Sales Tax Issues

Useful Rulings on Sales Tax

Recent Rulings on Sales Tax

JOHNSON V. HUNTING RIDGE MOTORS, INC.

The purpose is to avoid paying California sales tax. Curiously, the plaintiff does not deny the assertion but simply says if standing is an issue the Montana LLC could give him an assignment. Not that an assignment was made before the action was filed, or has been made in response to the motion, but simply that it could give him an assignment at some point. He further suggests this is a factual issue and should not be decided on this motion.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

NOEMI E PEREZ SANCHEZ VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY

This subparagraph and subparagraph (d)(2)(A) (regarding replacement) “comprehensively address restitution; specified predelivery offset; sales and use taxes; license, registration, or other fees; repair, towing, and rental costs; and other incidental damages. None contains any language authorizing an offset in any situation other than the one specified. This omission of other offsets from a set of provisions that thoroughly cover other relevant costs indicates legislative intent to exclude such offsets.”

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

ADELINA CORCIO, ET AL. VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

This subparagraph and subparagraph (d)(2)(A) (regarding replacement) “comprehensively address restitution; specified predelivery offset; sales and use taxes; license, registration, or other fees; repair, towing, and rental costs; and other incidental damages. None contains any language authorizing an offset in any situation other than the one specified. This omission of other offsets from a set of provisions that thoroughly cover other relevant costs indicates legislative intent to exclude such offsets.”

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

NOEMI E PEREZ SANCHEZ VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY

This subparagraph and subparagraph (d)(2)(A) (regarding replacement) “comprehensively address restitution; specified predelivery offset; sales and use taxes; license, registration, or other fees; repair, towing, and rental costs; and other incidental damages. None contains any language authorizing an offset in any situation other than the one specified. This omission of other offsets from a set of provisions that thoroughly cover other relevant costs indicates legislative intent to exclude such offsets.”

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TAX AND FEE ADMINISTRATION VS. BATES

This matter is Continued to 8/7/2020...

  • Hearing

    Jun 19, 2020

JOSE SAMBOLIN, ET AL. VS LEOBARDO GUERRERO, JR., ET AL.

Plaintiff received notification from the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration that the 3rd quarter 2019 sales tax has not been paid and that neither the 4th quarter returned have been filed nor the taxes paid for the 4th quarter of 2019. (Id., ¶30; Plaintiff’s Decl., ¶7.) Plaintiff estimates that the unpaid sales tax exceeds $35,000.00 (Plaintiff’s Decl., ¶7.) The rent is overdue again. (Id.)

  • Hearing

    Mar 16, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

That payment of these amounts also benefited Ross and Lee personally (who are alleged to have personal liability for Kitson’s sales tax obligations) does not imply an intent to deceive. In any event, the Kitson Parties submit evidence that BHK was aware of Kitson’s tax liabilities before it executed the Sixth Amendment. (UMF 13, 16-19.)

  • Hearing

    Mar 11, 2020

REBAS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION DBA TOYOTA-LIFT OF LOS ANGELES VS MATRIX INTERNATIONAL TEXTILE, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

Plaintiff’s Evidence[3] Based on Matrix's cancellation, Toyota-Lift began to issue its rental invoices (“Invoices”) to Matrix in the sum of the stated rental option at $1,039.20, plus applicable sales tax for a total invoice price of $1,137.92. Pineda Decl. ¶13. From December 11, 2017 through June 27, 2018, Toyota-Lift issued its invoices to Matrix, but Matrix failed to pay for its use and operation of the Forklift throughout that period of time. Pineda Decl. ¶14.

  • Hearing

    Mar 03, 2020

HARSCH INVESTMENT CORP VS ISERVE RESIDENTIAL LENDING LLC

HARSCH was well aware iSERVE intended to add the additional parties (California Department of Tax and Fee Administration, Nicholas Maduros, and the State of California ["California Defendants"]). It appears there would be additional delay and expense regardless as iSERVE would likely subpoena the California Defendants if the matters are not consolidated. The motion is granted. It is hereby ordered that Case No. 37-2019-00060848-CU-NP-CTL be transferred and consolidated with this matter for all purposes.

  • Hearing

    Feb 20, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

SCOTT LAMBERT VS PATRICK GOLDBERG MCMAHON, ET AL.

McMahon Declaration According to McMahon, in late July 2019, he learned that P&S had an unpaid tax liability with penalties of $500,000 from the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (“CDTFA”). (McMahon Decl. ¶ 4, Exh. 1.) McMahon confronted Lambert about this tax notice, who allegedly acted “incredulous” and evaded McMahon’s questions. (Id. ¶ 5.) McMahon initiated an investigation into P&S’s operations and financial affairs. He asserts that he found “numerous problems.”

  • Hearing

    Feb 20, 2020

WOOD VS CHAPEL

The court notes that the election regarding this proposed citizen's initiative to impose a 0.75% sales tax in the City of Lemon Grove is presently scheduled for March 20, 2020. Previously, petitioners had unsuccessfully attempted to obtain a hearing date on their writ petition prior to the printing of the election ballots.

  • Hearing

    Feb 20, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

JOSE SAMBOLIN, ET AL. VS LEOBARDO GUERRERO, JR., ET AL.

Plaintiff received notification from the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration that the 3rd quarter 2019 sales tax has not been paid and that neither the 4th quarter returned have been filed nor the taxes paid for the 4th quarter of 2019. (Id., ¶30; Plaintiff’s Decl., ¶7.) The rent is over two months in arrears. (Id.)

  • Hearing

    Feb 10, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA V. PONG MARKETING AND

Superior Court (1975) 15 Cal.3d 1 [interrogatories improperly sought information about specific deductions claimed on state sales tax returns].

