Communications Satellite Corp. v. Franchise Tax Bd.
Citation | 156 Cal.App.3d 726,203 Cal.Rptr. 779 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Decision Date | 31 May 1984 |
Parties | COMMUNICATIONS SATELLITE CORPORATION, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. FRANCHISE TAX BOARD, Defendant and Appellant. AO16317. |
John K. Van de Kamp, Atty. Gen., Patricia Streloff, Deputy Atty. Gen., San Francisco, for defendant and appellant.
Robert L. Dunn, Bancroft, Avery & McAlister, San Francisco, for plaintiff and respondent.
*
Plaintiff and respondent Communications Satellite Corporation (hereinafter "Comsat") is a District of Columbia corporation doing business in California. It is also a member of an international consortium which owns and operates commercial satellites orbiting in outer space. As a member of the consortium, Comsat owns an interest in the satellites and receives income from their use. It also derives income from transmitting telecommunications signals to the satellites, and receiving signals from them, at an "earth station" located in California and similar facilities elsewhere.
Defendant and appellant Franchise Tax Board ("the Board") assessed certain corporate income taxes against Comsat pursuant to a special formula which resulted in an apportionment of its total income, to California, on the bases of factors which included the value of the satellites and income received by Comsat from their use. Comsat paid the taxes and commenced this action against the Board to recover them, challenging the validity of the special formula. After a nonjury trial on stipulated facts and other evidence, the court found in favor of Comsat and entered a judgment ordering refund of the disputed taxes plus interest. The Board appeals from the judgment.
Comsat commenced the action by filing a "Complaint For Refund Of Income Taxes" in which it alleged as follows:
Value of Comsat's interest in California property in 1970 $ 3,761,556 ----------------------------- = -------------- = 2.8296% Value of Comsat's interest in $132,933,655 property everywhere in 1970 "including its undivided 52.5% interest" in the satellites
Comsat is a corporation "duly organized and existing" pursuant to the Communications Satellite Act of 1962 (47 U.S.C. § 701, et seq.) and the District of Columbia Business Corporation Act. Its principal place of business is located in Washington, D.C. Comsat returned and paid California income taxes to the Board for the calendar years 1970, 1971, and 1972. In May of 1975, the Board notified Comsat that it "proposed to reassess additional income taxes" for these years. Comsat "protested the proposed reassessments," but the Board "affirmed the proposed assessments in full and denied ... [Comsat's] protest." Comsat paid "the additional amounts" and "additional interest," and filed timely claims for refunds. The claims were "disallowed" by the Board.
Comsat further alleged: "The income taxes assessed ... and the interest paid thereon, were illegally, erroneously and arbitrarily determined, assessed and collected ..., without factual basis for such determination, assessment and collection," and that they were "void" on specified grounds.
In the prayer of the complaint, Comsat requested "refund" of the additional income taxes paid for the years 1970, 1971, and 1972, "plus all interest paid thereon ..."; interest "on the said amounts of tax and interest paid ... from the date of said payment[ ] to the date of refund"; and general relief.
The Board filed an answer in which it generally denied the allegations made in the complaint.
After the issues had been joined on the pleadings, the parties filed a written "Stipulation of Facts" executed by their respective attorneys. This document, and the facts stipulated in it, may be summarized and quoted as follows (paragraphing ours):
The Intelsat system consists of a "space segment" and a "ground segment." The assets in the space segment "are owned in undivided shares by members of Intelsat, including Comsat, in varying percentages." In 1970, 1971, and 1972, Comsat's "percentage ownership interest" in these assets was "approximately 52.5 percent." Comsat "serves as manager" of "all facilities" in the space segment.
The assets in the space segment consist of (1) "communications satellites" orbiting in outer space and (2) four "tracking, telemetry[,] and command stations" from which the satellites are "monitored and controlled." The four tracking stations are located in Maine, Italy, Australia, and Hawaii. The satellites are launched into space from Cape Canaveral, Florida. Each satellite is
The "ground segment" of the Intelsat system consists of One of these seven stations (the "California earth station") is at Jamesburg, in Monterey County, California, where it was located because of favorable atmospheric and related conditions. The other six earth stations are at Brewster, Washington, and in Maine, West Virginia, Puerto Rico, Hawaii, and Guam. Comsat also owns "a 100 percent interest" in an eighth earth station located at Talkeenta, Alaska. "All of these earth stations became operational before 1970 (with the exception of the Talkeenta station, which did not become operational until July 1970) and remained in operation throughout 1970, 1971[,] and 1972." Comsat "serves as manager" of all of these earth stations except for the one in Guam.
"In addition to the California earth station, Comsat maintains a small engineering office" in Los Angeles County. Intelsat has no property or employees in California.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hansen v. City of San Buenaventura
...and the trial court's findings based on that testimony, are not binding on this court. (Communications Satellite Corp. v. Franchise Tax Board (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 726, 747, 203 Cal.Rptr. 779; Standard Register Co. v. Franchise Tax Board (1968) 259 Cal.App.2d 125, 129-130, 66 Cal.Rptr. 803.......
-
Devin v. United Services Auto. Assn.
...229 Cal.App.3d 209, 218, 280 Cal.Rptr. 766.) Experts may not opine on pure questions of law (Communications Satellite Corp. v. Franchise Tax Bd. (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 726, 747, 203 Cal.Rptr. 779), and expert opinions on legal questions do not inhibit a grant of nonsuit (Elder v. Pacific Tel......
-
Title Ins. Co. of Minnesota v. State Bd. of Equalization
...Board of Equalization (1972) 7 Cal.3d 652, 659, fn. 8, 102 Cal.Rptr. 766, 498 P.2d 1014; Communications Satellite Corp. v. Franchise Tax Bd. (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 726, 746-747, 203 Cal.Rptr. 779.) This appeal comes to us with an unusual posture. When the parties commenced litigation they we......
-
Batt v. City and County of San Francisco
...the uncontradicted facts shown in the parties' stipulation and the documentary evidence." ( Communications Satellite Corp. v. Franchise Tax Bd. (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 726, 746, 203 Cal.Rptr. 779; accord, Microsoft Corp. v. Franchise Tax Bd. (2006) 39 Cal.4th 750, 758, 47 Cal.Rptr.3d 216, 139......