United States v. State Board of Equalization

Ninth Circuit

United States v. State Board of Equalization

536 F.2d 294, 1976 U.S. App. LEXIS 11462

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMay 7, 1976

Docket74-3360

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 536 F.2d 294 (United States v. State Board of Equalization) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. State Board of Equalization, 536 F.2d 294, 1976 U.S. App. LEXIS 11462 (9th Cir. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

Before MERRILL and WRIGHT, Circuit Judges, and RENFREW, * District Judge.

PER CURIAM:

Since 1933 California has imposed a sales tax on lessors for the privilege of selling tangible personal property at retail. The legal obligation to pay is on the seller. Since 1965 a lessor of tangible personal property has been treated as a seller subject to sales tax. The United States, through its departments and agencies, leases data processing equipment and other tangible personal property from various lessors in California. It has reimbursed the lessors for tax paid by them. By this suit it seeks judicial declaration that California may not collect a sales tax from the lessors. The question presented is whether the legal incidence of the sales tax falls on the United States, as lessee, rather than on the lessor, and therefore violates the constitutional immunity of the United States from state taxation. The district court held that it did, and the State Board has taken this appeal.

Since the appeal was taken the question has been resolved by the decision of the Supreme Court in Diamond National Corp. v. State Board of Equalization, - U.S. -, 96 S.Ct. 1530, 47 L.Ed.2d 780 (1976), holding that “incidence of the [California] state and local sales taxes falls upon the national bank as purchaser and not upon the vendors.”

Judgment affirmed.

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

OPINION

Before MERRILL and WRIGHT, Circuit Judges, and RENFREW, * District Judge.

PER CURIAM:

Since 1933 California has imposed a sales tax on lessors for the privilege of selling tangible personal property at retail. The legal obligation to pay is on the seller. Since 1965 a lessor of tangible personal property has been treated as a seller subject to sales tax. The United States, through its departments and agencies, leases data processing equipment and other tangible personal property from various lessors in California. It has reimbursed the lessors for tax paid by them. By this suit it seeks judicial declaration that California may not collect a sales tax from the lessors. The question presented is whether the legal incidence of the sales tax falls on the United States, as lessee, rather than on the lessor, and therefore violates the constitutional immunity of the United States from state taxation. The district court held that it did, and the State Board has taken this appeal.

Since the appeal was taken the question has been resolved by the decision of the Supreme Court in Diamond National Corp. v. State Board of Equalization, - U.S. -, 96 S.Ct. 1530, 47 L.Ed.2d 780 (1976), holding that “incidence of the [California] state and local sales taxes falls upon the national bank as purchaser and not upon the vendors.”

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

536 F.2d 294, 1976 U.S. App. LEXIS 11462, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-state-board-of-equalization-ca9-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack