Revenue and Taxation Code § 1611.6 Fees Award Of $180,000 To Chinese Theatres Was Reversed On Appeal As A Matter Of Law In a December 9, 2020 post, we discussed Chinese Theatres, LLC v. County of Los Angeles, Case No. B302708 (2d Dist., Div. 3) which was unpublished at that time. In Chinese […]
Yes, The Case Did Involve The Historical Grauman’s Chinese Theatre In Hollywood. Grauman’s Chinese Theatre. Carol M. Highsmith, photographer. Library of Congress. The real property upon which the historical Grauman’s Chinese Theatre in Hollywood was located happened to be involved in a tax assessment dispute in the next opinion we discuss, Chinese Theatres, LLC
“Weinsten Tax” Meant To Disincentivize Sexual Perpetrators/Harassing Employers From Trying To Prevent Reporting By Victims. As a response to some sexual harassers/abusers requiring use of confidentiality agreements to silence victims, Congress in December 2017 amended the Tax Code in what has been dubbed the “Weinstein tax.” Several bloggers indicate the repercussions of this.
Material Points Behind Initial Decision Were Disclosed And No Recovery Of Taxes Occurred. In SSL Landlord, LLC v. County of San Mateo, Case No. A151318 (1st Dist., Div. 3 April 23, 2019) (published), plaintiffs appealed a denial of attorney’s fees to them, as against County, under Revenue and Taxation Code sections 1611.6 and 5152.
Deals With Assessor Liability For Challenging A Law As Unconstitutional And Invalid. In our January 16, 2018 post, we discussed Land Partners, LLC v. County of Orange, a Fourth District, Division 3 decision—unpublished at the time—discussing a special fee-shifting statute under the Revenue and Taxation Code about faulty Assessor decisions. We can now report
Subjective, Cognitive Decision By Assessor That Provision, Rule, Or Regulation Was Unconstitutional/Invalid Was Not Shown To Allow For Fee Shifting. The Fountain of Taxation. 1909. Library of Congress. The next case, Land Partners, LLC v. County of Orange, Case No. G053664 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Jan. 10, 2018) (unpublished), involves a fee-shifting statute, Revenue
Income Tax Debtor Lost Federal Court Action, So Dismissal In State Court Was Justified And State Proceeding Was Unreasonable As A Matter of Law. In Franceschi v. Franchise Tax Bd., Case No. B267719 (2d Dist., Div. 2 July 8, 2016) (published), a plaintiff—who was on the Franchise Tax Board’s published list of “Top
Internal Revenue Code Section 7340(g) Fee-Shifting Provision Was At Issue. Knudsen v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, No. 13-72077 (9th Cir. July 15, 2015) (published) dealt with a very narrow issue under Internal Revenue Code section 7340(g)’s fee-shifting statutory provision: whether the IRS’s concession after letting a claimed innocent spouse taxpayer’s qualified offer to
Revenue And Taxation Code Section 5152 Was The Fee Entitlement Predicate. The home of the American citizen after the tax bill has passed. July 19, 1862. Library of Congress. The caption reads: "Scroggs says he is ready and willing to pay any amount of tax, but he would like them to leave his
Government Code Section 800 Cap Does Not Apply to Section 1611.6 Awards. Acting Presiding Justice Moore, in a 3-0 decision in Villa San Clemente LLC v. County of Orange, Case No. G04984 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 4, 2012) (unpublished), dealt with a $70,806.71 attorney’s fees award under Revenue and Taxation Code section
