59 Cal.App.5th 484
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background
- Chinese Theatres owns the historic Grauman’s Chinese Theatre property and granted naming/advertising rights to TCL under a Theatre Naming Rights Agreement (TNRA).
- The Los Angeles County Assessor included revenue from the TNRA in the 2013 base-year assessment, attributing about $26 million to the agreement; Chinese Theatres appealed to the Assessment Appeals Board (Board).
- The Board concluded half of the TNRA represented a tangible, taxable asset and reduced the assessment by $13 million; Chinese Theatres sued for a tax refund, challenging the Board’s partial-taxable determination.
- The trial court found the entire TNRA was an intangible exempt from assessment, held the Board’s partial-taxable finding arbitrary and invalid for lack of explanation, entered judgment remanding to the Board to remove 100% of the TNRA value and correct the roll, and encouraged avoiding a remand when possible.
- Chinese Theatres moved for attorney fees under Revenue & Taxation Code § 1611.6; a different judge awarded nearly $180,000, reasoning the remand implicitly required the Board to make new § 1611.5-compliant findings. The County appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Chinese Theatres is entitled to fees under § 1611.6 (first clause: failure to make requested findings) | Board failed to make required findings explaining why half the TNRA was taxable; no proper findings were made. | Board made findings identifying half the TNRA as taxable and quantifying the amount; so the first-clause failure does not apply. | Held: First-clause entitlement fails — Board did make a finding on the issue (though unexplained). |
| Whether § 1611.6 authorizes fees under the second clause where a court finds findings "so deficient" even if it did not remand for new findings | § 1611.6 should be construed broadly (remedial statute); fees allowed whenever a court finds findings deficient/arbitrary, regardless of remand language or intent to require new findings. | § 1611.6’s plain text requires either (1) a failure to make requested findings or (2) a court-ordered remand to secure § 1611.5-compliant findings; fees not available absent such a remand with directions. | Held: Statute’s plain language controls; fees under second clause require a remand ordered to secure compliant findings. No such remand/directions existed here, so no fees. |
| Whether the trial court’s remand implicitly required the Board to make new § 1611.5 findings, supporting fees | The court’s remand and statement that Board’s findings were deficient implicitly required the Board to issue new findings, so fees for obtaining those findings are recoverable. | The judgment’s stated sole purpose was ministerial: excise 100% of the TNRA value and correct the tax roll; no directions to make new § 1611.5 findings were given, so § 1611.6 second-clause does not apply. | Held: The remand was ministerial to remove the TNRA value and correct the roll; it did not direct new § 1611.5 findings. Fees denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jarrow Formulas, Inc. v. LaMarche, 31 Cal.4th 728 (Cal. 2003) (statutory construction governed by plain language and legislative intent)
- Ramirez v. City of Gardena, 5 Cal.5th 995 (Cal. 2018) (interpret statutes by ordinary meaning and context)
- Briggs v. Eden Council for Hope & Opportunity, 19 Cal.4th 1106 (Cal. 1999) (avoid constructions that render statutory language surplusage)
- Esberg v. Union Oil Co., 28 Cal.4th 262 (Cal. 2002) (interpret statutory words in context when construing intent)
- Land Partners, LLC v. County of Orange, 19 Cal.App.5th 741 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018) (standard of review for fee awards; de novo review when entitlement depends on statutory interpretation)
- CAT Partnership v. County of Santa Cruz, 63 Cal.App.4th 1071 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998) (court may correct assessment mathematically without remanding for new board findings)