Rather, Amici seek to assist the Court by: 1 surveying the diverse local tax refund procedures that Government Code section 905a permits, even under Appellant's construction of that sect
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 905(A)
CLAIM PROCEDURES FOR LOCAL TAXES SHOULD BE INTEGRATED WITH THE PROCEDURES FOR THE LEVY, ASSESSMENT, AND COLLECTION OF LOCAL TAXES
Me Williams contends that this Court should construe the
Under the Government Claims Act, local governments are prohibited from enacting procedures specifically tailored to the refund of local taxes McWilliams argues that this construction is consistent with the Act’s purposes: to ensure uniform claim procedures and to strip municipalities of the authority to regulate those procedures.
McWilliams contends that these purposes apply equally to claims for refund of local taxes
AC Brief of League of Cities & CSAC
McWilliams' arguments about the Legislature's intent regarding local tax refund claims do not withstand scrutiny A careful reading of the Government Claims Act shows that the Legislature did not require or intend a one-size-fits-all approach to claim procedures for local tax refunds or other claims against local governments Consistent with this purpose, the Legislature enacted diverse refund procedures for state and local taxes alike, and the legislative history of section 905(a) supports this interpretation despite the appearance of the word "statute" in that section.
The Express Provisions Of The Government
Evidence shows that the legislature did not intend to require uniform claim procedures for local tax refunds McWilliams' assertions about legislative purpose ignore the express provisions of the Government Claims Act that authorize non-uniform claim procedures and permit municipal authority to regulate claim procedures, specifically sections 905 and 935.
Section 905 expressly excludes entire categories of claims from the general claim presentation procedure outlined in Sections 910 through 915.4 of the Act—the uniform procedures that govern claims not of the types listed in Section 905 For this case, the Legislature excluded claims under the Revenue and Taxation Code or other statutes prescribing procedures for the refund, rebate, exemption, or cancellation.
Enacted in 1959, these provisions were originally numbered Gov Code § 703 and § 730, respectively (Stats 1959, ch 1724, § 1, at pp 4133–4134, 4138) In 1963 they were renumbered, with no change to the language of section 905, and changes to section 935 that are not relevant to this case.
AC Brief of League of Cities & CSAC McWilliams v Long Beach, No S202037
Section 905(a) of the Government Code governs the amendment, modification, or adjustment of any tax, assessment, fee, or charge, or any portion thereof, and related penalties or costs The very existence of Gov Code § 905(a) shows that the Act was not intended to impose uniform procedures on all types of money claims against local governments, recognizing that different claim types require different processes.
Section 935, in turn, authorizes local governments to regulate specific categories of claims that Section 905 excludes from the Act’s general claim-presentation procedure, as long as those categories are not already governed by any other statute or regulation.
The Legislature Has Enacted Many Different
Refund Claim Provisions -Further Proof That The Legislature's Purpose Was Not To Require Uniform Local Tax Refund Procedures
The Legislature has continued its policy of disfavoring uniformity in tax administration by enacting a wide range of procedures under the Revenue and Taxation Code to govern the refund, rebate, exemption, cancellation, amendment, modification, or adjustment of various local taxes, as provided in Section 905(a).
The Revenue & Taxation Code provides several distinct refund and adjustment procedures for local taxes, each tailored to the method by which that tax is assessed and collected This diversity reflects the Legislature's intent not to apply uniform treatment to local tax refund claims.
Under the Government Claims Act, there is no one-size-fits-all formula for local tax refund claim procedures Instead, the Act acknowledges and accommodates the diverse, heterogeneous procedures used by different localities, and this flexibility persists even under Ms Williams' proposed construction of section 905(a).
AC Brief of League of Cities & CSAC
Key sections of the Revenue and Taxation Code set forth the procedures for refunds, rebates, exemptions, cancellations, amendments, modifications, and adjustments to various local taxes These statutes delineate how taxpayers qualify for relief and the steps needed to apply for such refunds or exemptions, covering a range of local tax types and ensuring consistent administration across jurisdictions.
