Ralston Purina Co. v. County of Los Angeles

Good Law
128 Cal. Rptr. 556·1976 Cal. App. LEXIS 1381·56 Cal. App. 3d 547
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 25, 1976Civ. 46489California5,964 words

Opinion

Opinion

Potter, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment for plaintiff Ralston Purina Company in its suit for refund of ad valorem personal property taxes levied and collected from it under protest by defendants County of Los Angeles and City of Los Angeles. The personal property taxed was canned tuna stored in plaintiff’s warehouses at Los Angeles Harbor. The trial was to the court which made detailed findings of fact based in substantial part upon written stipulations of fact filed with the court. In addition, the court received oral testimony of representatives of plaintiff in respect to the origin and status of the canned tuna which was taxed by defendants.

There was no conflict in the evidence. It showed that the tuna upon which the tax was levied was canned in American Samoa. The cannery was operated directly by plaintiff for a portion of the eight-year period for which the tax was levied. For the remainder of the period, the Samoan cannery was operated by plaintiff’s wholly owned subsidiary, a Delaware corporation qualified to do business in American Samoa. After the canning activity was taken over by the subsidiary, it sold its production to the parent in an intercompany transaction…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.