Legal Opinion
California Taxpayers Ass'n v. Franchise Tax Board
California Court of Appeal
Decided December 13, 2010No. C062791PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
BUTZ, J.
We conclude here that Revenue and Taxation Code section 19138,1 a corporate tax penalty provision for understating such taxes by more than $1 million, is just that—a penalty—and therefore not subject to the two-thirds legislative vote requirement for a “state tax” increase as required by article XIII A, section 3, of the state Constitution (enacted as part of Prop. 13 in 1978). We also conclude that this statute, as properly construed, affords due process. Accordingly, we shall affirm the judgment.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
California Constitution, article XIII A, section 3…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- McKesson Corp. v. Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, Fla. Dept. of Business RegulationSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
- Yamaha Corp. of America v. State Board of EqualizationCalifornia Supreme Court · 1998
- Kaufman & Broad Communities, Inc. v. Performance Plastering, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2005
- Conservatorship of WendlandCalifornia Supreme Court · 2001
- Sinclair Paint Co. v. State Board of EqualizationCalifornia Supreme Court · 1997
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- The Affordable Housing Coalition of San Diego County v. Drager CA3California Court of Appeal · 2020