Sales Tax Issues

Useful Rulings on Sales Tax

Recent Rulings on Sales Tax

OLMEDO V. GENERAL MOTORS LLC

In the case of restitution, the manufacturer must make restitution in an amount equal to the actual price paid or payable by the buyer, including any charges for transportation and manufacturer-installed options, but excluding nonmanufacturer items installed by a dealer or the buyer, and including any collateral charges such as sales tax, license fees, registration fees, and other official fees, plus any incidental damages to which the buyer is entitled under Civ.

  • Hearing

SCOTT LAMBERT VS PATRICK GOLDBERG MCMAHON, ET AL.

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”). (Id. ¶ 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

ROBERT MECAY ET AL VS SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA ET AL

Superior Court, supra, 15 Cal.3d at page 8 …, for example, we found information related to sales tax returns to be privileged, but also cautioned that ‘no attempt has been made herein to define the full ambit of the privilege considered above, nor are we called upon to determine whether under other circumstances discovery of tax returns and records would be permissible. Our decision is a narrow one, limited to the record before us.’ As explained in[Sammut v.

  • Hearing

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

JEREMY DANIEL KINTNER VS CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TAX AND FEE ADMINISTRATION

Defendant California Department of Tax and Fee Administration is awarded costs of suit in the amount of ______________________________. Dated: The Honorable Robert S. Draper Judge of the Superior Court

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

PAWNEE LEASING CORPORATION VS ROBERTO ESPARZA ROSALES

There is a further sales tax on the contract obligation of $3,004.83, other miscellaneous charges in the amount of $3,141.47, and a termination fee of $95.00. The total due is $37,871.04, minus net recovery of $2,619.07, resulting in a net amount due of $35,251.97. B. Applicable Law Attachment is a prejudgment remedy providing for the seizure of one or more of the defendant’s assets to aid in the collection of a money demand pending the outcome of the trial of the action. See Whitehouse v.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

1516 HOBART INVESTMENTS, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, ET AL. VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES

In Fillmore, the State Board of Equalization issued a decision allocating sales tax revenue in favor of two cities, Industry and Livermore, and against another, Fillmore. 194 Cal.App.4th at 720. Fillmore appealed the decision, but its appeal was untimely. Id. The board elected to hear the appeal anyway and the two other cities filed a lawsuit to stop the board from proceeding. Id. at 721.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

MURPHY V. FCA US, LLC

Here, FCA offered “to make restitution pursuant to Civil Code section 1793.2(d)(2)(B) in an amount equal to the actual price paid for the vehicle, including any charges for the transportation and manufacturer installed options, but excluding nonmanufacturer items installed by a dealer or the buyer, and including any collateral charges such as sales tax, license fees, and registration fees and other official fees, plus any incidental damages to which the buyer is entitled under Civil Code Section 1794, including

  • Hearing

NO MAN IS AN ISLAND VS DIVERSE CULINARY VENTURES

Plaintiff No Man Is An Island, LLC ("Plaintiff")'s application for a right to attach order and an order for issuance of writ of attachment as to Defendant Diverse Culinary Ventures, LLC ("Defendant") is granted. Defendant's evidentiary objections are overruled. Plaintiff's request for judicial notice is denied. California Code of Civil Procedur...

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

LINDA WILKINSON VS DON KENDRICK, ET AL.

The Loan Agreement allegedly provided that the $79,600 payment would be a loan at a rate of $4,200 monthly for 18 months, at an interest rate of 2%, and that Chases’ sales tax will be credited against any loan payments. Gendreau agreed to the Loan Agreement and subsequently moved Chases to the Bonita Property.

  • Hearing

JEREMY DANIEL KINTNER VS CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TAX AND FEE ADMINISTRATION

jeremy kintner; Plaintiff, vs. california department of tax & fee administration. Defendant. Case No.: 19STCV12687 Hearing Date: September 30, 2020 [TENTATIVE] RULING RE: Defendant california department of tax & fee administration’s DEMURRER TO THE COMPLAINT Defendant California Department of Tax & Fee Administration’s Demurrer to the Complaint is SUSTAINED without leave to amend. Factual Background This is an action for a tax refund. The Complaint alleges as follows.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

LUIS JENARO ENCISO, ET AL. VS A & J AUTO SALES GROUP, INC., ET AL.

On September 16, 2020, Plaintiff Enciso filed a supplemental declaration stating that Defendant A&J drafted many of the terms of the pre-printed contract including “the names of the parties, addresses of the parties, the specific goods being sold (the 2004 Chevy Tahoe), the VIN number for said Tahoe, the relevant payment dates, all payment terms, the sales tax required, and other governmental fees required to be paid.” (9/16/20 Enciso Supp. Decl., ¶ 3.)

  • Hearing

ROBERTO SHAKIBA VS CHI PEGA, LLC, ET AL.

Defendant requests that the Court take judicial notice of the Westlake City sales and use tax rates for July 2017 to today, as evidenced by documents issued by the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration. The request is GRANTED. Discussion Existence of an Arbitration Agreement Under both the Federal Arbitration Act and California law, arbitration agreements are valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, except on such grounds that exist at law or equity for voiding a contract. (Winter v.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

ROBERTO SHAKIBA VS CHI PEGA, LLC, ET AL.

Defendant requests that the Court take judicial notice of the Westlake City sales and use tax rates for July 2017 to today, as evidenced by documents issued by the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration. The request is GRANTED. Discussion Existence of an Arbitration Agreement Under both the Federal Arbitration Act and California law, arbitration agreements are valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, except on such grounds that exist at law or equity for voiding a contract. (Winter v.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TAX AND FEE ADMINSTRATION VS BATES

The main issue is whether the funds levied upon by the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA), in the joint bank account ending 3589 of the taxpayer/debtor, Ms. Thomas, and spouse, Mr. Bates (the claimant), are legally available to satisfy the premarital debt of Ms. Thomas, as incurred with the state taxing authority. (See CCP § 688.030, 700.160(b).) The spouses presently agree that the funds were not community property. (See 2/4/2020 Open. Brf., p. 2.)

  • Hearing

GRACE VS. THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY

For the transient occupancy tax and sales tax components of the Disney Tax Increment, the increment goes up by no less than 2% per year. Again, the Authority uses the City’s rent payment to service the debt. Convention Center construction bonds are serviced by the rent component made up of non-Disney transient occupancy taxes.

  • Hearing

LESTER VS. FOCKLER

Measure V seeks to increase the existing sales tax from 0.5% to 1%, and to omit the automatic expiration of the tax to one that will remain in place unless repealed by the voters. Petitioner timely objected to the wording of the ballot question, particularly the failure of the ballot question to specify that the measure would result in 0.5% increase of the sales tax. Petitioner also sought to challenge the City Attorney’s Impartial Analysis even though that had yet to be published.

  • Hearing

BRUCE GORDON ET AL VS ERVIN COHEN & JESSUP LLP ET AL

For example, a party may not propound an interrogatory seeking information concerning specific entries in the return such as “what specific deductions or adjustments [were] made in respect to sales tax returns.” (Sav-On Drugs, Inc. v. Superior Court (1975) 15 Cal.3d 1, 4.) This statutory tax return privilege is not absolute.

  • Hearing

NOLAN VS CITY OF CORONA MOTION TO/FOR ATTORNEY FEES

The statements were to some extent made in connection with a sales tax issue that was under consideration by the Council, although the statements concerning Plaintiff’s alleged failure to pay property taxes were only marginally related to this issue. In its tentative the Court determined that the statements were protected activity. Plaintiff does not appear to dispute this contention.

  • Hearing

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

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TAX AND FEE ADMINISTRATION VS. BATES

The main issue is whether the funds levied upon by the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA), in the joint bank account ending 3589 of the taxpayer/debtor, Ms. Thomas, and spouse, Mr. Bates (the claimant), are legally available to satisfy the premarital debt of Ms. Thomas, as incurred with the state taxing authority. (See CCP § 688.030, 700.160(b).) The spouses presently agree that the funds were not community property. (See 2/4/2020 Open. Brf., p. 2.)

  • Hearing

JUAN SAAVEDRA ET AL VS CITY OF GLENDALE

Code §6051 (4.75% sales tax). Even the GFT is calculated as a percentage. AA 383. Reply at 14-15. The 2006 grandfathered tax was 9.42%. 4. The Relevance of Fiscal Year 2011 Prop 26 for the first time defined a “tax” as any “levy, charge, or exaction imposed by a local government” except a charge that “does not exceed the reasonable costs to the local government of providing the service or product.” Art. XIII C, §1(e).

  • Hearing

GLENDALE COALITION FOR BETTER GOVERNMENT VS CITY OF GLENDALE

Code §6051 (4.75% sales tax). Even the GFT is calculated as a percentage. AA 383. Reply at 14-15. The 2006 grandfathered tax was 9.42%. 4. The Relevance of Fiscal Year 2011 Prop 26 for the first time defined a “tax” as any “levy, charge, or exaction imposed by a local government” except a charge that “does not exceed the reasonable costs to the local government of providing the service or product.” Art. XIII C, §1(e).

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

STANLEY E GROSZ VS CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TAX AND FEE ADMINISTRATION, A DEPARTMENT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL.

At the outset of the hearing on Defendants’ demurrer, the Court makes the following disclosure: Judge Elaine Lu and her husband have been Amazon prime members for close to twenty years and frequently order goods and products through Amazon. The Court makes this disclosure so that the parties are aware of all facts reasonably related to the ...

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

WORKERS MOUNTAIN VALLEY ASSEMBLY LLC VS CITY OF SAN FERNANDO

This applies to both personal and corporate tax returns, as well as sales tax returns. (Id. at 720; Sav-On Drugs, Inc. v. Superior Court (1975) 15 Cal.3d 1, 7.) Gayhurst failed to file any Opposition to support an argument to the contrary. Therefore, the Court finds that Palagashvili’s privacy interest in the subpoenaed tax returns of his company are protected from forced discovery disclosure. Accordingly, the Motion to Quash is GRANTED. No sanctions are awarded.

  • Hearing

ARASH SHAKOURI VS TESLA MOTORS INC

tax, license fees, registration fees, and other official fees.”

  • Hearing

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.