E. Gottschalk & Co. v. County of Merced
Decision Date | 15 December 1987 |
Docket Number | No. F007762,F007762 |
Citation | 196 Cal.App.3d 1378,242 Cal.Rptr. 526 |
Parties | E. GOTTSCHALK & CO., INC., Plaintiff and Respondent, v. COUNTY OF MERCED et al, Defendants and Appellants. |
Court | California Court of Appeals |
William E. Gnass, County Counsel, Richard C. Burton, Deputy County Counsel, Merced, for defendants and appellants.
Thomas, Snell, Jamison, Russell & Asperger, E. Robert Wright, Fresno, for plaintiff and respondent.
In December of 1980 E. Gottschalk & Co., Inc., plaintiff, petitioner and respondent, entered into a shopping center lease for certain property located in Merced. The lease was for a 30-year term with 2 successive 10-year options to renew. The lessors and owners of the property were the Kolligians. A large building was constructed on the property. Gottschalk opened a department store on the premises and began doing business in 1984. In 1984 the county assessor reappraised the value of the land from $41,770 to $346,000. 1
Gottschalk challenged the appraisal. The appeal was denied by the assessor. Because Merced County's Assessment Appeals Board does not hear appeals based on legal contentions only, it was stipulated that Gottschalk had exhausted its administrative remedies and they filed a complaint and petition for writ of mandate against the County of Merced in superior court. The court held that Revenue and Taxation Code section 61 was unconstitutional as being in conflict with the provisions of the California Constitution, article XIII A, section 2. The county appeals.
"On June 6, 1978, the voters of the State of California adopted the initiative measure, popularly known as Proposition 13 of the Tax Limitation Initiative, which amended the California Constitution by adding article XIII A." (Dreyer's Grand Ice Cream, Inc. v. County of Alameda (1986) 178 Cal.App.3d 1174, 1177, 224 Cal.Rptr. 285.) Prior to Proposition 13, real property was appraised for taxation purposes every year. (Id. at p. 1179, 224 Cal.Rptr. 285.)
Article XIII A, section 1, provides:
Section 2, subdivision (a), provides:
(Emphasis added.)
Subsequent to this the Legislature adopted Revenue and Taxation Code section 61, which provides in pertinent part:
The county assessed the tax under Revenue and Taxation Code section 61 asserting that the lease entered into by Gottschalk resulted in a change of ownership. Gottschalk contends that Revenue and Taxation Code section 61 is unconstitutional because a change in ownership does not occur in a lease regardless of the length of the lease.
The instant action presents a pure question of law. This court is guided by the following concepts when construing statutes within the context of a provision of the Constitution.
" ' "[W]here a constitutional provision may well have either of two meanings, it is a fundamental rule of constitutional construction that, if the Legislature has by statute adopted one, its action in this respect is well nigh, if not completely, controlling.... and the courts shall not and must not annul, as contrary to the constitution, a statute passed by the Legislature, unless it can be said of the statute that it positively and certainly is opposed to the constitution." ' " (Schoderbek v. Carlson (1984) 152 Cal.App.3d 1027, 1035.)
"It is blackletter law that the Constitution and statutes must receive practical, common sense construction [citation] and that an interpretation which would lead to an unreasonable result or absurdity must be avoided." (Dreyer's Grand Ice Cream, Inc. v. County of Alameda, supra, 178 Cal.App.3d 1174, 1181-1182, 224 Cal.Rptr. 285.) "It is, of course, well settled that in case of doubt statutes levying taxes are constructed most strongly against the government and in favor of the taxpayer." (Id. at p. 1182, 224 Cal.Rptr. 285.)
'... (Delaney v. Lowery (1944) 25 Cal.2d 561, 568-569, 154 P.2d 674.)
Bearing in mind all of the above, this initiative and the construction given it is governed by the following rule:
Article XIII, section 33, empowers the Legislature to pass laws regarding the taxation of property.
"... (Carlson v. Cory (1983) 139 Cal.App.3d 724, 728, 189 Cal.Rptr. 185.)
Thus, the Legislature cannot implement statutes which limit or expand the common sense meaning of a term...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Shuwa Investments Corp. v. County of Los Angeles
...in which Courts of Appeal have upheld strict application of the statutory provisions. (See e.g., E. Gottschalk & Co. v. County of Merced (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 1378, 242 Cal.Rptr. 526 [upholding statutory rule which treats certain long term leases as "changes in ownership"]; Sav-On Drugs, In......
-
Industrial Indemnity Co. v. City and County of San Francisco
...Title Ins. & Trust Co. v. County of Riverside, supra, at p. 95, 255 Cal.Rptr. 670, 767 P.2d 1148; E. Gottschalk & Co. v. County of Merced (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 1378, 1384, 242 Cal.Rptr. 526.) Revenue and Taxation Code section 60 4 establishes a three-pronged definition for the term "change ......
-
Auerbach v. Assessment Appeals Bd. No. 1
...of 35 years has been judicially upheld against claims that it is arbitrary and unreasonable. (E. Gottschalk & Co. v. County of Merced (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 1378, 1385-1386, 242 Cal. Rptr. 526.)" (Howard, supra, 220 Cal. App.3d at p. 975, 269 Cal.Rptr. Here, under the bright-line 35-year rul......
-
CIM Urban Reit 211 Main St. (SF), LP v. City and County of San Francisco
...imposes a lien and impairs the taxpayer's title would be consistent with due process. (See E. Gottschalk & Co. v. County of Merced (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 1378, 1382–1383, 242 Cal.Rptr. 526 [statutory provisions must be given practical and commonsense construction, avoiding unreasonableness].......
-
2015 Update: Transfer Taxes in California
...Los Angeles, 210 Cal. App. 3d 881, 885 n.44 (1989).125. For more information on leases, see E. Gottschalk & Co. v. County of Merced, 196 Cal. App. 3d 1378, 1375-86 (1987); and McDonald's Corp. v. Bd. of Supervisors, 63 Cal. App. 4th 612 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998).126. Dyanlyn Two v. County of Ora......