Public Litigation Roster

This roster is a list of the State Board of Equalization's (BOE) tax program litigation. It includes active cases and recently dismissed cases. The roster is updated as needed.

Property Tax

While the BOE provides oversight of statewide property tax administration, the BOE's property tax litigation primarily arises from its role in state-assessment. Annually, the BOE's State-Assessed Properties Division (SAPD) prepares value recommendations for each state assessee, which the elected Board utilizes to determine the fair market value of each state assessee's property. Property values on the state-assessed roll are then allocated by the BOE to the 58 counties where the properties are located. Each county levies, bills, and collects the tax directly from state assessees based upon the allocated values using applicable local tax rates. After a valuation is adopted, state assessees may challenge their assessment through a tax appeal, which the Board hears and adjudicates in a quasi-judicial hearing. Appeals of the Board's final determination may then be filed in Superior Court, with the BOE as a named party. If the Court determines tax reimbursement is warranted, the counties that levied the taxes are responsible for reimbursement. Below is a summary of litigation relevant to the BOE's Property Tax responsibilities:

Open All Close All

  • Current Court: Los Angeles County Superior Court
    • Case Number: BC645390
    • Case Status: The evidence presentation phase of the trial concluded on May 10, 2022, with instructions for further briefings. The parties are in the process of filing closing briefs and findings.
    • Filing Date: 1/03/2017
    • Amended complaint filing date: 11/12/2019
  • Bankruptcy Court (Prior Venue): United States Bankruptcy Court, District of Delaware
    • Case Number: 16-12700
    • Filing Date: 12/06/2016
  • Plaintiff's Demand: $ 17,000,000 plus Interest
  • Potential BOE Liability: Attorneys' Fees and Costs

SUMMARY:
Plaintiff contends specified Board-adopted Unitary Valuations of its state-assessed power generation facility were excessive and seeks property tax refunds for the specified lien dates (2012-2016). The Board of Equalization (BOE) filed a Motion for Summary Adjudication on July 2, 2020 and contended: (1) for tax year 2012, Plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies; (2) for tax years 2012-2016, Plaintiff cannot assert a refund action seeking property values below Plaintiff-asserted unitary values with its reassessment and refund claims. On September 30, 2020, the Superior Court ruled on the Motion for Summary Adjudication in favor of the BOE resolving certain issues. A trial readiness conference occurred on April 4, 2022 at 9:00 a.m. The trial commenced on May 2, 2022 at the Los Angeles Superior Court, Stanley Mosk Courthouse. The evidence presentation phase of the trial concluded on May 10, 2022, with instructions for further briefings. The parties have agreed to extend the due dates for filing their closing briefs and findings. An oral argument hearing is scheduled for December 16, 2022 at 9:00 a.m.

Plaintiff's Attorney:
C. Stephen Davis
Colin W. Fraser
Greenberg Traurig, LLP
County Counsel:
Margo A. Raison
S. McNutt
Kern County Office of County Counsel
BOE Counsel:
Matthew Heyn
Hutchison Meltzer
California Department of Justice

Notes

  1. This case was removed to the Bankruptcy Court in April 2017. The Bankruptcy Court issued a decision issued in July 2018. On November 2019, La Paloma filed a first amended complaint with the Superior Court.

  • Current Court: Riverside County Superior Court
    • Case Number: RIC1905814
    • Filing Date: FAC – 02/19/2020; 11/22/2019
    • Case Status: Temporary Stay effective 05/24/2022
  • Plaintiff's Demand: $ 963,278 plus Interest
  • Potential BOE Liability: Attorneys' Fees and Costs

SUMMARY:
The BOE is named a party as required by Revenue and Taxation Code section 5146. Plaintiff is seeking refund of 2014-2015 property tax and declaratory relief based on their assertion that the rate adopted and applied by the county is contrary to law and exceeded the rate allowable under article XIII, section 19 of the California Constitution. Plaintiff moved for judicial notice on information presented on the BOE's website, which motion the court denied in November 2020. Plaintiff is currently seeking stipulations with Riverside County and the BOE. A case management conference scheduled for July 9, 2021 is vacated. A trial setting conference occurred on Jan. 6, 2022 at 8:30 a.m. where the court scheduled a trial readiness conference for September 22, 2022 at 8:30 a.m., and a three-day bench trial to commence on October 21, 2022 at 10:30 a.m. On May 24, 2022, Plaintiff filed an unopposed ex parte Application for Stay in this case which the trial court granted. Accordingly, the Court removed the pretrial conference (September 22, 2022) and the three-day bench trial (October 21, 2022) from the Court’s calendar.

