Laws, Regulations & Annotations
Business Taxes Law Guide – Revision 2016
Transactions And Use Tax Law
CHAPTER 1 GENERAL PROVISIONS AND DEFINITIONS
History.—Stats. 1969, p. 460, in effect June 12, 1969, added "Santa Clara County Transit District" and p. 3181, in effect November 10, 1969, added "Southern California Rapid Transit District." Stats. 1972, Ch. 30, in effect March 23, 1972, deleted "Santa Clara County Transit District." Stats. 1974, Ch. 502, effective August 14, 1974, Ch. 508, effective August 20, 1974, and Ch. 1204, effective September 23, 1974, respectively added the San Mateo, Orange,and Santa Clara County Transit Districts. Stats. 1975, Ch. 1186, in effect January 1, 1976, deleted individually named districts. Stats. 1976, Ch. 1333, effective January 1, 1977, added "or the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission if authorized." Stats. 1977, Ch. 672, operative January 1, 1978, added "county," following "means any". Stats. 1983, Ch. 1320, in effect January 1, 1984, added "or the Orange County Transportation Commission" before "if" in the first paragraph and added the second paragraph. Stats. 2007, Ch. 342 (AB 1748), in effect January 1, 2008, substituted "city, . . . governmental entity" for "county, transit district, or rapid transit district authorized, or the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission or the Orange County Transportation Commission if" after "means any" in the first paragraph, and deleted former second paragraph which stated, "If the measure to adopt the transaction and use tax pursuant to Section 130401 of the Public Utilities Code is not submitted to the electors of the County of Orange on or before December 31, 1985, then this section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 1986, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, which is enacted before January 1, 1986, deletes or extends that date. If that date is not deleted or extended, then, on and after January 1, 1986, pursuant to Section 9611 of the Government Code, Section 7252 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, as amended by Section 11 of Chapter 652 of the Statutes of 1977, shall have the same force and effect as if this temporary provision had not been enacted."
Note.—Stats. 1976, Ch. 1333 adds "or the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission if authorized," to become operative only if the Southern California Rapid Transit District has not been authorized, prior to January 1, 1977, by the electors thereof to impose transactions and use taxes.
Constitutionality of majority vote.—Transportation Commission may impose transactions and use tax with consent of majority of voters, since the Commission was not a "special district" authorized to impose property taxes under Cal. Const. Art. XIII A. Los Angeles County Transportation Comm. v. Richmond, (1982) 31 Cal.3d 197.
Special districts require a super majority of voter approval.—A sales tax of one-half of one percent, levied by a county agency to finance the construction of county justice facilities, was a "special tax" under Cal. Const., art. XIII A, § 4, which permits a city, county, or special district to impose a special tax only if two-thirds of the local electorate approves it, even though the Legislature designated the agency's tax as a "general tax" and the revenues were to be used for the agency's "general governmental purposes." Rider v. County of San Diego (1991) 1 Cal.4th 1.
Constitutionality of tax adopted by two-thirds vote.—A tax adopted by a special district by two-thirds vote is valid, even though the enabling legislation first required only a majority vote and thereafter was amended to provide that the taxing authority could require a two-thirds vote to adopt a tax ordinance. Howard Jarvis Taxpayers' Association v. State Board of Equalization (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 1598.
School districts are special districts.—School districts are special districts within the meaning of Proposition 13, and a taxing agency created and controlled by school districts is a special district subject to the two-thirds vote requirement. Hoogasian Flowers, Inc. v. State Board of Equalization (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1264.
Constitutionality of majority vote.—A district tax adopted by majority vote which specified that the tax would be used for general purposes was valid, and was not a "special tax" just because it was adopted at the same time as an advisory measure adopted by more than two-thirds vote which indicated the voters' intent that any new tax revenue should be spent on certain projects specified in that advisotry measure. Coleman v. County of Santa Clara (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 662.