Blogs

Search Blogs
Search by date
Choose From Date
Choose To Date
SearchClear

California Supreme Court Considers Case to Allow Property Tax on Intangible Assets

For the first time in 50 years, the California Supreme Court is revisiting the issue of the proper application of the property tax to intangible assets. In

For the first time in 50 years, the California Supreme Court is revisiting the issue of the proper application of the property tax to intangible assets. In Elk Hills Power, LLC v. California State Board of Equalization, Case No. S194121, the court will address whether the California State Board of Equalization (the Board) may assess Elk Hills’ intangible Emission Reduction Credits (ERCs). In Elk Hills, the Board treated the ERCs as “necessary” to put a power plant to “beneficial or productive use” and thus taxable for property tax purposes. Because many businesses use intangible assets that are “necessary” to the conduct of their businesses (e.g., trademarks, trade names, franchises, licenses, customer relationships, patents, and copyrights), the case has attracted attention across a broad spectrum of the California business community.

The trial court in this case initially agreed with the Board’s finding that the ERCs were “necessary” to construct Elk Hills’ power plant, and therefore were an attribute of taxable real property under Revenue and Taxation Code section 110(f). The Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court but on different grounds. Elk Hills Power, LLC v. Board of Equalization, 195 Cal. App. 4th 289 (2011). First, the Court of Appeal held that ERCs are an intangible asset or right, and thus not subject to property tax. However, under the language of Revenue and Taxation Code section 110(e), the court reasoned that the full value of those intangible ERCs may be added to the value of the taxable property—Elk Hills’ power plant—because they were “necessary” to put the power plant to “beneficial or productive use.” Id. at 293.

The Court of Appeal’s decision potentially overturns several California Supreme Court decisions affirming the nontaxability of intangible assets or rights. It further calls into question several aspects of the Board’s appraisal guidance.

Amicus briefs have been filed by, among others, the Council On State Taxation (COST), the Institute for Professionals in Taxation (IPT), the Broadband Tax Institute, the California Taxpayers Association (CalTax), joined by the California Manufacturers & Technology Association and the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, and the California Cable and Telecommunications Association. Taxpayers should monitor this California Supreme Court case because it could have significant implications with respect to the taxation of intangible property in California.

Our Story

Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP is an international law firm helping the Fortune 100, industry leaders, sector innovators and business entrepreneurs solve their biggest challenges and reach their business goals. Dedicated to unfaltering excellence in client service, we are known for our business savvy and industry intelligence, providing creative and custom solutions for each of our clients. Industry and business experience makes the difference for our clients.

click to watch Videocast: DOL Fiduciary Rule Litigation Impacts
Videocast: DOL Fiduciary Rule Litigation Impacts
Atlanta, GA
Washington, DC
© 2016 Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP / Sutherland (Europe) LLP
MYBRIEFCASE
Add this page to MYBRIEFCASE
Add Page to MYBRIEFCASE
News/Commentary - California Supreme Court Considers Case to Allow Property Tax on Intangible Assets
Current MYBRIEFCASE Pages
Save ChangesDownload MYBRIEFCASEClear All