Plaintiff's Attorney:
Martha A. Boersch
Matthew C. Dirkes
Boersch & Illovsky LLP

Eric J. Miethke
Capitol Law and Policy, Inc.
County Attorney:
Margaret R. Prinzing
Olson Remcho LLP

Ronak N. Patel
Riverside County Counsel
BOE Counsel:
Hutchison Meltzer
California Department of Justice

  • Current Court: Santa Clara County Superior Court
    • Case Number: 20CV363802
    • Filing Date: FAC – 2/19/2020
  • Plaintiff's Demand: $ 10,648,000 plus Interest
  • Potential BOE Liability: Attorneys' Fees and Costs

SUMMARY:
The BOE is named a party as required by Revenue and Taxation Code section 5146. Plaintiff seeks refund of 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 property taxes plus interest and declaratory relief on the ground that the rate adopted and applied by the county is contrary to law, and exceeded the rate allowable under article XIII, section 19 of the California Constitution. On October 13, 2020, County of Santa Clara demurred, which the court overruled on April 6, 2021. A case management conference was held on April 27, 2021. A case management conference is scheduled for November 29, 2022.

Plaintiff's Attorney:
Martha A. Boersch
Matthew C. Dirkes
Boersch & Illovsky LLP

Eric J. Miethke
Capitol Law and Policy, Inc.
County Attorney:
Ward Alexander Penfold
Santa Clara County Counsel's Office
BOE Counsel:
Hutchison Meltzer
California Department of Justice

  • Current Court: Santa Clara County Superior Court
    • Case Number: 20CV363804
    • Filing Date: FAC – 9/9/2020
  • Plaintiff's Demand: $ 1,472,291 plus Interest
  • Potential BOE Liability: Attorneys' Fees and Costs

SUMMARY:
The BOE is named a party as required by Revenue and Taxation Code section 5146. Plaintiff seeks refund of 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 property tax and declaratory relief on the ground that the rate adopted and applied by the county is contrary to law, and exceeded the rate allowable under article XIII, section 19 of the California Constitution. On October 13, 2020, County of Santa Clara demurred which the court overruled on April 6, 2021. The case management conference is scheduled for November 29, 2022.

Plaintiff's Attorney:
Martha A. Boersch
Matthew C. Dirkes
Boersch & Illovsky LLP

Eric J. Miethke
Capitol Law and Policy, Inc.
County Attorney:
Ward Alexander Penfold
Santa Clara County Counsel's Office
BOE Counsel:
Hutchison Meltzer
California Department of Justice

  • Current Court: Santa Clara County Superior Court
    • Case Number: 20CV363806
    • Case Status: Case Management Conference, November 29, 2022
    • Filing Date: FAC – 9/9/2020
  • Plaintiff's Demand: $ 1,109,214 plus Interest
  • Potential BOE Liability: Attorneys' Fees and Costs

SUMMARY:
The BOE is named a party as required by Revenue and Taxation Code section 5146. Plaintiff seeks refund of 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 property tax plus interest and declaratory relief on the ground that the rate adopted and applied by the county is contrary to law, and exceeded the rate allowable under article XIII, section 19 of the California Constitution. On October 13, 2020, County of Santa Clara demurred, which the Court overruled on April 6, 2021. A case management conference was held on April 27, 2021. The case management conference is scheduled for November 29, 2022.

Plaintiff's Attorney:
Martha A. Boersch
Matthew C. Dirkes
Boersch & Illovsky LLP

Eric J. Miethke
Capitol Law and Policy, Inc.
County Attorney:
Ward Alexander Penfold
Santa Clara County Counsel's Office
BOE Counsel:
Hutchison Meltzer
California Department of Justice

  • Current Court: San Diego County Superior Court
    • Case Number: 37-2019-00065146-CU-MC-CTL
    • Case Status Conference: July 29, 2022 at 1:30 p.m.
    • Filing Date: FAC – 07/01/2020
  • Plaintiff's Demand: $ 3,307,656 plus Interest
  • Potential BOE Liability: Attorneys' Fees and Costs

SUMMARY:
The BOE is named a party as required by Revenue and Taxation Code section 5146. Plaintiff seeks refund of 2014-2015 property tax plus interest and declaratory relief on the ground that the property tax rate adopted and applied by the county is contrary to law, and exceeded the rate allowable under article XIII, section 19 of the California Constitution. A case management conference is scheduled for July 29, 2022.

Plaintiff's Attorney:
Martha A. Boersch
Matthew C. Dirkes
Boersch & Illovsky LLP

Eric J. Miethke
Capitol Law and Policy, Inc.
County Attorney:
Ashley E. Flood
San Diego County
BOE Counsel:
Hutchison Meltzer
California Department of Justice

  • Current Court: Riverside County Superior Court
    • Case Number: RIC1905815
    • Case Status: Temporary Stay effective 10/28/2020
    • Filing Date: FAC – 08/19/2020
  • Plaintiff's Demand: $ 200,316 plus Interest
  • Potential BOE Liability: Attorneys' Fees and Costs

SUMMARY:
BOE is named a party as required for claims against state assessed property pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code section 5146. Plaintiff seeks partial refund of 2014-2015 property tax and declaratory relief on the ground that the rate adopted and applied by the county is contrary to law and exceeded the rate allowable under article XIII, section 19 of the California Constitution.

