Carpenter v. Pacific Coast Ins. Assn.

[305]

LANGDON, J.

Pacific Coast Insurance Association was an insurance company doing business in California throughout the year 1931, and until January 19, 1932. On that date it was adjudged insolvent and ordered liquidated by the Insurance Commissioner iiursuant to statute. (Peering’s Gen. Law, Act 3739.) The said company did not file a tax report with the Insurance Commissioner in 1932, and the Insurance Commissioner did not file a report in said year with the state board of equalization, as required by statute. (Pol. Code, sec. 3666a.) Consequently the board did not assess a tax in said year on the gross premiums of business done in 1931. The tax for such omitted year was eventually assessed in 1934 at the regular time for assessment of such taxes. The amount was $7,653. The State Controller filed his claim for tax and penalties with the Insurance Commissioner as liquidator of the company, which claim was rejected. The lower court held the assessment a nullity, and the Controller brought this appeal.

The first and main issue is whether a tax and penalties on gross premiums may be assessed in March of a year following that in which the premiums were earned, notwithstanding the fact that at the time of the assessment the company is no longer engaged in business. On this issue the case is governed by

Carpenter

v.

Peoples Mutual Life Ins. Co.,

recently decided by this court

{ante,

p. 299 [74 Pac. (2d) 508]). Under the holding in that ease, it would have been entirely proper for the state to assess and collect its tax and penalties in 1932 for operations of defendant company during the year 1931.

The second issue is whether the assessment may be made in a subsequent year. It is contended by respondent that if a tax might be validly assessed, the only proper time was in March, 1932, and that such time having passed, it was no longer possible to make a valid assessment. The authorities advanced in support of this contention merely hold that it is improper to modify the assessment roll in any period of a year other than that prescribed by law for the making of assessments. They are not determinative of the question whether in a subsequent year, at the regular time for making assessments, an omitted assessment may be made, and on this question we have found no authority squarely in point. Despite the lack of authority, however, we believe the circum