SeeSALT BlogState and local real estate transfer taxes have become larger planning concerns for investors in U.S. real property, particularly in gateway cities like New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco. This article by colleagues Craig A. Becker, Richard E. Nielsen, Breann E. Robowski and Andrew J. Weiner describes a recent expansion of the scope of California real estate transfer taxes.
Articles Posted in California
Many Questions Unanswered After California’s Tax Shakeup
Posted
(This article originally was published by Law360 on October 7, 2017.)
On Sept. 16, 2017, California Governor Jerry Brown signed Assembly Bill (A.B.) 131 into law,[1] which takes effect immediately and makes various changes to the Taxpayer Transparency and Fairness Act of 2017 enacted on June 27, 2017.[2] The Act overhauled the California State Board of Equalization (BOE) and created two new tax agencies.
New California Tax Agencies’ Roles Clarified
Posted
On September 16, 2017, California Governor Jerry Brown signed Assembly Bill (A.B.) 131 into law, making various changes to the Taxpayer Transparency and Fairness Act of 2017 (Act) enacted on June 27, 2017. The Act overhauled the California State Board of Equalization (BOE) and created two new tax agencies.
Blazing a Trail for More Local Taxes by Ballot Initiative
Posted
(This article originally was published by Law360 on September 7, 2017.)
On Aug. 28, 2017, in California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland, the California Supreme Court held local taxes imposed by taxpayers via initiative are subject to less stringent requirements than taxes imposed by local governments pursuant to Proposition 218.[1] This opinion has far-flung ramifications on how local taxes can be imposed in California.
California Supreme Court Decision Changes the Transfer Tax World
Posted
TAKEAWAYS
In 926 North Ardmore Avenue LLC v. County of Los Angeles,1 the California Supreme Court concluded that, subject to certain limitations, California’s Documentary Transfer Tax Act (the California DTTA), applicable to direct sales of real estate, is also applicable to transfers of entity interests in entities holding real estate if those transfers result in a Proposition 13 “change in ownership” under Revenue and Taxation Code (R&TC) sections 64(c) or (d). In its 6-1 decision, the California Supreme Court reasoned that Proposition 13’s property tax “change in ownership rules are designed to identify precisely the types of indirect real property transfers that the Transfer Tax Act [(California DTTA)] is designed to tax.”2
Continue Reading ›
Imposing Documentary Transfer Taxes in California After Ardmore
Posted
(This article originally was published by Law360 on July 7, 2016.)
Rarely does a subject as mundane as a documentary transfer tax become worthy of its own article. However, the June 29, 2017, decision of the California Supreme Court in 926 North Ardmore Avenue LLC v. County of Los Angeles (Ardmore)[1] is a worthy exception. Affirming the Court of Appeal, the California Supreme Court held in Ardmore that California’s documentary transfer tax may be imposed by localities on transfers of interests in legal entities holding title to real property when three criteria are met: (1) the legal entity interest transfer is memorialized in writing; (2) the transfer is made for consideration; and (3) the transfer constitutes a “change of ownership” in the legal entity within the meaning of “change of ownership” for property tax reassessment purposes as set forth in Cal. Rev. & Tax. Code[2] § 64, subds. (c) or (d).[3] Under the Ardmore holding, it is irrelevant whether the written instrument at issue memorializing the legal entity interest transfer is recorded or directly references the real property.[4] Moving forward, every transaction involving a transfer of an interest in a legal entity holding title to real property in California is going to require thorough investigation and due diligence concerning the possible triggering of Ardmore documentary transfer tax imposition.
Taxes, Fees and “Something Else”: California’s Morning Star Decision
Posted
On April 6, the Third District California Court of Appeal decided Morning Star Packing Company v. California Air Resources Board, a case that challenged California’s cap-and-trade auction process as an unconstitutional tax because it was not enacted by two-thirds majorities in both chambers of the State Legislature, as required for new taxes by the California Constitution (propositions 13 and 26). The appeal pursued by Morning Star Packing Company against State Air Resources Board et al. was consolidated with a separate suit filed by the California Chamber of Commerce and by intervener National Association of Manufacturers. That decision is important not only to the future of the auction process, but also as to the key question of what is a tax as opposed to a fee or, in this case, as opposed to a “something else.”
Continue Reading ›
California Legislative Committee Holds Informational Hearing on Lucent and Administering California’s Technology Transfer Agreement Law
Posted
On January 30, 2017, the California Legislature Assembly Committee on Revenue and Taxation held an informational hearing on “Life after Lucent: Administering California’s Technology Transfer Agreement Law.” The California State Board of Equalization (SBE) and the Board’s staff are currently wrestling with the meaning of the Technology Transfer Act (TTA) provisions in sections 6011 and 6012 of the Revenue and Taxation Code in connection with implementation of the California Court of Appeal decision in Lucent Technologies v. Board of Equalization, 241 Cal. App. 4th 19 (2015). The January 30 hearing demonstrates that the Legislature is now apparently interested in this issue.
Nortel, Lucent and Taxing Embedded Software in California Under a Technology Transfer Agreement
Posted
As consumer products become more high tech, the line between computers and traditional devices has blurred. Even basic products, such as toothbrushes, alarm clocks, doorbells, smartphones, cameras, home security systems, printers and copiers now include technical software that enables new functionality options for the device. As a general principle, tangible personal property, but not intangibles or services, is subject to California Sales and Use Tax. Software “embedded” into a product has value distinct from the value of the rest of the device and that distinct (intangible) value is not subject to sales tax. On the heels of two recent taxpayer victories in the California Court of Appeal relating to taxation of software, this article discusses current developments on how to treat such embedded software for California sales (and use) tax purposes.
(The remainder of this article can be accessed in the January 2017 edition of the Journal of Multistate Taxation and Incentives.)
Quick Points – Property Taxation and Software in California
Posted
(This article originally was published in Vol. 25, No. 4 of the California Lawyers Association’s California Tax Lawyer.)
Section 995 and 995.2 of the California Revenue & Taxation Code exempt all software except for basic operational programs from property taxation. Basic input output systems, known as BIOS, draw the line between the taxable and nontaxable. BIOS, which by definition is necessary to the operation of the computer, handles primitive functions such as turning the computer on and off. BIOS is taxable. Everything else, such as operating systems like Windows, is not taxable. (Property Tax Rule 152; Cardinal health 301 Inc. v. County of Orange (2008) 167 Cal.Appl.4th 219.) Often, computers or other electronic devices are sold with nontaxable software (i.e., non-basic operating systems or application software) preloaded onto the device. When there is no separate sales price for the nontaxable software, it is termed “bundled” or “embedded” software. Embedded software is not taxable. Id.