Plaintiff's Attorney:
Martha A. Boersch
Matthew C. Dirkes
Boersch & Illovsky LLP

Eric J. Miethke
Capitol Law and Policy, Inc.
County Attorney:
Ronak N. Patel
Riverside County Counsel
BOE Counsel:
Hutchison Meltzer
California Department of Justice

  • Current Court: Riverside County Superior Court
    • Case Number: RIC1905817
    • Case Status: Temporary Stay effective 10/28/2020
    • Filing Date: FAC – 08/19/2020
  • Plaintiff's Demand: $ 257,735 plus Interest
  • Potential BOE Liability: Attorneys' Fees and Costs

SUMMARY:
BOE is named a party as required for claims against state-assessed property pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code section 5146. Plaintiff seeks partial refund of 2014-2015 property tax and declaratory relief on the ground that the rate adopted and applied by the county is contrary to law and exceeded the rate allowable under article XIII, section 19 of the California Constitution.

Plaintiff's Attorney:
Martha A. Boersch
Matthew C. Dirkes
Boersch & Illovsky LLP

Eric J. Miethke
Capitol Law and Policy, Inc.
County Attorney:
Ronak N. Patel
Riverside County Counsel
BOE Counsel:
Hutchison Meltzer
California Department of Justice

  • Current Court: Orange County Superior Court
    • Case Number: (2020) Case No. 30-2022-01258109-CU-MC-CJC, and (2021) Case No. 30-2022-01258057-CU-MC-CJC
    • Case Status: Case Management Conference, 10/7/2022.
    • Filing Date: May 5, 2022
  • Plaintiff's Demand: ”difference between the parties' positions on the value of Edison’s property multiplied by the tax rate“ plus interest.
  • Potential BOE Liability: Attorneys' Fees and Costs

SUMMARY:
On May 5, 2022, in Orange County Superior Court, Southern California Edison Company (SCE) filed a tax refund action pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code section 5148, alleging that the 2020 and 2021 Board-adopted unitary values for SCE's state assessed property were in excess of fair market value. Plaintiff further alleges that it is entitled to a property tax refund on the ”difference between the parties' positions on the value of Edison's property multiplied by the tax rate.“ The BOE was served with Summons and Complaint on May 18, 2022 and in accordance with Revenue and Taxation Code section 5148, the BOE provided notice of these lawsuits to the 19 affected counties. (Fresno, Imperial, Inyo, Kern, Kings, Los Angeles, Madera, Modoc, Mono, Orange, Riverside, Sacramento, San Bernardino, San Diego, San Francisco, Santa Barbara, Tulare, Tuolumne, and Ventura. The BOE filed its Answer to SCE's Complaint on July 20, 2022.

Plaintiff's Attorney:
Mardiros H. Dakessian
Donald E. Chomiak
Dakessian Law, LTD.

Charles J. Moll III
Troy M. Vandongen
McDermott Will & Emery
County Counsels:
Jennifer Henning, Exec. Director, County Counsels’ Association (Coordinator), Peter Wall (Fresno), Christian Milovich (Inyo), Eric Havens (Imperial), Diane Freeman & Jennifer Shiffert (Kings), Jeremy McNutt & Scott Fontes (Kern), Regina Garza (Madera), Michael Buennagel (Los Angeles), Christopher Beck (Mono), Margaret Long (Modoc), Jon-Michael Bradley (Orange), Keith Floyd (Sacramento), Ronak Patel (Riverside), Kaleigh Ragon (San Bernardino), Carol Ruwart (San Francisco), Walter DeLorrell & Laura Blome (San Diego), Ashley Flood (Santa Barbara), Kathleen Taylor (Tulare), Chris Schmidt & Sarah Carrillo (Tuolumne), and Brett McMurdo (Ventura)
BOE Counsel:
Hutchison Meltzer
Anna Barsegyan
California Department of Justice

  • Current Court: Riverside County Superior Court
    • Case Number: CVRI22204040
    • Case Status: Case management conference, 11/28/2022
    • Filing Date: September 16, 2022
  • Plaintiff's Demand:
    Sunesys, $170, 674.43, plus accrued interest
    NG West, $49, 615.63, plus accrued interest
    NewPath, $23, 840.20, plus accrued interest
  • Potential BOE Liability:
    Attorneys' Fees and Costs

SUMMARY:
BOE is named a party as required for claims against state-assessed property pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code section 5140. Plaintiff seeks partial tax refund of 2017-2018 property tax and declaratory relief on the ground that disparate tax rates were applied and levying and collecting property taxes from plaintiffs for tax year 2017/18 violated California Constitution, Article XIII, section 19. A case management conference is scheduled for November 28, 2022.

