Legal Opinion
McClain v. Sav-On Drugs
California Court of Appeal
Decided March 13, 2017No. B265011, B265029PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
HOFFSTADT, J.
—A customer buys skin puncture lancets and test strips used by diabetics to test blood glucose levels from a retail pharmacy store like CVS or Walgreens. The retail pharmacy is the one obligated to pay sales tax to the State of California (Rev. & Tax. Code, § 6051), 1 and accordingly charges the customer a “sales tax reimbursement,” to cover the cost of the sales tax, and remits that amount to the state. If the retail pharmacy subsequently believes no sales tax is owed, it—as the taxpayer—can file an administrative claim for a refund with the State Board of Equalization…
2Cases cited42 opinions
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1962
- McKesson Corp. v. Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, Fla. Dept. of Business RegulationSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
- Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management Dist.Supreme Court of the United States · 2013
- Zelig v. County of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 2002
- United States v. Sperry Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1989
37 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Schep v. Capital One, N.A., California Court of Appeal, 5th District2017
- McClain v. Sav-On DrugsCalifornia Supreme Court · 2019
- County Inmate Telephone Service CasesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2020
- Lichtenberger v. Hunt, Ortmann, Palffy etc. CA2/2California Court of Appeal · 2020
- Littlejohn v. Costco Wholesale Corp., California Court of Appeal, 5th District2018
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.