Valley Fair Fashions, Inc. v. Valley Fair

California Court of Appeal Oct 17, 1966 No. Civ. 22871Published

Before: Draper

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the tax assessment was valid under Revenue and Taxation Code section 405, as the assessor may properly assess property to the party in possession or control. However, the court reversed the dismissal regarding the lessor, finding that the issue of ultimate tax liability between the lessee and lessor remains a justiciable matter for contract interpretation.

Issues

Whether the tax assessment was valid under Revenue and Taxation Code section 405 and section 2188.2.
Whether the trial court erred in sustaining the lessor's demurrer regarding the contractual obligation to pay taxes.

Disposition. Affirmed in part, reversed in part.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Taxable property may be assessed “to the persons owning, claiming, possessing, or controlling it” (Rev. & Tax. Code, § 405).”

“The 1947 statutes in no way modified section 405, which continues specifically to authorize assessment to the party possessing or controlling the property.”

“This determination, however, does not resolve the issue of ultimate liability for the tax as between owner and lessee. That turns upon construction of the agreements between them, and is properly determinable in this action.”

DRAPER, P. J.

In this action, plaintiff lessee seeks a declaration that tax assessments levied by defendant Noll as county assessor are invalid, or if valid, that defendant lessor be declared obligated to pay the taxes or to reimburse plaintiff therefor. Each defendant demurred. Both demurrers were sustained without leave to amend, and the action was dismissed. Plaintiff appeals.

Respondent assessor argues that only two remedies are available to plaintiff: payment of the tax and verified claim for refund, followed by action if rejected (Rev. & Tax. Code, §§ 5096, 5097, 5103), or payment under protest and action to recover (Rev. & Tax. Code, §§ 5136, 5138). Mandamus lies, without prior payment of the tax, only if these remedies at law are inadequate in the particular situation

(Star-Kist Foods, Inc.

Quinn,

54 Cal.2d 507 [6 Cal.Rptr. 545, 354 P.2d 1]). By analogy to the cases holding declaratory relief unavailable when a statute expressly bars mandate or injunction as a remedy for the taxpayer (see cases cited at 2 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (1954) § 453 [1]), it may be argued that declaratory relief is not available when mandate is not. But we do not decide whether the remedies at law are adequate here to bar mandate, and thus declaratory relief, since it is clear that the assessment is valid. We note, however, the policy favoring prompt payment of taxes

(Sherman

Quinn,

31 Cal.2d 661, 665 [192 P.2d 17]).

The assessments complained of are for three years ending in 1964, and cover improvements admittedly made and paid for by plaintiff tenant, but for which it contends defendant lessor reimbursed it.

Taxable property may be assessed “to the persons owning, claiming, possessing, or controlling it” (Rev. & Tax. Code, § 405). On its face, this section authorizes assessment to one not the owner, if he possesses or controls the property. Improvements may properly be assessed to the tenant

(Tilden

County of Orange,

89 Cal.App.2d 586 [201 P.2d 86]) or personal property to the consignee

Valley Fair Fashions, Inc. v. Valley Fair

AI Brief

DRAPER, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief