Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. County of Los Angeles

105 Cal. App. 3d 58, 164 Cal. Rptr. 65, 1980 Cal. App. LEXIS 1753
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal
DecidedMarch 25, 1980
DocketCiv. No. 56827
StatusPublished

This text of 105 Cal. App. 3d 58 (Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. County of Los Angeles) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. County of Los Angeles, 105 Cal. App. 3d 58, 164 Cal. Rptr. 65, 1980 Cal. App. LEXIS 1753 (Cal. Ct. App. 1980).

Opinion

Opinion

FLEMING, J.

Defendants County of Los Angeles and City of Compton appeal a judgment in favor of plaintiff Sears, Roebuck & Company in an action to recover taxes paid under protest. The issue is whether certain goods imported by Sears and stored in its warehouses pending distribution to Sears’ retail outlets during fiscal years 1973, 1974, and 1975 are immune from ad valorem taxation.

This litigation tracks certain changes in the applicable statutory and case law, which we summarize as follows: The import-export clause of the United States Constitution prohibits the states from laying any “imposts or duties on imports or exports.” (U.S. Const., art. I, § 10, cl. 2.) In 1827 the United States Supreme Court in Brown v. Maryland, 25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) 419 [6 L.Ed. 678], determined that the import-export clause also prohibited taxation of imported goods. The court added, however, that goods lose their status as imports and become taxable when they have been “so acted upon” by the importer as to “become incorporated and mixed up with the mass of property in the country.” But so long as the goods “[remain] the property of the importer, in his warehouse, in the original form or package in which [they are] imported, a tax upon [such imported goods],” the court reasoned, “is too plainly a duty on imports to escape the prohibition in the Constitution.” (Brown v. Maryland, supra, pp. 441-422 [6 L.Ed., p. 439].) In 1871 the court in Low v. Austin (1872) 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 29 [20 L.Ed. 517], extended the protection of the “original package doctrine” to prohibit nondiscriminatory ad valorem state property taxes on imported goods. (May v. New Orleans (1900) 178 U.S. 496 [44 L.Ed. 1165, 20 S.Ct. 976].) Courts continued to apply the original package doctrine to the ad valorem taxation of imported goods for over 100 years. But on January [61]*6114, 1976, the United States Supreme Court in Michelin Tire Corporation v. Wages (1976) 423 U.S. 276 [46 L.Ed.2d 495, 96 S.Ct. 535], concluded that ad valorem property taxes imposed on goods which were no longer in transit were not “duties or imposts” within the meaning of the import-export clause, and expressly overruled Low v. Austin, (Michelin, supra, 423 U.S., p. 279 [46 L.Ed.2d, p. 500]). Under Michelin, imported goods which have come to rest in the state are not immune from ad valorem taxation, whether or not they remain in their original packages.

In response to the Michelin decision the California Legislature, recognizing the potential unfairness and inequity that could result from a retroactive application of Michelin, (Assem. Bill No. 3061; see also Schettler v. County of Santa Clara (1977) 74 Cal.App.3d 990, 996-998 [141 Cal.Rptr. 731]), enacted Revenue and Taxation Code section 226, effective July 3, 1976, providing that “the validity of any ad valorem property tax assessment on imported goods, heretofore or hereafter imposed, levied or collected with respect to tax years prior to the 1976-1977 tax year shall be determined pursuant to statutory and case law in effect prior to the decision in Michelin v. Wages [citation].” However, after enacting section 226 the Legislature promptly amended the statute to permit limited, retroactive application of the Michelin decision. The amendment, effective September 20, 1976, provided that in “any assessment made prior to 14 January 1976, the court may, if the circumstances warrant and the taxing authority demonstrates that it would be equitable to do so, follow the decision in Michelin v. Wages.”

