Sklar v. Franchise Tax Board
Decision Date | 17 September 1986 |
Citation | 230 Cal.Rptr. 42,185 Cal.App.3d 616 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | Richard SKLAR, et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. FRANCHISE TAX BOARD, Defendant and Respondent. A032762. |
Robert L. Gnaizda, Sidney M. Wolinsky, James R. Wheaton, Public Advocates, Inc., San Francisco, for plaintiffs and appellants.
John K. Van de Kamp, Atty. Gen., Julian Standen, Deputy Atty. Gen., San Francisco, for defendant and respondent.
Today we consider whether tax payers can obtain mandamus to compel the State Franchise Tax Board to adopt certain specific procedures to control the use of alcohol entertainment expense as a business deduction on state income tax returns. We conclude that mandamus will not lie to direct the manner in which the Tax Board shall exercise its delegated authority to administer the state income tax laws.
Plaintiffs alleged in their amended petition that they are citizens and taxpayers of various counties in Northern California who commenced this action "individually and on behalf of all taxpayers of the State of California" for the purpose of compelling the Board "to collect income taxes lawfully due the State that have eluded collection because of the Board's total failure to enforce provisions of the tax statutes." Relying on various statutes (e.g., Health & Saf.Code §§ 11760.2 & 11760.4), plaintiffs asserted that "it is the clearly defined, articulated policy of the State to promote temperance in the use and consumption of alcoholic beverages." The Board, as an agency of the State, has an important and "affirmative role in alleviating problems related to the inappropriate use of alcoholic beverages." Contrarywise, "there is no declared policy of the State to promote the purchase, consumption or use of alcoholic beverages."
According to plaintiffs, 1 by approximately $216,000,000 per year in plaintiffs' estimation. 2
Citing Revenue and Taxation Code sections 17201, 24343, and 24444, 3 plaintiffs alleged: in that it "impairs business and professional judgment and befuddles the mind, reducing mental acuity, productivity and job performance." "These effects mandate treating alcohol as unnecessary to the conduct of business, except where exceptional circumstances are documented and substantiated by the taxpayer as a prerequisite to claiming the deduction." (Emphasis in original.) Even where expenses are "ordinary" and "necessary," they are not deductible if they are either "personal, living, or family expenses" or if "generally considered to constitute entertainment, amusement or recreation." "Except in rare circumstances alcohol consumption is a personal, living or family expense" and "generally considered to be entertainment, amusement or recreation." In plaintiffs' view, to qualify for deduction,
The Board "is aware that substantially all deductions taken for drinking expenses are either not ordinary business expenses, or are unnecessary for the conduct of business, or are personal and entertainment expenses improperly deducted, or are not directly connected to the active conduct of business, or cannot be adequately documented or substantiated." In spite of having a "mandatory duty to administer and enforce the income tax laws," the Board "has taken no action of any kind specifically in regard to taxpayers' unlawful deductions of drinking expenses." Plaintiffs specifically mentioned the Board's failure to "(a) require any form or schedule to identify individual taxpayers' deductions of drinking expenses; (b) enforce the statutory presumptions against deductions of drinking expenses, and disallow those drinking expenses that cannot be deducted; (c) require any documentation or substantiation of drinking expenses at the time said expenses are deducted; (d) audit or investigate returns specifically for taxpayers who deduct drinking expenses; (e) promulgate any rules or regulations which define the bounds of when drinking expenses are both ordinary and necessary to the conduct of business; and; (f) carry out the duty and role it shares with other state agencies to alleviate the problems related to inappropriate alcohol use."
Plaintiffs concluded by alleging that the Board's "inaction" amounts to "a policy of blanket affirmance of all deductions for drinking expenses" entailing "a waste of, and injury to, public funds ... that is harmful to the economic well-being of the State."
In the prayer of their amended petition plaintiffs sought the following relief:
The Board's general demurrers to the amended petition were sustained by the trial court, which granted plaintiffs leave to amend. Plaintiffs elected to stand on their complaint, whereupon a judgment dismissing it was entered. This timely appeal followed.
