Bigge Crane Rental Co. v. County of Alameda

498 P.2d 193, 7 Cal. 3d 414, 102 Cal. Rptr. 513, 1972 Cal. LEXIS 198
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedJune 20, 1972
DocketS. F. 22860
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 498 P.2d 193 (Bigge Crane Rental Co. v. County of Alameda) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bigge Crane Rental Co. v. County of Alameda, 498 P.2d 193, 7 Cal. 3d 414, 102 Cal. Rptr. 513, 1972 Cal. LEXIS 198 (Cal. 1972).

Opinions

Opinion

McCOMB, J.

Plaintiff appeals from a judgment in favor of defendant in an action to recover taxes paid under protest.

Facts-. Plaintiff owns, and leases to customers, a number of large truck cranes, which are used principally in construction work. When not under lease, they are stored on plaintiff’s private property. When leased, they travel on the streets and highways to job sites and later return to storage, pursuant to permits issued under section 4003, subdivision (a), of the Vehicle Code. The permits cost $5 per trip. (Veh. Code, § 9258.)

The vehicles have not been registered under the Vehicle Code, and no license fees have been imposed thereon (see Rev. & Tax. Code, § 10751). Plaintiff, however, has been required by defendant to pay ad valorem taxes on those truck cranes which have been determined to have a taxable situs [416]*416in the County of Alameda.1 Plaintiff paid the taxes under protest and is seeking a refund.

Question. Are plaintiffs vehicles subject to county ad valorem property taxes?

Yes. There is a constitutional mandate that all property, with exceptions not applicable here, be taxed in proportion to its value. (Cal. Const., art. XIII, § 1.) The only statute available which might exempt plaintiff’s truck cranes from county ad valorem property taxes is section 10758 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, which provides in part: “The license fee imposed under this part [pt. 5, div. 2, Rev. !& Tax. Code, comprising §§ 10701-11005.6] is in lieu of all taxes according to value levied for State or local purposes on vehicles of a type subject to registration under the Vehicle Code whether or not the vehicles are registered under the Vehicle Code.” Section 10751, subdivision (a), of the Revenue and Taxation Code provides that the license fee is imposed “for the privilege of operating upon the public highways in this state any vehicle of a type which is subject to registration under the Vehicle Code.”2

As shown by the statutory language quoted above, the license fee im[417]*417posed by part 5, division 2, of the Revenue and Taxation Code is applicable only to vehicles which are subject to registration under the Vehicle Code and which are operated upon the public highways in this state. Accordingly, if a vehicle is exempt from registration, or (except with respect to trailer coaches3) if it is not operated upon the public highways in this state, the license fee cannot be imposed; and, in either such event, the prohibition against local ad valorem property taxes does not apply. (See Ingels v. Riley, 5 Cal.2d 154, 161 [53 P.2d 939, 103 A.L.R. 1]; Yosemite Park & Curry Co. v. Dept. of Motor Vehicles, 117 Cal.App.2d 448 [2 Cal.Rptr. 4311; 41 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 129, 131-133.)

In the present case, the record shows that the subject truck cranes were operated upon the public highways under trip permits obtained under section 4003 of the Vehicle Code. There is no question, therefore, that they were operated upon the public highways. Section 4003 of the Vehicle Code provides that the trip permits shall serve “in lieu of” California registration. As a result, the vehicles are exempt from registration4 and are therefore not subject to the license fee imposed under part 5, division 2, of the Revenue and Taxation Code. Accordingly, the county has a right to impose ad valorem property taxes on them.

This holding is in accordance with the Legislature’s clear intent, which was to avoid duplicate ad valorem taxation rather than to permit a complete avoidance thereof.

The judgment is affirmed.

Peters, J., Tobriner. J., Burke, J., and Sullivan, J., concurred,

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Spilman v. California Highway Patrol
212 Cal. App. 3d 41 (California Court of Appeal, 1989)
Piazza Properties, Ltd. v. Dept. of Motor Vehicles
71 Cal. App. 3d 622 (California Court of Appeal, 1977)
Mobilease Corp. v. County of Orange
42 Cal. App. 3d 461 (California Court of Appeal, 1974)
Bigge Crane Rental Co. v. County of Alameda
498 P.2d 193 (California Supreme Court, 1972)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
498 P.2d 193, 7 Cal. 3d 414, 102 Cal. Rptr. 513, 1972 Cal. LEXIS 198, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bigge-crane-rental-co-v-county-of-alameda-cal-1972.