In 2018, San Francisco voters approved, by simple majority vote, two new gross receipts taxes: the Homelessness Gross Receipts Tax (SF-HT) and the Commercial Rents Tax (SF-CRT), with both 
taxes effective as of January 1, 2019.[1] Because these taxes fund specific governmental services, they are designated as special taxes (specifically, the SF-HT funds homelessness services and the SF-CRT funds early childhood education). Since the California Constitution specifies that special taxes imposed by local government need two-thirds voter approval (i.e., a “supermajority”), taxpayer groups have filed lawsuits to invalidate these special taxes, as both were approved by only a majority vote (61% for the SF-HT and 51% for the SF-CRT).[2] As discussed more fully below, the courts have ruled against these taxpayer groups and the California Supreme Court to date has refused review.
The pressing question is whether San Francisco taxpayers, who paid the SF-HT and/or the SF‑CRT for 2019 and 2020, should be filing claims to protect their rights to refunds in the unlikely (but not impossible) event that these taxes are ultimately rendered invalid.
since September 2020 as a member of the Collaborative Workgroup on Remote Hearings—the task force created by the BOE to pioneer the implementation of virtual Assessment Appeals Board (AAB) hearings as an alternative to in-person hearings due to the safety concerns and conditions associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. 
for members of federal consolidated groups, holding that the policy violated the Uniformity Clause of the state constitution. Verisign, Inc. v. Director of Revenue, No. N19C-08-093 JRJ (Del. Super. Ct. Dec. 17, 2020). The decision presents a potential refund opportunity for Delaware corporate taxpayers who were members of a federal consolidated group, and for Delaware corporate income tax purposes had their separate-company NOL deductions limited to the group’s consolidated NOL.
A federal district court held that under comity principles, Indiana state court is a more appropriate venue for a putative class action brought by three Indiana municipalities seeking to impose franchise fees on a group of online video providers. Order,