Everyone knows that California can be a tough place to do business and in California's aggressive and complex tax climate, doing business here increases risk for large enterprises, small businesses, and individuals alike. Bewley, Lassleben & Miller's California-specific state and local tax practice provides expertise in responding to the frequently thorny issues that arise in connection with sales/use tax, property tax, city business tax, franchise/income tax, and other taxes levied by the State as well as by local municipalities and agencies.
A Nationally Respected California Tax Group
The Firm's California tax practice is respected throughout the United States. Prior to joining the Firm, Joe Vinatieri served as the Chief Deputy to Ernest Dronenburg, a former Chairman of the California State Board of Equalization, and San Diego County Assessor.
Mr. Vinatieri joins Jason DeMille, Patricia Verdugo, Michael Lebeau, and Benjamin Lee in our California state tax practice. Emphasizing successful resolution of tax disputes at the audit or administrative appeal level, the Firm's contributions are represented by published decisions of the California State Board of Equalization, and the Courts including:
- Milhous v. Franchise Tax Board (2005) 131 Cal. App. 4th 1260
- In the Matter of the Claims for Refund Under the Sales and Use Tax Law of Rhodia, Inc., 2002 Cal. Tax LEXIS 257 (Cal. Tax 2002)
- In the Matter of the Appeal of Raymond H. and Margaret R. Berner, 2001 Cal. Tax LEXIS 797 (Cal. Tax 2001)
- In the Matters of the Claims for Refund Under the Sales and Use Tax Law of Hewlett Packard Company, 2000 Cal. Tax LEXIS 131 (Cal. Tax 2000)
- In re John B. and Christine J. Mumford, 1998 Cal. Tax LEXIS 310 (Cal. Tax 1998)
- Yamaha v. State Board of Equalization (1998) 19 Cal. 4th 1
- Chevron USA, Inc. v. State Board of Equalization (1997) 53 Cal. App. 4th 289In the Matter of the Petitions for Redetermination of Embassy Suites, Inc., 1996 Cal. Tax LEXIS 210 (Cal. Tax 1996)
- In the Matter of the Appeal of Powerine Oil Company, 1985 Cal. Tax LEXIS 96 (Cal. Tax 1985)
- In the Matter of the Claim for Refund Under the Sales and Use Tax Law of Varian Associates, 1994 Cal. Tax LEXIS 192 (Cal. Tax 1994)
- In the Matter of the Petition for Redetermination Under the Sales and Use Tax Law of LifeCare Services, Inc., 1993 Cal. Tax LEXIS 339 (Cal. Tax 1993)
- Gray v. Franchise Tax Board (1991) 235 Cal. App. 3d 36
California Local Tax Expertise
With the extensive knowledge and experience of the Firm’s California tax practice, the Firm actively engages in local tax issues including business license taxes, valuation disputes before county assessment appeals boards and the State Board of Equalization, avoidance of change in ownership reassessments under Proposition 13, and litigation of property tax disputes before the Courts.
The Firm has resolved numerous local tax matters before county assessment appeals boards, the State Board of Equalization, and the Courts including:
- Reducing escape assessments (back taxes) on late-filed BOE-100-B property statements resulting in the cancellation of over $1.5 million in back taxes;
- Cancellation of new construction assessments after an office fire (Moushoul v. County of Los Angeles (Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC649945) 2019 Cal. Super. LEXIS 9068); and,
- Application of Solar Energy New Construction Exclusion (Rev. & Tax. Code §73) to a 250 MV facility in San Bernardino County
- Raytheon Co. v. County of Los Angeles (2008) 159 Cal. App. 4th 27
- Macy’s Dept. Stores, Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco (2006) 143 Cal. App. 4th 1444 (2006)
- Northrop Grumman Corp. v. County of Los Angeles (2005) 134 Cal. App. 4th 424
- Hughes Aircraft Company v. County of Orange (2002) 96 Cal. App. 4th 540
- Union Oil v. City of Los Angeles (2000) 79 Cal. App. 4th 383
We Set Precedent in California Tax Litigation
The Firm brings value to its clients by emphasizing resolution at the lowest possible administrative level. However, when tax disputes cannot be resolved in the administrative law process, Bewley, Lassleben & Miller's California tax-law practice has led to many precedent-setting, favorable outcomes in trial and appellate courts. In this regard, Firm attorneys have litigated extensively in each of the areas of sales/use, property, franchise, and city business tax, serving as lead trial counsel in cases such as:
- Raytheon Co. v. County of Los Angeles (2008) 159 Cal. App. 4th 27
- Macy’s Dept. Stores, Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco (2006) 143 Cal. App. 4th 1444 (2006)
- Northrop Grumman Corp. v. County of Los Angeles (2005) 134 Cal. App. 4th 424
- Milhous v. Franchise Tax Board (2005) 131 Cal. App. 4th 1260
- Hughes Aircraft Company v. County of Orange (2002) 96 Cal. App. 4th 540
- Union Oil v. City of Los Angeles (2000) 79 Cal. App. 4th 383
- Yamaha v. State Board of Equalization (1998) 19 Cal. 4th 1
- Chevron USA, Inc. v. State Board of Equalization (1997) 53 Cal. App. 4th 289
- Gray v. Franchise Tax Board (1991) 235 Cal. App. 3d 36
Richard Dewberry and Leighton Anderson have extensive experience in the litigation of state and local tax matters in California. Mr. Dewberry was lead counsel in In the Matter of the Appeal of Raymond H. and Margaret R. Berner, 2001 Cal. Tax LEXIS 797 (Cal. Tax 2001).
Our state and local tax practice has resulted in millions of dollars of tax savings and refunds for our clients who include:
- Anheuser-Busch Company
- The Boeing Company
- Costco Wholesale
- United Launch Alliance
- Space Exploration Technologies
- Starbucks
- Home Depot
- GE Aviation
- IBM
- Simon Properties
Contact our law office in Whittier, CA today
For help with California taxation matters, contact our dedicated team of attorneys today.
Our law office is conveniently located in Whittier.
Taxation Blog
California Office of Tax Appeals Requests Attorney General Opinion Related to its Controversial Proposed Regulation
The saga related to the recently pulled proposed amendments to the California Office of Tax Appeals (“OTA”) regulations seeking to limit the agency’s jurisdiction to decide appeals involving questions related to the validity of other California regulations continues. On June 29, the OTA sent in a formal request to the Attorney General requesting a written opinion on whether the OTA has “the legal authority and jurisdiction to issue a written opinion declaring a provision in the California Code of Regulations…to be invalid and to refuse to enforce the regulation on that basis[.]”
You may recall that the OTA proposed an amendment to its regulations earlier this year that would have limited the agency from reviewing or opining on the validity of another agency’s regulations,
California Department of Tax and Fee Administration Withdraws Amendments Deleting the Three-Error Rule from Audit Manual
Taxpayers can rejoice that they may continue to use the three-error rule for California sales and use tax audits for now. On July 7, 2023, the Office of Administrative Law published an update in its California Regulatory Notice Register that the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (“CDTFA”) has formally certified that it will not issue,
California Office of Tax Appeals Bifurcates Proposed Regulatory Changes to Temporarily Table its Proposed Amendments to Limit Taxpayer Appeals
The California Office of Tax Appeals (“OTA”) removed the contentious proposal to limit the agency’s jurisdiction and taxpayer appeals from its proposed changes to its Rules for Tax Appeals. On May 10, 2023, the OTA issued a notice that it is moving forward and proposing to adopt amendments to the Rules for Tax Appeals. However,
Joe Presents at IPT 2023 Sales Tax School II in Atlanta, Georgia
Joe was pleased to co-present last week at the IPT 2023 Sales Tax School II on constitutional law and ethics. It was a great week of learning!
California Department of Tax and Fee Administration Publishes Amendments Deleting the Three-Error Rule from Audit Manual
The California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (“CDTFA”) has formally published new amendments to its Audit Manual, and taxpayers with ongoing audits should especially take note. As you may recall, in February of this year, the CDTFA held a second interested parties meeting (“IPM”) for its proposed changes to Audit Manual Chapter 13, Statistical Sampling and Chapter 4,
California Office of Tax Appeals Holds Interested Parties Meeting
The California Office of Tax Appeals (“OTA”) held an interested parties meeting (“IPM”) yesterday morning to discuss the voluminous and substantial proposed amendments to the OTA’s current Rules for Tax Appeals.
As mentioned in our prior update, the OTA’s new proposed revisions to the Rules for Tax Appeals contain several changes detrimental to California taxpayers and infringe upon the principle of fundamental fairness necessary to adjudicate tax appeals.