City of Los Angeles v. A. Los Angeles
Decision Date | 13 August 1973 |
Citation | 109 Cal.Rptr. 519,33 Cal.App.3d 933 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | The CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a municipal corporation, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. A.E.C. LOS ANGELES, a corporation, Defendant and Appellant. Civ. 40189. |
Everett W. Maguire, Beverly Hills, Anthony Saul Alperin and Shapiro & Maguire, Law Corp., Beverly Hills, for defendant and appellant.
Roger Arnebergh, City Atty., Thomas C. Bonaventura, Asst. City Atty., and David J. Oliphant, Deputy City Atty., for plaintiff and respondent.
In this appeal from a judgment in favor of the City of Los Angeles (City) for amounts found due to it from appellant A.E.C. Los Angeles (Taxpayer) for business tax, Taxpayer contends: (1) it is immune from municipal taxation measured by gross receipts on its business conducted with agencies of the State of California; and (2) recovery of taxes for the years 1962 and 1963 is barred by the statute of limitations.
The City of Los Angeles is a freeholders' charter city. Section 21.03 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code provides:
Section 21.188 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code states: Section 21.14 of that code provides that the gross receipts which are the measure of tax shall be those 'of the preceding year.'
Section 21.14 states:
Section 21.05 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code states: .
Section 21.16 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code reads in pertinent part:
Section 21.04 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code provides: 'DUE DATES: All business taxes . . . shall be due and payable at the following times: (a) Annual business taxes on the first day of January of each year; . . .'
Taxpayer is an electrical contractor whose principal place of business is in the City of Los Angeles. It performs contracting work for agencies of the State of California including school districts in addition to work for nongovernmental customers. During the calendar years 1961 through 1964 Taxpayer had gross receipts from construction projects within the City of Los Angeles performed for state agencies in the following amounts:
1961 $424,934.00 1962 782,679.00 1963 629,473.00 1964 144,349.00
It did not include those amounts in the measure of its business tax when filing its report with the City Clerk of Los Angeles for the years 1962 through 1965.
In February 1965, the City Clerk audited Taxpayer's records to determine the correctness of its business tax reports. On September 20, 1965, pursuant to section 21.16 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code, the City Clerk served a notice of assessment of a deficiency in tax for the years 1962 through 1965 in the total amount of $2,252.30. Of that sum $1,454.09 was attributable to the unreported measure of tax consisting of gross receipts...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
City of S.F. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal.
...if indirect, impact on the state’s choices regarding employee compensation. Similarly, in City of Los Angeles v. A.E.C. Los Angeles (1973) 33 Cal.App.3d 933, 109 Cal.Rptr. 519 ( A.E.C. Los Angeles ), the Court of Appeal upheld the application of city business taxes to a state contractor, ca......
-
Times Mirror Co. v. City of Los Angeles
...for the purpose of generating revenue is a municipal affair within the meaning of Article XI. (City of Los Angeles v. A.E.C. Los Angeles (1973) 33 Cal.App.3d 933, 939, 109 Cal.Rptr. 519.) A municipal taxing scheme is thus valid unless preempted by state law or prohibited by constitutional p......
-
City & Cnty. of S.F. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal.
...that is a "lessee of publicly owned property." (Id . at pp. 626-627, 137 Cal.Rptr. 648.) Similarly, City of Los Angeles v. A.E.C. Los Angeles (1973) 33 Cal.App.3d 933, 109 Cal.Rptr. 519 authorized a charter city, Los Angeles, to impose a gross-receipts tax on a private business that was per......
-
The Pines v. City of Santa Monica
...conditions. (See Groves, supra, 54 Cal.2d at pp. 156-158, 4 Cal.Rptr. 844, 351 P.2d 1028; City of Los Angeles v. A. E. C. Los Angeles (1973) 33 Cal.App.3d 933, 940, 109 Cal.Rptr. 519; Arnke v. City of Berkeley (1960) 185 Cal.App.2d 842, 848-849, 8 Cal.Rptr. 645.) The power to tax includes p......
-
Litigation & Case Law Update
...a gross receipts tax on an electrical contractor that does business with state entities? City of Los Angeles v. AEC Los Angeles (1973) 33 Cal.App.3d 933. The dissent notes that in the context of federal - state and federal - tribal tax, the U.S. Supreme Court holds that sovereign immunity i......