  • Hearing

    Feb 07, 2020

GLOBAL DISCOVERIES VS. CCC

State Bd, of Equalization, the California Supreme Court discussed the role of the administrative agency in implementing statutes, in that case the State Board of Equalization and the state tax laws, and the Court’s role in reviewing the agency’s interpretation of the statute and adoption of rules and regulations: The Legislature has delegated to the Board the duty of enforcing the sales tax law and the authority to prescribe and adopt rules and regulations. [Citations omitted.]

  • Hearing

    Feb 06, 2020

SINGH V. HAMID

Amiri about defendant correcting a decal on the business’ awning and that Fuel 4 Less stop selling certain items, however, he was never directly contacted by Union 76; alcohol and tobacco products are popular in a convenience store and becoming an independent station allowed him to maximize the sale of such products; and the sales tax matter occurred in 2010, which resulted in a settlement with the State and has no bearing on his current accounting practices or financial condition of the station.

  • Hearing

    Jan 31, 2020

FRASER ROSS VS CHRISTOPHER LEE

That payment of these amounts also benefited Ross and Lee personally (who are alleged to have personal liability for Kitson’s sales tax obligations) does not imply an intent to deceive. In any event, the Kitson Parties submit evidence that BHK was aware of Kitson’s tax liabilities before it executed the Sixth Amendment. (UMF 13, 16-19.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 28, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY VS CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TAX AND FEE ADMINISTRATION

Petitioner First American Title Insurance Company's Petition for Writ of Mandate is ordered CONTINUED to January 31, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. on the court's own motion....

  • Hearing

    Jan 23, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

CIT BANK, N.A., VS SAM'S CAP TRADING, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

Sam’s is also liable for collection fees, insurance fees, sales tax, and other late and termination fees. To induce Bank to enter into Master EFA Agreement and Schedule No. l, on September 28, 2018 Defendant Lee executed a Continuing Guaranty (“Guaranty”) in favor of Bank. Lee is indebted to Bank in the sum of $55,945.25, along with fees, costs, and termination, collection, and late fees. 2.

  • Hearing

    Jan 23, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

DIANA LEJINS, ET AL. VS CITY OF LONG BEACH

According to the City, its general tax on water and sewer service outside its city limits is more akin to a sales tax than a gross receipts tax imposed on a business and falls outside the ambit of these cases. See Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Jefferson Lines, Inc., (1995) 514 U.S. 175, 184-200 (Oklahoma may tax bus tickets sold in-state for trips that cross state lines). Opp. at 24-25. As Petitioners reply (Reply at 13), the City’s analogy to a sales tax is misguided.

  • Hearing

    Jan 02, 2020

MORIMOTO V. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA LLC

It is alleged that Plaintiff purchased a used 2014 BMW 750Li sedan in July 2015 for a price of $58,000.00, though there were numerous additional amounts included in the final transaction, including, but not limited to: --sales tax ($4,646.40), --a service contract ($5,640.00), --a second service contract ($5,795.00), --payoff of a prior loan or lease ($10,004.19), and --a gap contract ($895.00).

  • Hearing

    Dec 05, 2019

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Contract - Other

MORIMOTO V. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA LLC

It is alleged that Plaintiff purchased a used 2014 BMW 750Li sedan in July 2015 for a price of $58,000.00, though there were numerous additional amounts included in the final transaction, including, but not limited to: --sales tax ($4,646.40), --a service contract ($5,640.00), --a second service contract ($5,795.00), --payoff of a prior loan or lease ($10,004.19), and --a gap contract ($895.00).

  • Hearing

    Dec 05, 2019

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Contract - Other

MORIMOTO V. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA LLC

It is alleged that Plaintiff purchased a used 2014 BMW 750Li sedan in July 2015 for a price of $58,000.00, though there were numerous additional amounts included in the final transaction, including, but not limited to: --sales tax ($4,646.40), --a service contract ($5,640.00), --a second service contract ($5,795.00), --payoff of a prior loan or lease ($10,004.19), and --a gap contract ($895.00).

  • Hearing

    Nov 21, 2019

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Contract - Other

MORIMOTO V. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA LLC

It is alleged that Plaintiff purchased a used 2014 BMW 750Li sedan in July 2015 for a price of $58,000.00, though there were numerous additional amounts included in the final transaction, including, but not limited to: --sales tax ($4,646.40), --a service contract ($5,640.00), --a second service contract ($5,795.00), --payoff of a prior loan or lease ($10,004.19), and --a gap contract ($895.00).

  • Hearing

    Nov 21, 2019

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Contract - Other

MAGAZIOTIS VS. PAGLIA & ASSOCIATES CONSTRUCTION INC.

The court held that the request at issue improperly sought the “legal reasoning and theories behind petitioner's contention that any sales tax deductions it took are proper.” (Id. at 5.) The Sav-On court stated that “[a] party's contention may be the subject of discovery, but not the legal reasoning or theory behind the contention.” (Id. at 5.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 24, 2019

SUSAN HALL, ET AL. V. COLUMBIA BURLAP AND BAG COMPANY, INC.

Susan alleges she was instructed not to include this entry when completing Columbia’s sales tax filing. Footnote 1: Due to the shared surname of the Plaintiffs, the Court uses first names for ease of reference. No disrespect is intended. (Ibid.) Cross-Complaint. On July 22, 2019, Columbia filed a cross-complaint against Anthony; Premier Packaging Group, LLC dba Lindamar Industries; Michael Kittredge; Peter K. Tur; Harry T. Greenhouse; Diane K. Todrin; and MK III Company, LLC.

  • Hearing

    Oct 22, 2019

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.