United States Borax & Chemical Corp. v. Mitchell

Plaintiff United States Borax and Chemical Corporation (Borax) instituted the present action in August 1975 against Kern County and the Kern County Board of Supervisors seeking to obtain a refund of taxes paid under protest. The taxes at issue were levied after the board of supervisors approved an increase in the valuation of certain mineral interests above the valuation of such interests initially set forth on the county’s 1974-1975 assessment roll. Although the board of supervisors authorized the increase as a “correction” of a clerical error under former section 4831, subdivision (a) of the Revenue and Taxation Code, Borax contended in its refund action that the alteration was not so authorized. The superior court ruled in Borax’s favor, and the county defendants now appeal from the judgment.

We conclude, as we shall explain, that the judgment must be affirmed. Under the terms of former section 4831, subdivision (a), the assessed valuation of property appearing on a county’s assessment roll could be “corrected” pursuant to the procedure set forth in that statute only when it could be “ascertained from an inspection of the property, the records of the assessee, or from…

I dissent.

At a time when local government is desperately in need of revenue, the majority disapprove the assessment of the county assessor and the review thereof by the county board of supervisors, and improvidently *96 award to the United States Borax and Chemical Corporation (Borax) a bountiful windfall of $294,033.61, plus interest. This sum must be paid out of county resources. In order to reach their result, the majority apply an unreasonably narrow interpretation of Revenue and Taxation Code section 4831, subdivision (a); in doing so they overlook both the long accepted presumption that an assessment is valid (Western Union Tel. Co. v. Los Angeles (1911) 160 Cal. 124, 127 [ 116 P. 564 ]; County of Ventura v. Channel Islands State Bank (1967) 251 Cal.App.2d 240, 245 [ 59 Cal.Rptr. 404 ]), and the universal rule that deviations are to be viewed “with a hostile eye.” (Oklahoma Tax Comm’n v. U.S. (1943) 319 U.S. 598, 612 [ 87 L.Ed. 1612, 1621 , 63 S.Ct. 1284 ], Murphy, J., dis.)

With constant repetition the majority maintain that there was no “clerical error,” within the meaning of Revenue and Taxation Code section 4831, and it is apparent from their opinion that they equate…