Laws, Regulations & Annotations
Property Taxes Law Guide – Revision 2011
Revenue and Taxation Code
Part 6. Private Railroad Car Tax
Chapter 2. Assessments
Article 3. Valuations
11291. Property included in value of cars. The value of private railroad cars shall not include the car owner's tools, shop equipment, materials, supplies, or other like items of personal property customarily kept or maintained at fixed locations for use in repairing, improving, servicing, or operating the cars.
History.—Stats. 1978, Ch. 1209, in effect January 1, 1979, added "railroad" between "private" and "cars". Stats. 1995, Ch. 220, in effect July 31, 1995, deleted "assessed under this part shall include all materials and supplies held, stored, or used in this State by the person owning the private railroad cars, or the receiver or trustee in control thereof, for the purpose of repairing, improving, servicing, or operating the cars. The value of the cars assessed" after "railroad cars", added "the car owner's" after "not include", and added "materials, supplies," after "shop equipment," in the combined first sentence.
Valuation Methods.—The Board properly exercised its discretion in selecting the replacement cost method to assess railroad flatcars, rather than the income capitalization method, where the taxpayer, a company formed by railroad companies to lease container-freight flatcars to carriers, charged rates that were far below the level required for profitable operation and were intended to cover costs only, and thus would not provide the reliable income data necessary to the income method. Because the Board was obligated to tax fairly and uniformly at fair market value, it had discretion to choose the method of valuation. Trailer Train Company v. State Board of Equalization, 180 Cal.App.3d 565.
Pending state court actions.—Where railroad car companies' action under Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act challenging Board's market valuation of their property for state tax assessment purposes presented issues of valuation methodology that were functionally identical to those in pending state court actions, federal district court would abstain from further proceedings until state actions produced final judgment regarding that calculation; proceedings could in fact in law be related for abstention purposes even though they involved different tax year or different taxpayer. ACF Industries v. State Board of Equalization, 653 F.Supp. 390.