  • Current Court: San Joaquin County Superior Court
    • Case Number: STK-CV-UCC-2022-9917
    • Case Status: N/A
    • Filing Date: November 07, 2022
  • Plaintiff's Demand: $103,171.64, plus accrued interest
  • Potential BOE Liability: Attorneys' Fees and Costs

SUMMARY:
BOE is named a party as required for claims against state-assessed property pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code section 5140. Plaintiff seeks partial tax refund of 2017-2018 property tax and declaratory relief on the ground that disparate tax rates were applied and levying and collecting property taxes from plaintiffs for tax year 2017/18 violated California Constitution, Article XIII, section 19.

Tax on Insurers

The Tax on Insurers is jointly administered by the State Board of Equalization (BOE), California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA), Department of Insurance (DOI), and the State Controller's Office (SCO). Below is a summary of litigation relevant to the BOE's Tax on Insurers administration responsibilities:

  • Court of Appeal: California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District
    • Consolidated Case Number: B307981
    • Trial Court Cases: BS143436, BS158655, BS157999
    • Filing: Consolidation Order: 03/30/2021
      Appeals Lodged: 03/11/2021, 09/30/2020
  • Originating Court: Los Angeles County Superior Court
    • Consolidated Case Number: BS143436
    • Related Case Numbers: BS157999, BS158655, BC655980, BC683103, BC324947, BC695616
    • Filing Date: 7/3/2013
    • Related Cases: 11/6/2015, 12/16/2015, 5/15/2017, 3/2/2018, and 6/4/2018
  • Plaintiff's Demand: $0; Plaintiff is pursuing a Writ, compelling BOE to assess gross premium tax. (Tax on Insurers.)
  • Potential BOE Liability: Attorneys' Fees and Costs

SUMMARY:
In the underlying Superior Court action, Plaintiff filed a writ of mandamus (Cal. Civ. Proc. §§ 526(a) and 1085) seeking to compel the Board of Equalization (BOE), Insurance Commissioner, and Controller of the State of California, to determine, assess, and collect, gross premium tax from Real Parties in Interest: Kaiser Foundational Health Plan, Inc. (Kaiser); Health Net of California (Health Net); Blue Cross of California (Blue Cross); Blue Shield of California (Blue Shield), (collectively Real Parties). At issue is whether Real Parties are “insurers.” Real Parties demurred, which the court granted. Plaintiff appealed the Court's grant of summary judgment on Sept. 30, 2020 (Kaiser and Health Net) and March 11, 2021 (Blue Cross and Blue Shield), respectively. The Court of Appeal consolidated these cases on March 30, 2021 under Case Number B307981. Appellant's opening brief was filed on September 17, 2021. Real Parties' opening briefs are due on January 3, 2022. The Insurance Commissioner, on October 20, 2021 was granted leave to file an amicus curaie brief to clarify their position on the meaning of ‘indemnity’ for purposes of assessing gross premium taxation. Response to the amicus curaie brief is due no later than January 3, 2022.

Plaintiff's Attorney:
Timothy J. Morris
Gianelli & Morris, A Law Corporation

Richard J. Ayoob
Ajalat, Polley, Ayoob & Matarese
BOE Counsel:
Henry Nanjo
Jonette Banzon
Board of Equalization

Other Tax Matters

Below is a summary of other tax litigation relevant to the BOE's role and responsibilities:

  • Current Court:
    • Case Number: D079315
    • Trial Court Case: 37-2019-00030244-CU-MC-NC
    • Filing Date: 6/13/2019
    • Originating Court: San Diego County Superior Court

SUMMARY:
Plaintiff was assessed income tax deficiencies by the Franchise Tax Board (FTB) for the tax years 1993, 1994, and 1995, which were appealed to the Board of Equalization, who decided the matter for FTB. Plaintiff filed the instant complaint for declaratory relief and redetermination de novo of the tax deficiencies at issue. On April 19, 2021, the Court ruled in favor of FTB and BOE. On July 9, 2021, the Plaintiff filed its appeal on the lower court's judgment of dismissal. Plaintiff's (Appellant) opening brief was timely filed on December 21, 2021. On December 29, 2021, the parties agreed to allow a 60-day extension for FTB to file its opening briefs, which was timely filed on April 20, 2022. On April 22, 2022, Appellant filed a request for remote oral arguments. FTB, on April 28, 2022 countered with their request for in-person conditional oral arguments. On May 4, 2022, Appellant's attorneys requested, and FTB consented, to stipulate to extend the time to file Appellant's reply brief which the court granted on May 10, 2022. Appellant's reply brief is now due on July 11, 2022.

Plaintiff's Counsel:
Peter J. Pfund
Joe A. Izen
Law Offices of Peter J. Pfund
BOE and FTB Counsel:
Douglas Beteta
California Department of Justice

The cases listed below were recently dismissed without prejudice, pending the resolution of the T-MOBILE WEST LLC v. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION and SPRINT TELEPHONY PCS, L.P. v. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ET AL. cases with the same issues. Please refer to those cases for additional information.