We review the judgment according to familiar rules, with the goal of determining whether plaintiffs' amended petition suffices to state a cause of action for mandamus. 5 (Glaire v. La Lanne-Paris Health Spa Inc. (1974) 12 Cal.3d 915, 918, 117 Cal.Rptr. 541, 528 P.2d 357; Surina v. Lucey (1985) 168 Cal.App.3d 539, 541, 214 Cal.Rptr. 509; Curran v. Mount Diablo Council of the Boy Scouts (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 712, 719, 195 Cal.Rptr. 325.) The Board's demurrer is treated as admitting all facts properly alleged in the petition, but not contentions, deductions, or conclusions of either fact or law. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318, 216 Cal.Rptr. 718, 703 P.2d 58; Gruenberg v. Aetna Ins. Co. (1973) 9 Cal.3d 566, 572, 108 Cal.Rptr. 480, 510 P.2d 1032; Serrano v. Priest (1971) 5 Cal.3d 584, 591, 96 Cal.Rptr. 601, 487 P.2d 1241.) The latter qualification means that the Board's demurrer did not admit the truth of various argumentative allegations relative to the legal construction, operation, and effect of specified statutory provisions, as well as allegations that the Board is allowing "impermissible" and "improper" deductions and that such action is "arbitrary and capricious, contrary to law, and an abuse of discretion." (Faulkner v. Cal. Toll Bridge Authority (1953) 40 Cal.2d 317, 329, 253 P.2d 659; Women Organized for Employment v. Stein (1980) 114 Cal.App.3d 133, 135, 170 Cal.Rptr. 176; 4 Witkin, Cal.Procedure (3d ed. 1985) Pleading, §§ 337-338, pp. 389-392.) The conclusions plaintiffs draw from the appendices attached to their petition are likewise to be disregarded. (See Weitzenkorn v. Lesser (1953) 40 Cal.2d 778, 785-786, 256 P.2d 947; Cohen v. Ratinoff (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 321, 327, 195 Cal.Rptr. 84.) Because the Board's demurrer was not sustained without leave to amend, we do not follow the rule that "[a]lso taken as true are facts that may be implied or inferred from those expressly alleged." (Kiseskey v. Carpenter's Trust for So. California (1983) 144 Cal.App.3d 222, 228, 192 Cal.Rptr. 492; see Terhell v. American Commonwealth Associates (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 434, 438, 218 Cal.Rptr. 256; Service Employees International Union v. Hollywood Park, Inc. (1983) 149 Cal.App.3d 745, 757, 197 Cal.Rptr. 316.) Instead, it must be presumed that plaintiffs have stated their case as strongly as it can be...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
City of Palo Alto v. Pub. Emp't Relations Bd.
...of powers doctrine courts lack the power to order the Legislature to pass a prescribed legislative act"]; Sklar v . Franchise Tax Board (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 616, 624, 230 Cal.Rptr. 42 [" ‘[m]andamus will not lie to compel a legislative body to perform legislative acts in a particular manne......
-
Steiner v. Superior Court
... ... It alleges Steiner and Stanton failed to ensure that Schneider controlled and screened board agendas to ensure important matters regarding the safekeeping, management and disbursement of ... irregularities in a waste disposal company holding the county's trash collection franchise, which employed him before he became the county auditor-controller. (Id. at pp. 115-116, 42 ... For example, courts may not compel a legislative body to act. In Sklar v. Franchise Tax Board (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 616, 618, 230 Cal.Rptr. 42, the court held taxpayers ... ...
-
Alfaro v. Terhune
...Assn. v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1982) 32 Cal.3d 347, 355, 185 Cal. Rptr. 453, 650 P.2d 328; Sklar v. Franchise Tax Board (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 616, 623, 230 Cal.Rptr. 42.) And it as a limitation on defendants' authority to enact regulations, i.e., they may do so only when necessary. ......
-
Harris v. Civil Service Com.
...of discretion with which an administrative agency is vested over a given subject matter. [Citations.]" (Sklar v. Franchise Tax Board (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 616, 622, 230 Cal.Rptr. 42.) The undisputed finding of adverse impact was, on its face, a sufficient reason to exercise discretion to ca......