About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

1 Joseph Henchman & Arushi Sharma, Permitting Class Refund Actions Protects California Taxpayers Against Illegal Taxes: Ardon v. City of Los Angeles 1 (2010)

handle is hein.taxfoundation/ffcdexz0001 and id is 1 raw text is: FFISCAL 234 FACT Permitting Class Refund Actions Protects California Taxpayers Against Illegal Taxes: Ardon v. City of Los Angeles by Joseph Henchman and Arushi Sharma Introduction The Tax Foundation recently filed an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief with the California Supreme Court in the case of Ardon v. City qLosAngeles, No. S174507. This case involves the right of California taxpayers to collectively file a refund for improperly collected local taxes.' Estuardo Ardon is a California taxpayer who has successfully challenged the constitutionality of the telephone excise tax in Los Angeles. Ardon filed a tax refund claim on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, asserting that state law (California Gov. Code Section 910) permits him to file such a class action lawsuit. Ardon argued that the California Supreme Court has previously permitted class filings in the case Ciy of San Jose v. Superior Court' Los Angeles rejected this argument, claiming instead that each taxpayer must file a separate refund claim. The California Court of Appeal agreed with the City and barred Ardon's class claim. The Court did not rely on San Jose to decide the case, but instead looked to another case, Woosley v. State q1 Calibrnia.4 The Court also concluded that public policy underlying the California Constitution bars taxpayer claims for collective relief when local government revenue interests are at stake.5 The California Supreme Court granted review in September 2009. 1 The California Supreme Court may hear oral arguments in the case in the fall of 2010. The Ardon case may be heard in conjunction with Leoffler v. Target, No. S173972, a case which contests a lower court ruling that a class of consumers cannot sue retailers for illegal collection of a sales tax under state consumer protection laws. 2 12 Cal.3d 447, 457 (1974). 3 Ardon v. City of Los Angeles, (2009) 174 Cal. App. 4th 369, 370 71. 4 3 Cal. App. 4th 758, 792 (1992). 5 Ardon, supra note 3, at 373. (The policy underlying article XIII, section 32 is that strict legislative control over the manner in which tax refunds may be sought is necessary so that governmental entities may engage in fiscal planning.). Joseph Henchman is Tax Counsel & Director of State Prjects and Arushi Sharma is Law Clerk at the Tax Foundation. The authors would like to thank Edward Teyssier for serving as counsel of record for the Tax Foundation in this case.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most