Bank of America National Trust & Savings Ass'n v. Mundo

California Supreme Court Apr 3, 1951 No. L. A. 21444Published

Before: Edmonds

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a taxpayer cannot maintain an action for recovery of taxes without first exhausting administrative remedies before the board of equalization, and that the board's factual determinations are conclusive, precluding a trial de novo or the introduction of new evidence in superior court.

Issues

Whether a taxpayer must exhaust administrative remedies before the board of equalization to maintain an action for recovery of taxes.
Whether a taxpayer is entitled to a trial de novo in superior court to resolve factual disputes regarding tax assessments.
Whether new evidence of discriminatory assessment practices may be introduced in superior court to challenge a board of equalization's decision.

Disposition. dismissed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“It is the general rule that a taxpayer seeking judicial relief from an erroneous assessment must have exhausted his remedies before the administrative body empowered initially to correct the error.”

“the taxpayer has no right to a trial de novo in the superior court to resolve conflicting issues of fact as to the taxable value of his property.”

“the decision of the board upon the evidence adduced cannot be collaterally assailed by new evidence on the point in a different tribunal.”

EDMONDS, J.

Bank of America National Trust and Savings Association is the plaintiff in eight actions to recover taxes paid under protest. It now asks that, by writ of mandate, the superior court be compelled to order the production of certain records of the county assessor. The asserted purpose of having them before the court is to enable

[3]

the respondent judge, by an examination of them, to determine whether their contents are confidential and whether public interest would suffer by disclosure of the data.

In the actions brought by the bank it is charged that, in assessing its property during certain years, the assessor discriminated against it and intentionally and systematically favored other property owners. Specifically, the bank alleges that the assessed valuation placed upon its buildings included vault doors and counterlines, classified as improvements, but in all nonbanking institutions, similar articles were classified and assessed as personal property. Such discrimination, the bank concludes, is prohibited by section 5219 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (12 U.S.C.A. § 548) because the real property of a national bank may be taxed only “to the same extent, according to its value, as other real property is taxed” and also violates constitutional guarantees.

The bank has endeavored to obtain evidence of discriminatory assessments by taking the depositions of three deputy county assessors. The witnesses testified that they had assessed or appraised buildings, trade fixtures and machinery in approximately 13 types of industries in the county. They stated the general factors and tests relied upon in making assessments. When asked how they had classified certain items in specific places of business, the witnesses replied that they could answer only after refreshing their memories by reference to the tax records. However, they declined to refer to the records upon the ground that the documents contain matter of prohibition and privilege under sections 408 and 451 of the Revenue and Taxation Code and section 1881, subdivision 5, of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The bank then cited the witnesses to appear before the superior court. It also moved for an order directing each witness to refresh his memory by use of the particular document applicable, and thereafter to answer the questions asked of him.

Bank of America National Trust & Savings Ass'n v. Mundo

AI Brief

EDMONDS, J.

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief