McWilliams v. City of Long Beach
56 Cal. 4th 613
| Cal. | 2013Background
- McWilliams sues Long Beach taxpayers seeking refunds of the city’s telephone users tax (TUT).
- City amended the TUT ordinance in 2006 to remove reference to the federal excise tax without voter approval under Prop. 218.
- McWilliams asserts the City unlawfully collected TUT on services non-taxable under Federal Excise Tax.
- City demurred, arguing Long Beach Municipal Code sections 3.48.060 and 3.68.160 bar class refund claims; trial court dismissed.
- Court of Appeal reversed in part under Ardon, holding class refunds permissible under Government Code § 910 in absence of a specific tax refund procedure.
- Supreme Court granted review to decide whether local ordinances qualify as a “statute” under Gov. Code § 905(a) and related constitutional issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does § 905(a) exclude local ordinances as statutes for refunds? | McWilliams: local refunds permitted under § 910 in absence of statute. | City: ordinance qualifies as a statute prescribing refund procedures. | Ordinances are not statutes; § 905(a) excludes local ordinances |
| Is the term 'statute' in § 905(a) defined by § 811.8 (statewide statute) and thus excludes charters/ordinances? | McWilliams contends statutory definition controls; excludes local charters. | City argues broader meaning may include local enactments. | Statute in § 905(a) means statewide statute; excludes local charters/ordinances |
| Does article XIII, section 32 require explicit authorization for class tax refunds against local government? | Ardon: § 910 provides authorization; no need for local authorization. | City: Article XIII, § 32 requires explicit local authorization. | No explicit local authorization required; § 910 suffices |
Key Cases Cited
- Ardon v. City of Los Angeles, 52 Cal.4th 241 (Cal. 2011) (tax refunds permissible under § 910 in absence of local refund statute)
- Woosley v. State of California, 3 Cal.4th 758 (Cal. 1992) (class refund bar not categorical)
- Oronoz v. County of Los Angeles, 159 Cal.App.4th 353 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (county ordinance not a statute under § 905(a))
- Volkswagen Pacific, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 7 Cal.3d 48 (Cal. 1971) (statute vs. ordinance definitions in refund context)
- Pasadena Hotel Development Venture v. City of Pasadena, 119 Cal.App.3d 412 (Cal. Ct. App. 1981) (rejected broad reading of § 905(a) concerning local taxes)
- Batt v. City and County of San Francisco, 155 Cal.App.4th 65 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (followed Pasadena Hotel; not controlling where § 811.8 applies)
- Aronoz v. Superior Court, See County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (Oronoz) (Cal. App. 2008) (defined statute to exclude local ordinances under § 905(a))