Richfield Oil Corp. v. County of Los Angeles
Before: Drapeau
DRAPEAU, J. On the first Monday of March, 1943, Rich-field Oil Company had accounts receivable from agencies of the "United States government of $4,025,109.72. At the same time Richfield had accounts payable to agencies of the United
[537]States government of $2,158,145.40. These accounts and agencies were:
Accounts receivable:
United States Army .....................$ 2,164.71
United States Army Air Forces ........... 59,233.67
United States Army Engineers ........... 178,260.75
United States Navy ...................... 11,515.18
United States Navy Bureau of Supplies and
Accounts ............................ 2,032,899.13
United States War Department ........... 749.24
Defense Supplies Corporation ............. 295,631.40
Various departments of the United States Government, including Treasury Procurement Service War Shipping Administration ................................. 481,719.13
War Shipping Administration ............ 22,649.23
War Shipping Administration Time Charter
hire, war bonus subsistence, wages, etc. 940,287.28
Accounts payable:
War Shipping Administration Freight on
Charter Voyages ...................$ 682,949.60
Defense Supplies Corporation Advance to be repaid out of sales or returned in cash if Richfield fails to deliver .............. 1,475,195.80
A solvent credits tax was levied by the county of Los Angeles and the city of Los Angeles against the full amount of accounts receivable, without deduction of accounts payable.
Richfield paid under protest, and instituted this action to secure a refund of the tax paid on the amount in excess of the balance of the two accounts. The superior court found that the governmental agencies and instrumentalities were bona fide residents of California; that they were entities doing business in the state; that the debts owing to them were of the same class as Richfield’s accounts receivable; and that Richfield’s taxable solvent credits due from the United States government were $1,866,964.32, representing the “net balance” owing to plaintiff by the government.
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)