At bench, the parties stipulated to the following facts: Sears, a New York corporation, purchases, imports, distributes, and sells imported and domestic goods at retail. During each of the years in question Sears purchased the goods upon which the contested assessments were made from foreign manufacturers and imported them into this country. The goods were originally packed in cardboard boxes, cartons, or packages, and shipped in cargo shipping containers (sea vans) to California. Upon arrival in California the goods were removed from the cargo shipping containers, sorted by type, and stored in Sears’ warehouses pending distribution to Sears’ retail stores and catalogue distribution centers. On the tax dates of 1973, 1974, and 1975, Sears was holding the subject goods as inventory at various warehouses throughout the City of Compton and the County of Los Angeles. Within the warehouses the goods remained in the unopened boxes, containers, or packages in which they [62]*62had been originally packed, and they were not commingled with domestic goods, which were held in separate warehouses.

In each of the tax years 1973, 1974, and 1975 Sears filed a claim for immunity from ad valorem taxation on the goods in question. The claims for immunity for 1973 and 1974 were allowed. The claim for immunity for 1975 was denied, and an assessment was made during 1975. Sears paid the 1975 tax under protest. Then, in 1976, following the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Michelin, the Los Angeles County Assessor levied escape assessments on Sears’ 1973 and 1974 imports. These latter assessments were also paid by Sears under protest.

After exhausting its administrative remedies Sears commenced this action to recover the taxes collected by county and city on its 1973, 1974, and 1975 warehouse inventories of imported goods. The trial court found that statutory and case law in effect prior to Michelin prohibited the state from taxing the value of the imported goods stored in Sears’ warehouses, and it concluded, therefore, that the goods were immune from ad valorem taxation under Revenue and Taxation Code section 226. On February 18, 1979, the trial court entered judgment directing county and city to refund the taxes with interest.

On appeal, defendants county and city assert the trial court erred in concluding that the goods were immune from taxation under the law in effect prior to Michelin. Specifically, defendants argue that under the pre-Michelin original package doctrine the goods lost their constitutionally protected status as imports when the containers in which they were packed were removed from the cargo shipping vans, which defendants assert constituted the “original packages.” In support of their contention defendants cite Volkswagen Pacific, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1972) 7 Cal.3d 48, 55-56 [101 Cal.Rptr. 869, 496 P.2d 1237], wherein the Supreme Court found that certain imported automobile parts lost their immunity from state taxation when they were removed from sea vans similar to those at bench. But in Volkswagen, after the importers removed the individual parcels from the sea vans, they then proceeded with the sale of the goods at wholesale to local dealers and with the distribution of the goods as sold from their warehouses. “Hence, even if [the taxpayers therein] acted as importers up to the moment that the vans were brought to the warehouse, once they entered the vans to remove the individual packages they did so with the [63]*63intent and effect to act as wholesalers in ‘the mass of property in the country. . . .’ (Brown v. Maryland, supra, 25 U.S. at p. 441 [6 L.Ed. at p.

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

Related

Brown v. Maryland
25 U.S. 419 (Supreme Court, 1827)
Low v. Austin
80 U.S. 29 (Supreme Court, 1872)
May v. New Orleans
178 U.S. 496 (Supreme Court, 1900)
Michelin Tire Corp. v. Wages
423 U.S. 276 (Supreme Court, 1976)
Volkswagen Pacific, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles
496 P.2d 1237 (California Supreme Court, 1972)
Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc. v. County of Alameda
390 F. Supp. 177 (N.D. California, 1975)
J. N. Ceazan Co. v. County of Los Angeles
102 Cal. App. 3d 486 (California Court of Appeal, 1980)
Schettler v. County of Santa Clara
74 Cal. App. 3d 990 (California Court of Appeal, 1977)
Singer Co. v. County of Kings
46 Cal. App. 3d 852 (California Court of Appeal, 1975)
Craig Corp. v. County of Los Angeles
51 Cal. App. 3d 909 (California Court of Appeal, 1975)
Nelco Corp. v. County of Los Angeles
72 Cal. App. 3d 899 (California Court of Appeal, 1977)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
105 Cal. App. 3d 58, 164 Cal. Rptr. 65, 1980 Cal. App. LEXIS 1753, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sears-roebuck-co-v-county-of-los-angeles-calctapp-1980.