Open All Close All

  • Current Court: Orange County Superior Court
    • Case Status: Dismissed 4/21/2021 without prejudice
    • Case Number: 30-2020-01135713-CU-MC-CJC
    • Filing Date: 3/2/2020
    • Plaintiff's Demand: $ 2,371,664 plus Interest

SUMMARY:
BOE is named a party as required for claims against state assessed property pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code section 5146. Plaintiff seeks partial refund of 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 property taxes plus interest and declaratory relief on the ground that the rate adopted and applied by the county is contrary to law, and exceeded the rate allowable under article XIII, section 19 of the California Constitution.

Plaintiff's Attorney:
Martha A. Boersch
Matthew C. Dirkes
Boersch & Illovsky LLP

Eric J. Miethke
Capitol Law and Policy, Inc.
County Attorney:
Matthew Dirkes
County of Orange
BOE Counsel:
Hutchison Meltzer
California Department of Justice

  • Current Court: Orange County Superior Court
    • Case Status: Dismissed 4/21/2021 without prejudice
    • Case Number: 30-2020-01135640-CU-MC-CJC
    • Filing Date: 3/2/2020
    • Plaintiff's Demand: $ 363,105 plus Interest

SUMMARY:
BOE is named a party as required for claims against state assessed property pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code section 5146. Plaintiff seeks partial refund of 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 property taxes plus interest and declaratory relief on the ground that the rate adopted and applied by the county is contrary to law, and exceeded the rate allowable under article XIII, section 19 of the California Constitution.

Plaintiff's Attorney:
Martha A. Boersch
Matthew C. Dirkes
Boersch & Illovsky LLP

Eric J. Miethke
Capitol Law and Policy, Inc.
County Attorney:
Matthew Dirkes
County of Orange
BOE Counsel:
Hutchison Meltzer
California Department of Justice

  • Current Court: Orange County Superior Court
    • Case Status: Dismissed 4/21/2021 without prejudice
    • Case Number: 30-2020-01135654-CU-MC-CJC
    • Filing Date: 3/2/2020
    • Plaintiff's Demand: $ 464,676 plus Interest

SUMMARY:
BOE is named a party as required for claims against state-assessed property pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code section 5146. Plaintiff seeks partial refund of 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 property taxes plus interest and declaratory relief on the ground that the rate adopted and applied by the county is contrary to law, and exceeded the rate allowable under article XIII, section 19 of the California Constitution.

Plaintiff's Attorney:
Martha A. Boersch
Matthew C. Dirkes
Boersch & Illovsky LLP

Eric J. Miethke
Capitol Law and Policy, Inc.
County Attorney:
Matthew Dirkes
County of Orange
BOE Counsel:
Hutchison Meltzer
California Department of Justice

  • Current Court: Santa Barbara County Superior Court
    • Case Status: Dismissed 2/1/2021 without prejudice
    • Case Number: 19CV06291
    • Filing Date: FAC – 11/10/2020
    • Plaintiff's Demand: $ 129,570 plus Interest

SUMMARY:
BOE is named a party as required for claims against state assessed property pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code section 5146. Plaintiff seeks partial refund of 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 property taxes plus interest and declaratory relief on the ground that the rate adopted and applied by the county is contrary to law, and exceeded the rate allowable under article XIII, section 19 of the California Constitution.

Plaintiff's Attorney:
Martha A. Boersch
Matthew C. Dirkes
Boersch & Illovsky LLP

Eric J. Miethke
Capitol Law and Policy, Inc.
County Attorney:
Ashley E. Flood
County of Santa Barbara Counsel
BOE Counsel:
Hutchison Meltzer
California Department of Justice

  • Current Court: Santa Barbara County Superior Court
    • Case Status: Dismissed 2/1/2021 without prejudice
    • Case Number: 19CV06294
    • Filing Date: 11/26/2020
    • Plaintiff's Demand: $ 23,230 plus Interest

SUMMARY:
BOE is named a party as required for claims against state assessed property pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code section 5146. Plaintiff seeks partial refund of 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 property taxes plus interest and declaratory relief on the ground that the rate adopted and applied by the county is contrary to law, and exceeded the rate allowable under article XIII, section 19 of the California Constitution.

Plaintiff's Attorney:
Martha A. Boersch
Matthew C. Dirkes
Boersch & Illovsky LLP

Eric J. Miethke
Capitol Law and Policy, Inc.
County Attorney:
Ashley E. Flood
County of Santa Barbara Counsel
BOE Counsel:
Hutchison Meltzer
California Department of Justice

  • Current Court: Santa Barbara County Superior Court
    • Case Status: Dismissed 2/1/2021 without prejudice
    • Case Number: 19CV06293
    • Filing Date: 11/10/2020
    • Plaintiff's Demand: $ 28,373 plus Interest

SUMMARY:
BOE is named a party as required for claims against state assessed property pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code section 5146. Plaintiff seeks partial refund of 2014-2015 property taxes plus interest and declaratory relief on the ground that the rate adopted and applied by the county is higher than the tax rate generally applicable to commercial and industrial property in violation of federal and state law, and exceeded the rate allowable under section 306 of the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 and article XIII, section 19 of the California Constitution.

Plaintiff's Attorney:
Martha A. Boersch
Matthew C. Dirkes
Boersch & Illovsky LLP

Eric J. Miethke
Capitol Law and Policy, Inc.
County Attorney:
Ashley E. Flood
County of Santa Barbara Counsel
BOE Counsel:
Hutchison Meltzer
California Department of Justice

  • Current Court: Tehama County Superior Court
    • Case Number: 20CI000138
    • Case Status: Dismissed 1/15/2021 without prejudice
    • Filing Date: 07/30/2020
    • Plaintiff's Demand: $ 14,345 plus Interest

SUMMARY:
BOE is named a party as required by Revenue and Taxation Code section 5146. Plaintiff seeks partial refund of 2015-2016 property tax and declaratory relief on the ground that the rate adopted and applied by county is contrary to law and exceeded the rate allowable under article XIII, section 19 of the California Constitution.

Plaintiff's Attorney:
Martha A. Boersch
Matthew C. Dirkes
Boersch & Illovsky LLP

Eric J. Miethke
Capitol Law and Policy, Inc.
County Attorney:
Richard Stout
Tehama County Counsel
BOE Counsel:
Hutchison Meltzer
California Department of Justice

  • Current Court: Napa County Superior Court
    • Case Status: Dismissed 12/22/2021 without prejudice
    • Case Number: 20CV001251
    • Filing Date: FAC 10/14/2021
  • Plaintiff's Demand: $ 1,120,774 plus Interest
  • Potential BOE Liability: Attorneys' Fees and Costs

SUMMARY:
BOE is named a party as required for claims against state assessed property pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code section 5146. Plaintiff seeks partial refund of 2014-2015, 2015-2016, and 201-2017 property tax and declaratory relief on the ground that the rate adopted and applied by county is contrary to law and exceeded the rate allowable under Article XIII, section 19 of the California Constitution.

Plaintiff's Attorney:
Martha A. Boersch
Matthew C. Dirkes
Boersch & Illovsky LLP

Eric J. Miethke
Capitol Law and Policy, Inc.
County Attorney:
 
BOE Counsel:
Hutchison Meltzer
California Department of Justice

  • Current Court: Napa County Superior Court
    • Case Status: Dismissed 12/22/2021 without prejudice
    • Case Number: 20CV001252
    • Filing Date: 11/30/2020; FAC 10/14/2021
  • Plaintiff's Demand: $423,119.24 plus interest
  • Potential BOE Liability: Attorneys' Fees and Costs

SUMMARY:
BOE is named a party as required for claims against state assessed property pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code section 5146. Plaintiffs seek partial refund of 2014-2015, 2015-2016, and 2016-2017 property tax and declaratory relief on the ground that the rate adopted and applied by county is contrary to law and exceeded the rate allowable under Article XIII, section 19 of the California Constitution.

Plaintiff's Attorney:
Martha A. Boersch
Matthew C. Dirkes
Boersch & Illovsky LLP
Eric J. Miethke
Capitol Law and Policy, Inc.
County Counsel:
 
BOE Counsel:
Hutchison Meltzer
Department of Justice

Notes

  1. Sprint Telephony PCS, LP et al. made property tax payments to Napa County. County is responsible for any property tax refunds should Sprint's action succeed.

  • Current Court: Santa Clara County Superior Court
    • Case Status: Dismissed 03/22/2022 without prejudice
    • Case Number: 21-CV378242
    • Filing Date: 2/25/2021
  • Plaintiff's Demand: $980,985.70 plus interest
  • Potential BOE Liability: Attorneys' Fees and Costs

SUMMARY:
The BOE is named a party as required by Revenue and Taxation Code section 5146. Plaintiffs seek refund of 2015-2016 property tax plus interest and declaratory relief on the ground that the rate adopted and applied by the county is contrary to law, and exceeded the rate allowable under article XIII, section 19 of the California Constitution. A case management conference is scheduled for March 22, 2022 at 1:30 p.m.

Plaintiff's Attorney:
Martha A. Boersch
Matthew C. Dirkes
Boersch & Illovsky LLP
Eric J. Miethke
Capitol Law and Policy, Inc.
County Attorney:
Ward Alexander Penfold
Santa Clara County Counsel's Office
BOE Counsel:
Open
California Department of Justice

  • Current Court: Santa Clara County Superior Court
    • Case Status: Dismissed 11/03/2022 without prejudice
    • Case Number: 21CV391007
    • Filing Date: 11/2/2021
  • Plaintiff's Demand:
    AT&T Mobility, $2,039, 872 plus Interest
    Pacific Bell, $3,925,059 plus interest
    AT&T Corp, $ 500, 631 plus interest
  • Potential BOE Liability:
    Attorneys' Fees and Costs

SUMMARY:
The BOE is named a party as required by Revenue and Taxation Code section 5140. Plaintiff seeks refund of 2016-2017 property taxes plus interest and declaratory relief on the ground that the rate adopted and applied by the county is contrary to law, and exceeded the rate allowable under article XIII, section 19 of the California Constitution. On November 3, 2022 the plaintiff requested a dismissal without prejudice.