• Revenue & Taxation Code§ 255(a) (taxpayer must file affidavit attesting to facts giving rise to most property tax exemptions between lien date and February 15)
• Revenue & Taxation Code§ 255(b) (taxpayer must file affidavit attesting to facts giving rise to homeowner's property tax exemptions between date of eligibility and February 15)
• Revenue & Taxation Code § 255( c) (if assessor has revoked eligibility for religious property tax exemption, taxpayer may file affidavit within 15 days of notice)
• Revenue & Taxation Code § 1603 (contents of application for reassessment of property value by County Assessment Appeals Board in mandatory administrative proceeding; application must be filed between July 2 and September 15)
• Revenue & Taxation Code § 4985 (procedures for cancellation of illegal or otherwise defective tax or charge)
• Revenue & Taxation Code § 5096 (presentation of claim for refund of property tax)
• Revenue & Taxation Code § 5097 (b) (application for reduction in assessment can satisfy claim presentation
AC Brief of League of Cities & CSAC McWilliams v Long Beach, No 5202037
~ requirement for property tax refund, if it states that it is intended to constitute a claim for refund)
• Revenue & Taxation Code§ 514l(a) (six-month statute of limitations for bringing suit for property tax refund after rejection of claim)
• Revenue & Taxation Code§ 514l(b) (claim for property tax refund deemed denied after six months)
• Revenue & Taxation Code§ 5142(a) (recovery limited to amount taxpayer sought in underlying property tax refund claim)
Local Sales And Use Taxes
Under California Revenue and Taxation Code § 6901, a claim for a refund of sales or use tax is timely if filed within three years from the last day of the month following the tax period for which the overpayment occurred If the overpayment arose from a payment made under a board determination, the refund claim must be filed within six months from the date of that determination or from the date the overpayment was made, whichever is later.
• Revenue & Taxation Code§ 6933 (suit for refund of sales or use tax must be commenced within 90 days after board's notice of action on claim)
• Revenue & Taxation Code§ 6596(a) (board may grant relief from certain penalties under certain circumstances; requires statement under penalty of perjury)
• Revenue & Taxation Code § 7277 (claims for refund of local sales and use taxes that are held unconstitutional must be filed
AC Brief of League of Cities & CSAC McWilliams v Long Beach, No 5202037
The one-year period starts on the later of (i) the first day of the first calendar quarter that begins after the effective date of this section, or (ii) the date on which the court decision holding the tax unconstitutional becomes final and nonappealable, and ends one year after that later date If the one-year period does not end on the last day of a calendar quarter, it ends on the last day of the preceding calendar quarter or on the last day of the calendar quarter nearest to the period’s end.
• Revenue & Taxation Code § 10901 (application for refund of county vehicle license fees must be made within three years of payment)
Local Motor Vehicle Fuel Taxes
Under California Revenue and Taxation Code § 9152, a refund claim must be filed within three years from the last day of the month following the reporting period for which the overpayment was made, or within six months from the date the board's determinations become final, or after six months from the date of overpayment, whichever period expires later, though that period is suspended during a period of provable financial disability.
AC Brief of League of Cities & CSAC McWilliams v Long Beach, No S202037
• Revenue & Taxation Code § 11934 (claims for refund subject to provisions for property tax refund claims under Revenue & Taxation Code section 5096)
The variety of local tax refund provisions outlined above confirms that the Legislature has never sought to impose uniform procedures for the refund of local taxes To the contrary, the Legislature has repeatedly demonstrated its commitment to the policy of maintaining different local tax refund claim procedures that serve the specific administrative and substantive needs of each different local tax
C The Legislative History Of Section 90S( a) Explains That
The Legislature Excluded Local Tax Refund Claim Procedures From The Uniform Claim Provisions For Tort And Contract Claims, Because Refund Procedures Should
Be Integrated With The Other Procedures For Levying, Assessing, And Collecting Different Local Taxes
The legislative history of the 1959 Act explains why the Legislature enacted section 905(a) and thereby excluded local tax refunds claims from the general claim presentation procedure outlined in sections 910 through 915.4 of the Act The City of Long Beach has already analyzed the legislative history of the 1959 and 1963 Acts (Opening Brief at pp 19-26; Reply Brief at pp 4-12.) We raise two additional points to rebut
McWilliams' arguments concerning the legislative history
AC Brief of League of Cities & CSAC
1 The Legislature's Use Of The Term "Statute" In
1959 Did Not Indicate A "Rejection" Of The Commission's Recommendation That Local Tax Refund Claims Should Be Treated Differently From Other Types Of Claims
McWilliams urges that the 1959 California Law Revision
Commission Report 4 does not reliably reflect the Legislature's intent in enacting section 905(a)'s predecessor (former section 703(a)); in crafting the proposed exclusion for local tax procedures, the Legislature altered the Commission's proposed language by replacing the term "other provisions of law" with
McWilliams relies on a classic rule of statute interpretation—that when the Legislature rejects a provision as originally introduced, the act should not be read as including the omitted text, a rule drawn from Estate of Sanders—yet that rule does not control this case Here, the Legislature did not reject or omit the proposed section from the 1959 Act; instead, it enacted only a minor amendment to the language of the section Consequently, the principle does not apply to the present situation.
