City of Pasadena v. AT&T Communications of California, Inc.

Good Law
103 Cal. App. 4th 981·127 Cal. Rptr. 2d 276·2002 Cal. App. LEXIS 5003·2002 Daily Journal DAR 13081·2002 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 11283
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 19, 2002B154482California1,474 words

Opinion

Opinion

Boren, J.

This appeal addresses the meaning of the word “remit” in the Pasadena Municipal Code (PMC). We conclude, as a matter of law, that to “remit” a tax payment means to send, transmit, or forward money. A payment is thus remitted when it is deposited in the mail. The trial court defined remit as “receive.” We reverse.

Facts

The City of Pasadena (the City) is suing AT&T Communications of California, Inc. (the Company), for breach of a services agreement. As a service supplier, the Company is required to collect a utility users tax from its customers. Each month, the Company pays the tax it collects to the City.

The PMC prescribes the timing of the Company’s tax payment. The PMC requires that service suppliers remit the utility users tax to the City on or before the 20th day of each month. The City complains that the Company failed to “remit” its payment on time. As a result of the Company’s alleged failure to make a timely payment, the City seeks to recover a penalty of 15 percent of the tax collected from June through December 1998.

The City pursued summary judgment, arguing that the Company’s tax payments must be received no later than the 20th day of each month. The City…

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.