cal. 576, 588-689, 38 P. 905, 908, the court stated: (See, also, People v. Skinner, supra.) Since an action to collect taxes is not of the same nature as the common law action of debt, the Grossblatt case is not applicable to the case at bar.
Petitioner points out that Revenue and Taxation Code section 7729 authorizes the attorney general to prosecute 'an action at law' to collect the license tax, penalty and interest determined against an unlicensed distributor. He argues from this that the present suit is an action at law and he is therefore entitled to a jury trial. However, the mere fact that a proceeding is denominated an action at law does not per se give rise to the right of trial by jury; the court is not bound by the form of the action but rather by the nature of the rights involved--the test is whether the gist of the action is legal in a common law context. People v. One 1941 Chevrolet Coupe, supra, 37 Cal.2d at page 299, 231 P.2d 832; Ripling v. Superior Court, supra, 112 Cal.App.2d at page 402, 247 P.2d 117; Grossblatt v. Wright, supra, 108 Cal.App.2d at pages 483-484, 239 P.2d 19. At common law in this country and in England taxes were not collected by regular judicial proceedings. Kelly v. Pittsburgh, 104 U.S. 78, 80, 26 L.Ed. 658; People v. Skinner, supra, 18 Cal.2d at page 358, 115 P.2d 488. Since a judicial proceeding to collect taxes was not even a recognized form of action at common law, it follows that the designation by the legislature of such a proceeding as an 'action at law' does not carry with it the right to a trial by jury. A jury trial is thus not a matter of right in an action to collect taxes. The legislature was free to prescribe such procedure as would best avail for the purpose of collecting motor vehicle fuel license taxes through a judicial action (see People v. Skinner, supra, 18 Cal.2d at page 358, 115 P.2d 488; People v. Central Pac. R. R. Co., supra, 105 Cal. at page 589, 38 P. 905), and it has done...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Chen v. Franchise Tax Bd.
... ... No. B113296 ... Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 5, California ... Falcone, Robert N. Duran, Los Angeles, Gina M. Calvelli, San Francisco, and Karen Meckstroth, Los ... The board contends the superior court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the viability of ... v. County of San Diego Air Pollution Control Dist. (1996) 43 ... (1973) 36 Cal.App.3d 296 [111 Cal.Rptr. 350], Sonleitner v. Superior Court (1958) 158 Cal.App.2d 258 [322 P.2d 496], ... ...
-
Chen v. Franchise Tax Bd.
...cases discussed in this opinion, the Board has cited People v. Pacific Employers Ins. Co. (1973) 36 Cal.App.3d 296 , Sonleitner v. Superior Court (1958) 158 Cal.App.2d 258 , Horack v. Franchise Tax Board (1971) 18 Cal.App.3d 363 and several federal cases in support of its jurisdictional arg......
- Franchise Tax Bd. v. the Superior Court of The City
-
Agnew v. State Bd. of Equalization
...penalties and interest on transactions which occurred prior to cancellation of the bond. The decision in Sonleitner v. Superior Court (1958) 158 Cal.App.2d 258, 322 P.2d 496 concerned section 7729 which expressly authorizes the Attorney General to bring an action against unlicensed fuel dis......
-
Judicial Views On Tax Administration
...439, 115 P.2d 488 (1941) is the modern leading California case on this subject. 3 Sonleitner v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 158 Cal. App.2d 258, 262, 322 P.2d 499 (1958). 4 Ibid., pp. 260, 497. 5 5 6 tion. The assessment is given the force of a judgment, and if the amount assessed......