Appellant City of Los Angeles sought review of a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which granted refunds of city business taxes assessed under Los Angeles, Cal., Municipal Code § 21.00 et seq. to respondent business entities.
Respondent business entities, formed by two individuals to acquire and sell apartment buildings to related companies by secured installment sales, were assessed for business taxes under Los Angeles, Cal., Municipal Code § 21.00 et seq. by appellant City of Los Angeles on the interest portion of installment payments received by respondents from the sales. Respondents paid the amount demanded, and then filed a claim for refund, which was denied. Respondents brought action for recovery of the taxes paid. The trial ADA compliance California entered judgment in respondents’ favor, based on its finding that they were not engaged in any business that would subject it to taxation by appellant. Appellant sought review and the court reversed, holding that persons engaged in the business of advancing credit in connection with sales of real property were subject to the tax provided for in appellant’s municipal ordinance. The court rejected respondents’ argument that, since multiple entities were involved, the sales were isolated and did not constitute “engagement” in the credit business, finding that the two principals of the separate entities constituted but one partnership for municipal tax purposes.
The court reversed and remanded on the grounds that multiple entities owned by the same individuals were in substance one partnership for purposes of determining if they were engaged in the business of advancing credit in connection with sales of real property.
The defendant appealed from the judgement of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco (California), which appointed a temporary receiver to take possession of the assets of the defendant corporation.
Creditors of a corporation filed a petition and alleged that the corporation was insolvent, and prayed that it become adjudged a debtor. The court adjudged that the corporation was insolvent. The state then commenced action against the corporation and its directors under the Cal. Political Code § 601 (1887), for its dissolution, the winding up of its affairs and distribution of its assets. The court found the corporation should be dissolved, and the defendants appealed. The court appointed a temporary receiver to take possession of the assets of the corporation, during the pendency of the appeal. From that order, the corporation also appealed. The court held in favor of the defendants. It found the appointment of the receiver during the pendency of the appeal was improper. The manner of proceeding was statutory, and the statute did not confer jurisdiction upon the court to appoint the receiver.
On appeal, the court held in favor of the defendants and ordered that a writ of prohibition be entered. The court found the appointment of the receiver during the pendency of the appeal was improper.