  • Current Court: Kern County Superior Court
    • Case Status: Dismissed 10/05/2022 without prejudice
    • Case Number: BCV-21-101547
    • Filing Date: 07/07/2021
  • Plaintiff's Demand: $ 35, 219.03
  • Potential BOE Liability: Attorneys' Fees and Costs

SUMMARY:
The BOE is named a party as required by Revenue and Taxation Code section 5140. Plaintiff seeks partial refund of 2016-2017 property taxes plus interest and declaratory relief on the ground that the rate adopted and applied by the county is contrary to law, and exceeded the rate allowable under article XIII, section 19 of the California Constitution. On October 5, 2022 the plaintiff requested a dismissal without prejudice.

  • Current Court: Santa Clara County Superior Court
    • Case Status: Dismissed 11/03/2022 without prejudice
    • Case Number: 21CV391009
    • Filing Date: 11/2/2021
  • Plaintiff's Demand:
    Sprint Communications, $232, 739.51 plus interest
    Sprint PCS, $715,691.65 plus interest
  • Potential BOE Liability:
    Attorneys' Fees and Costs

SUMMARY:
The BOE is named a party as required by Revenue and Taxation Code section 5140. Plaintiff seeks partial refund of 2016-2017 property taxes plus interest and declaratory relief on the ground that the rate adopted and applied by the county is contrary to law, and exceeded the rate allowable under article XIII, section 19 of the California Constitution. On November 3, 2022 the plaintiff requested a dismissal without prejudice.

  • Current Court: Santa Clara County Superior Court
    • Case Status: Dismissed 11/03/2022 without prejudice
    • Case Number: 21CV390794
    • Filing Date: 11/2/2021
  • Plaintiff's Demand: $ 813, 050.72 plus interest
  • Potential BOE Liability: Attorneys' Fees and Costs

SUMMARY:
The BOE is named a party as required by Revenue and Taxation Code section 5140. Plaintiff seeks partial refund of 2016-2017 property taxes plus interest and declaratory relief on the ground that the rate adopted and applied by the county is contrary to law, and exceeded the rate allowable under article XIII, section 19 of the California Constitution. On November 3, 2022 the plaintiff requested a dismissal without prejudice.

  • Current Court: Kern County Superior Court
    • Case Status: Dismissed 10/05/2022 without prejudice
    • Case Number: BCV-21-101548
    • Filing Date: 07/07/2021
  • Plaintiff's Demand: $ 66,850.76 plus interest
  • Potential BOE Liability: Attorneys' Fees and Costs

SUMMARY:
The BOE is named a party as required by Revenue and Taxation Code section 5140. Plaintiff seeks partial refund of 2016-2017 property taxes plus interest and declaratory relief on the ground that the rate adopted and applied by the county is contrary to law, and exceeded the rate allowable under article XIII, section 19 of the California Constitution

Plaintiff's Attorney:
Martha A. Boersch
Matthew C. Dirkes
Boersch & Illovsky LLP

Eric J. Miethke
Capitol Law and Policy, Inc.

  • Current Court: Kern County Superior Court
    • Case Status: Dismissed 10/05/2022 without prejudice
    • Case Number: BCV-20-100749
    • Filing Date: 03/16/2020
  • Plaintiff's Demand: $ 40, 171.49 plus interest
  • Potential BOE Liability: Attorneys' Fees and Costs

SUMMARY:
The BOE is named a party as required by Revenue and Taxation Code section 5140. Plaintiff seeks partial refund of 2014-2015 property taxes plus interest and declaratory relief on the ground that the rate adopted pursuant to section 100(b) which was applied by the county is contrary to law, and exceeded the rate allowable under article XIII, section 19 of the California Constitution.

Plaintiff's Attorney:
Martha A. Boersch
Matthew C. Dirkes
Boersch & Illovsky LLP

Eric J. Miethke
Capitol Law and Policy, Inc.

  • Current Court: Kern County Superior Court
    • Case Status: Dismissed 10/05/2022 without prejudice
    • Case Number: BCV-20-100750
    • Filing Date: 03/16/2020
  • Plaintiff's Demand: $ 26, 270.11 plus interest
  • Potential BOE Liability: Attorneys' Fees and Costs

SUMMARY:
The BOE is named a party as required by Revenue and Taxation Code section 5140. Plaintiff seeks partial refund of 2014-2015 property taxes plus interest and declaratory relief on the ground that the rate adopted pursuant to section 100(b) which was applied by the county is contrary to law, and exceeded the rate allowable under article XIII, section 19 of the California Constitution.