Rather than weighing the 1959 Report as controlling legislative history, the central question is how much weight it should carry In particular, does the Legislature’s amendment of the proposed language indicate that it rejected the proposal?
The Commission's stated purpose and policy justifications for excluding local tax procedures from the Act's uniform claims procedures are not supported by the amendment; changing 'other provisions of law' to 'statute' does not alter the effect of this section.
4 The Commission Reports are an appropriate source of legislative history regarding the Government Claims Act (E.g., VanArsdale v
Hollinger (1968) 68 Cal.2d 245, 249-250; Pasadena Hotel Dev Venture v City of Pasadena (1981) 119 Cal.App.4th 412, 415 fn 3.)
AC Brief of League of Cities & CSAC 11 n:\taxlit\li2012\121235\00812405.doc
Local tax refund claims are excluded from the general claim presentation procedure outlined in sections 910 through 915.4 of the Act The Commission's two rationales for differing treatment of tax claims apply equally to both the proposed language and the final language enacted in 1959.
First, with regard to tax claims not being subject to the concerns for
"uniformity" that motivated the Commission's treatment of tort claims, the Commission explained:
Tax refund claims, including refunds of taxes, assessments, and fees, are commonly connected to revenue-collection procedures, yet these provisions remain distinct from tort and contract claim provisions and do not encounter the same legal issues addressed by the report.
When The Legislature Has Not Enacted
The Administration Of Local Taxes, Local Governments Throughout California Have Provided By Charter And Ordinance For The Administration Of Locally Enacted Taxes
California voters at the local level have used the democratic process to enact hundreds of local taxes, including business license taxes, transient occupancy taxes, documentary transfer taxes, utility user taxes, parking taxes, and other charges; more than a hundred local governments have enacted telephone user taxes, underscoring the breadth of local revenue measures across the state.
AC Brief of League of Cities & CSAC McWilliams v Long Beach, No S202037
California counties and many of the state’s largest cities have enacted comprehensive local tax administration provisions to implement locally enacted taxes Almost all counties rely on local ordinances to administer county taxes, while the ten largest cities and numerous medium- and small-sized municipalities maintain local laws and charter provisions that govern city tax administration These statutes provide the legal and administrative framework needed for local tax collection, ensuring that locally enacted taxes are properly collected and enforced.
The Legislature has established comprehensive administrative procedures for the administration of certain local taxes, including property taxes Property taxes are constrained by the Constitution, are collected in part by the State and in part by counties, and their revenue is shared among many governmental entities according to tightly regulated formulas It has also enacted administrative rules for locally enacted taxes that are administered by the State, such as local transaction and use taxes (the local analogue to state sales and use taxes) and local motor vehicle license fees (Revenue & Tax Code § 7270).
[providing for State agency administration of local transaction and use taxes]; id § 11106 [same, local motor vehicle license fees]l These State- enacted administrative procedures include integrated procedures for the
The Legislature has established comprehensive administrative procedures for state-level taxes, including income, franchise, and sales and use taxes.
AC Brief of League of Cities & CSAC
The provisions govern the levy, assessment, and collection of each tax, and establish procedures for taxpayers to make administrative challenges to the amount assessed and to seek judicial review if a refund claim is denied These challenge and refund procedures are integrated with the administrative framework for tax assessment and collection.
California has not enacted administrative procedures for most local taxes Instead, the state authorizes the enactment of local taxes and leaves local governments to create comprehensive procedures for tax administration The state constitution itself authorizes charter cities to enact local taxes, as demonstrated in Pines v City of Santa Monica (1981).
California general-law cities and counties cannot impose local taxes without enabling legislation, per Cal Const art XIII, § 24 Accordingly, the Legislature has enacted enabling statutes authorizing various local taxes, such as Rev & Taxation Code § 7284 (counties may levy a business license tax); § 7284.2 (counties may impose utility user taxes); § 7280 (cities and counties may impose a transient occupancy tax); Gov Code § 37100.5 (general-law cities may enact any tax that a charter city may enact); and § 37101 (cities may enact a business license tax).
When the Legislature enables local enactment of local taxes, its enabling statutes typically say little about how the local tax is to be assessed, collected, and enforced, or about administrative procedures for raising and resolving tax disputes Indeed, even where the Legislature places limitations on local tax administration, the legislation tends to address only the edges of tax administration rather than the core, implicitly recognizing local control over tax affairs.
AC Brief of League of Cities & CSAC
18 n:\taxlitlli2012\121235\00812405.doc authority to otherwise regulate tax administration For example, the
The legislature has empowered cities and counties to levy business license taxes, and it requires them to fairly apportion these taxes on entities that do business inside and outside the jurisdiction This apportionment ensures that businesses are taxed proportionally to where they operate, balancing activity within and beyond the local area Additionally, the law enables local governments to collect the license tax by suit or by other lawful means, securing revenue for local administration and services.
& Taxation Code§ 7284; Government Code§ 37101.) The legislation, however, does not provide any further guidance concerning tax administration
With the Legislature silent on how local taxes should be administered, charter cities, general-law cities, and counties have enacted their own provisions to assess, collect, and enforce locally imposed taxes This shows that local governments not only have the authority to levy taxes but also to administer and enforce them through reasonable collection methods The core principle is that tax authority carries with it the corollary power to implement practical collection measures; without effective collection, the power to tax would be meaningless These local tax administration rules ensure that assessment, collection, and enforcement align with local needs and legal authority.
Local governments enact provisions governing tax administration out of necessity because effective tax procedures are needed to ensure a stable revenue stream Money is the lifeblood of modern government; tax revenue is its primary source, and as the importance of a predictable tax income has grown, authorities at all levels have established procedures to minimize disruptions and keep tax collections reliable for public services and fiscal stability.
City and County of San Francisco (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 65, 71.)
The procedures enacted by local governments are not limited to those related to claims for refunds Effective tax administration requires
AC Brief of League of Cities & CSAC
Local governments require periodic reporting and remittance of taxes Tax authorities enforce compliance through audits, record requests, and assessments for any taxes that were underpaid or not paid at all They may issue regulations and interpretations to clarify what is taxable and who must report or remit taxes Since some taxpayers may seek exemptions, cancellations, amendments, or adjustments to a local tax, authorities have administrative procedures to address those claims, often before payment They also establish procedures for refunds or rebates of local taxes, allowing for further administrative review and potential re-examination.
7 E.g., Los Angeles Muni Code§ 21.1.8 [reporting and remitting utility user taxes]; San Francisco Business & Tax Regs Code§ 709
[reporting and remitting utility user taxes]; id §§ 6.9-1, 6.9-2 [periodic returns to be filed on form furnished by tax collector]; id § 6.1-1 [making provisions applicable to utility user taxes]
Los Angeles Municipal Code § 21.16 sets forth general audit procedures for local taxes, and § 21.1.10 extends those procedures to utility user taxes, with § 21.1.14 requiring an annual audit of utility tax collections; San Francisco’s Business & Tax Regulations Code § 713 governs similar audit requirements Together, these provisions create a consistent audit framework for tax compliance and revenue monitoring across jurisdictions, ensuring regular oversight of local taxes and utility charges.
[recordkeeping requirement for utility user tax collectors]; id §§ 6.4-1, 6.5-
1 [authority to obtain records for purposes of determining local tax]; id § 6.1-1 [making provisions applicable to utility user taxes]
Los Angeles Municipal Code § 21.1.9(d) authorizes administrative rulings and interpretations regarding utility user taxes San Francisco's Business & Tax Regulations Code § 6.16-1 provides interpretive and rulemaking authority over several local taxes, and § 6.1-1 makes those provisions applicable to utility user taxes.
Under the Los Angeles Municipal Code, §21.16 outlines the general procedures for tax authorities to conduct audits, issue assessments, and for taxpayers to contest those assessments administratively; §21.10 applies these general assessment procedures to utility user taxes; and §21.12(b) provides the specific provisions governing the administrative review of such assessments.
[pre-payment procedure for claiming exemption from utility user taxes]; San Francisco Business & Tax Regs Code§§ 6.11-1, 6.11-2, 6.11-3
[procedures for issuing determinations of local taxes due and for petitioning tax collector for pre-payment review of determination]; id § 6.1-1 [making provisions applicable to utility user taxes] ã
AC Brief of League of Cities & CSAC 20 n:\taxlit\li2012\121235\00812405.doc
McWilliams v Long Beach, No S202037 tax authority's position 11 Local tax codes outline these and other types of provisions to ensure appropriate administration of localtaxes