217 Cal. 166, L. A. 13629, People v. Lang Transp. Co.
| Judge | We concur: WASTE, C. J.; SEAWELL, J.; PRESTON, J.; LANGDON, J.; CURTIS, J.; TYLER, Justice pro tem. |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. LANG TRANSPORTATION CO. et al. |
| Docket Number | L. A. 13629,13630. |
| Citation | 17 P.2d 721,217 Cal. 166 |
| Court | California Supreme Court |
| Date | 30 December 1932 |
Page 166
In Bank.
Actions by the People of the state of California against the Lang Transportation Company and others. From the judgments for plaintiff, defendants appeal.
Judgments reversed.
Page 167
Appeal from Superior Court, Los Angeles County; Leon R. Yankwich, judge.
[17 P.2d 722]
The appeals in these cases (consolidated for the purpose of the appeals) are from judgments in favor of the plaintiff in actions to recover highway transportation taxes assessed against the defendants for the years 1928 and 1929. The taxes were assessed by the state board of equalization pursuant to the provisions of section 15 of article 13 of the Constitution, and section 3664aa of the Political Code (as added by St. 1927, p. 17). The actions were commenced is September, 1928, and April, 1930, respectively, and judgments were entered for $30, 344.18 for the 1928 tax, and $26, 274.69 for the year 1929; the same being 5 per cent. of the defendant's gross receipts from operations for those years, plus penalties. The defendants are Mike Lang and his son and daughter, Howard and Gene, operating as a partnership under the name of Lang Transportation Company.
The amount of the 1929 tax was ascertained by the board from a report of its auditor gleaned from the defendants'
Page 168
report to the board of their 1928 revenue and from the records of the business of the defendants for that year. The tax for 1928, which normally would be based on the revenues for 1927, was arbitrarily assessed for the reason that the defendants made no report to the board of the revenues of that year, and the complete records of the defendants for that year were not available. In making up his report, the auditor of the board proceeded in substantially the same manner as that described in the opinion in the case of People v. Duntley (Cal. Sup.) 17 P.2d 715, this day decided. The certified copy of the assessment rolls and the report of the auditor, having been received in evidence as a prima facie case for the plaintiff, the defendants introduced evidence in support of their claims that their transportation business was that of a contract carrier, and that none of their business was carried on between fixed termini or over a regular route. The trial court found, in effect, that the defendants were operating as common carriers between fixed termini or over a regular route, and entered the judgments appealed from.
Prior to 1922 the defendants were engaged in a general trucking and draying business in and around Bakersfield, Kern county. In that year they removed their center of operations to Los Angeles. From 1922 to 1925 they were engaged as general contractors in the construction of oil and gas pipe lines, and in the hauling by autotrucks of construction material and equipment, heavy machinery, tanks, poles, pipes, and oil well equipment, between supply houses in Los Angeles and various oil fields and other places where construction work was in progress. In 1925 they took on the transportation of gasoline by tank truck in truck load quantities from oil refineries to numerous oil stations scattered throughout the southern and central portions of the state. In 1927, 98 per cent. of the gasoline hauled by the defendants was hauled for four companies, and 80.1 per cent. of their general trucking business, other than gasoline hauling, was done for three customers. In 1928, 94.3 per cent. of their gasoline hauling was done for six companies, and 86.9 per cent. of their other trucking...
To continue reading
Request your trial