Plaintiff's Attorney:
Martha A. Boersch
Matthew C. Dirkes
Boersch & Illovsky LLP

Eric J. Miethke
Capitol Law and Policy, Inc.

  • Current Court: Kern County Superior Court
    • Case Status: Dismissed 10/05/2022 without prejudice
    • Case Number: BCV-20-102359
    • Filing Date: 10/08/2020
  • Plaintiff's Demand: $ 37, 837.35 plus interest
  • Potential BOE Liability: Attorneys' Fees and Costs

SUMMARY:
The BOE is named a party as required by Revenue and Taxation Code section 5140. Plaintiff seeks partial refund of 2015-2016 property taxes plus interest and declaratory relief on the ground that the rate adopted pursuant to section 100(b) which was applied by the county is contrary to law, and exceeded the rate allowable under article XIII, section 19 of the California Constitution.

Plaintiff's Attorney:
Martha A. Boersch
Matthew C. Dirkes
Boersch & Illovsky LLP

Eric J. Miethke
Capitol Law and Policy, Inc.

  • Current Court: Kern County Superior Court
    • Case Status: Dismissed 10/05/2022 without prejudice
    • Case Number: BCV-20-100751
    • Filing Date: 03/16/2020
  • Plaintiff's Demand:
    AT&T Mobility $ 115,985 plus interest
    Pacific Bell $ 378,883 plus interest
    AT&T Corp. $12,595 plus interest
  • Potential BOE Liability:
    Attorneys' Fees and Costs

SUMMARY:
The BOE is named a party as required by Revenue and Taxation Code section 5140. Plaintiff seeks partial refund of 2014-2015 property taxes plus interest and declaratory relief on the ground that the rate adopted pursuant to section 100(b) which was applied by the county is contrary to law, and exceeded the rate allowable under article XIII, section 19 of the California Constitution.

Plaintiff's Attorney:
Martha A. Boersch
Matthew C. Dirkes
Boersch & Illovsky LLP

Eric J. Miethke
Capitol Law and Policy, Inc.

  • Current Court: Los Angeles Superior Court
    • Case Status: Dismissed 12/09/2022 without prejudice
    • Case Number: 22STCV13393
    • Filing Date: 07/19/2022
  • Plaintiff's Demand: Damages According to Proof at Trial and Other Relief as the Court May Deem Proper
  • Potential BOE Liability: Attorneys' Fees and Costs of Suit

SUMMARY:
The BOE is named a party in this case in a complaint which alleges negligence; bad faith and unfair business practices; conversion; negligent misrepresentation; equitable relief from an audit conducted in 2012 against the business owned by LYM, inc. dba Pizza Time.

Open All Close All

  • Court of Appeal: California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District
    • Case Number: C083537
    • Filing Date: 11/11/2016
  • Decision Date: 06/01/2021

    SUMMARY:
    The Court of Appeal issued a published decision in favor of the Board of Equalization. The window to appeal the Court of Appeal’s decision has closed.

  • Current Court: Kern County Superior Court
    • Case Number: BCV-20-100748
    • Filing Date: 03/13/2020
  • Decision Date: 08/01/2022

    SUMMARY:
    The case was dismissed with prejudice.

At times, a case may incorrectly name the BOE as defendant on a matter within California Department of Tax and Fee Administration's jurisdiction.

  • Current Court: United States District Court for the District of Arizona
    • Case Number: CV21-00575-PHX-DJH
    • Filing Date: 04/02/2021
    • Decision Date: 07/07/2021
    • Plaintiff's Demand: Threefold damages sustained plus cost of suit.
    • Potential BOE Liability: Attorney's Fees and Costs

Summary and Legal Position of the BOE
The underlying complaint relates to sales tax dispute arising from the 2003 tax year. The BOE was initially filed as the named defendant for improper sales tax collection. However, the BOE was dismissed as a defendant to this action on July 7, 2021 pursuant to Government Code section 15570.24, which requires that the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA) be substituted as the defendant in sales tax disputes.

Plaintiff's Attorney:
Rune Kraft
Rune Kraft Legal
BOE Counsel:
Jennifer Truesdale Henderson
Deputy Attorney General
California Department of Justice
Office of the Attorney General

Cases that relate to the subject matter of the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA) can be found on the CDTFA Sales & Use Tax and Special Taxes Litigation Roster.

DISCLAIMER: Every attempt has been made to ensure the information provided is valid and accurate at the time of addition to this webpage. However, the tax laws are complex and subject to change. If there is a conflict between the law and the information found, decisions will be made based on the law.

Links to information on sites not maintained by the Board of Equalization are provided only as a public service. The Board is not responsible for the content and accuracy of the information on those sites.