Teyssier

Teyssier v. City of San Diego

Good Law
81 Cal. App. 4th 685·97 Cal. Rptr. 2d 100
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 13, 2000D033171, D033622California5,386 words

Opinion

Opinion

WORK, Acting P.J.

The sole issue presented by these consolidated appeals is whether City of San Diego Municipal Code (SDMC) section 31.0305, which levies a rental unit business tax (RUBT) upon property owners who rent their residential real estate, is valid under California Constitution articles XIII, XIII C and XIII D. Edward M. Teyssier and Robert L. McCarty appeal separate judgments in favor of the City of San Diego (City) after trial courts ruled the RUBT is a constitutionally valid excise tax, not a property tax. Teyssier and McCarty contend the court erred because the RUBT is imposed on owners of residential real property as an incident of property ownership and thus violates article XIII D, section 3, subdivision (a) of the California Constitution. As we shall explain, we conclude the RUBT is an excise tax not governed by article XIII D and is constitutionally valid under article XIII C. Accordingly, we affirm the judgments.

In 1942, City began assessing a business tax on apartments and hotels, levied on "[e]very person conducting, operating or managing an apartment house or hotel, as defined by the State Housing Act." In 1950, the SDMC was amended to provide for…

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.