Slocum

Slocum v. State Board of Equalization

Good Law
134 Cal. App. 4th 969·2005 Cal. App. LEXIS 1902·2005 Daily Journal DAR 14209·36 Cal. Rptr. 3d 627·2005 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10425
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 9, 2005A107905California4,507 words

Opinion

Opinion

Reardon, J.

Recognizing that in the aftermath of the events of September 11, 2001, “[a]ccess to airport property throughout California was restricted,” in 2002 the California State Board of Equalization (SBE or board) promulgated a regulation to permit midyear reassessment of property suffering loss in value because of such diminished access. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 18, § 139 (hereafter, Rule 139).) Entitled “Restricted Access as Damage Eligible for Reassessment Relief Pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code Section 170,” the SBE specifically drafted Rule 139 with air carriers and airport concessionaires in mind. (Id., “Example.”) Respondent county assessors challenged the regulation on constitutional and statutory grounds. The trial court concluded that Rule 139 was “inconsistent with Tax Code § 170” and therefore proclaimed it invalid. We agree and accordingly affirm the judgment.

I. CONSTITUTIONAL, STATUTORY AND REGULATORY CHAIN OF AUTHORITY

In California, county assessors are charged with assessing “all property subject to general property taxation at its full value.” (Rev. & Tax. Code, §401.) Except for state-assessed property, all taxable property in a county is assessed…

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.