Laws, Regulations & Annotations

Property Taxes Law Guide – Revision 2017

Revenue and Taxation Code

Property Taxation

Part 9. Corrections, Cancellations, and Refunds

CHAPTER 1. General Provisions

Section 4807

4807. Injunction. No injunction or writ of mandate or other legal or equitable process shall issue in any suit, action, or proceeding in any court against any county, municipality, or district, or any officer thereof, to prevent or enjoin the collection of property taxes sought to be collected. In the case of a collection of taxes pursuant to a bankruptcy proceeding, the county may request a reasonable amount of attorney's fees.

History.—Added by Stats. 1977, Ch. 539 in effect January 1, 1978. Stats. 1998, Ch. 497 (SB 2233), in effect January 1, 1999, added the second sentence of the first paragraph.

Construction.—Taxpayers challenging certain assessment practices that began after the adoption of Article XIII A of the Constitution were not entitled to relief by either injunction or mandate since they had an adequate remedy at law, a claim for refund followed by a suit for refund, and since the section prohibits the issuance of an injunction or writ of mandate to prevent or enjoin the collection of property taxes. Schoderbeck v. Carlson, 152 Cal.App.3d 1027. Taxpayers' actions to have personal property tax liens declared invalid on the ground they were for taxes more than ten years old at the time they were filed are barred by this section since taxpayers, in effect, sought a prepayment adjudication of the county's right to collect tax that would have effectively prevented the collection of a tax. Section 5140 provided the taxpayers with an adequate remedy for their claims. McKendry v. Kern County, 180 Cal.App.3d 1165. Taxpayers' mandamus proceeding to correct alleged assessment inequalities in Article XIIIA of the Constitution assessments is barred by this section, notwithstanding their disclaimer of any right to tax refunds. Although they disclaimed rights to refunds, by seeking to lower their assessments the taxpayers were seeking to avoid the future payment of taxes, which this section forbids, Merced County Taxpayers' Assn. v. Cardella, Merced County Taxpayers' Assn. v. Merced County, 218 Cal.App.3d 396. Plaintiffs' mandamus proceeding to direct county to grant a property tax exemption for 200 homeowners on their possessory interests in the leased land underlying the homes they owned is barred by this section, notwithstanding the interests of the nontaxpaying University of California and its campus housing authority. The statutory command is clear and admits of no exceptions. Connolly v. Orange County, 1 Cal.4th 1105. A class action via mandamus seeking to require a county to follow Revenue and Taxation Code Section 1604(c) is not a prohibited class claim for property tax refund. Bunker v. Orange County, 103 Cal.App.4th 542.

Where special taxes remain unpaid, a trial court has no jurisdiction to offset the amount of unpaid taxes based on a plaintiff's failure to timely perform its contractual obligations since, under this section, any legal action or defense seeking prepayment adjudication that would effectively prevent the collection of a tax is barred. Community Facilities District v. Harvill, 74 Cal. App. 4th 876. Where special taxes remain unpaid, any legal action or affirmative defenses, such as lack or failure of consideration, seeking prepayment adjudication are barred as a matter of law by this section. Riverside County Community Facilities District v. Bainbridge 17, 77 Cal.App.4th 644.

Mandamus.— Because the taxpayer did not request a new hearing before the board or otherwise challenge the board's determination that it lacked jurisdiction by reason of untimeliness (Revenue and Taxation Code sections 51.5, subdivision (b), 80, subdivision (a)(3), case law providing that an assessment appeals board can be compelled to hold a hearing when it erroneously fails or refuses to decide an issue did not apply, and mandate relief thus was unavailable. William Jefferson & Co., Inc. v. Orange County Assessment Appeals Board No. 2 (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 1.