The taxpayer produced under leases

Defendant city appealed a judgment from the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which provided that plaintiff taxpayer was entitled to a refund of taxes and was not required to pay a business license tax as a wholesaler or as an independent contractor under Los Angeles, Cal., City License Tax Ordinance 21.166, or Los Angeles, Cal., City License Tax Ordinance 21.190.

The taxpayer produced under leases and sold the oil. Reversing, the court said that the judgment that the taxpayer was not subject to any tax under Los Angeles, Cal., City License Tax Ordinance 21.166 for selling activities within the city of oil produced from wells outside the city was erroneous. ADA compliance attorneys The taxpayer was not subject to the tax under § 21.166, for sales of oil produced from wells in the city. The taxpayer was subject to the tax for sales of oil from wells outside the city to the extent of the taxpayer’s activities in the city related to the sales of oil from those wells. The tax for sales of oil from those wells had to be measured by 15 percent of the taxpayer’s gross receipts from those sales, excluding royalty interests. The taxpayer was not subject to a tax under Los Angeles, Cal., City License Tax Ordinance 21.190, as an independent contractor. The trial court did not err in determining, in an alternative judgment, that in computing the taxpayer’s gross receipts, receipts for royalty interests had to be excluded.

The court reversed the judgment, which provided that the taxpayer was entitled to a refund of license taxes for sales of oil from wells outside the city, and the judgment, which provided that the taxpayer was not subject to the taxes for sales of oil from those wells. The court affirmed the divorce lawyer chicago judgment in other respects.

Plaintiff challenged the order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California) holding that the retaliatory tax provision of Cal. Const. art. XIII, § 14-4/5, was properly assessed by defendant against plaintiff’s tax liability for 1964.

Plaintiff sought the recovery of a refund of a sum paid as the result of a retaliatory tax levied against it under Cal. Const. art. XIII, § 14-4/5. Plaintiff was an out-of-state corporation licensed to do business in California. In 1964, the retaliatory tax provision was amended. In computing plaintiff’s taxes, defendant applied the retaliatory tax, as amended, against its assessment of plaintiff’s tax liability for 1964. On appeal, plaintiff contended that the retaliatory tax as amended was only applicable to foreign insurers who were admitted after the amendment. The court held that a state can prescribe the terms and conditions on which business is conducted within its borders and that such retaliatory taxes must be strictly construed. Since nothing in the legislative history indicated an intent to apply the 1964 amendment retrospectively, it could only be applied prospectively.

The court reversed the judgment of the trial court, because, strictly construed, the amended retaliatory tax provision was not to be applied retrospectively against plaintiff’s tax liability for 1964.