Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Delucchi v. Franchise Tax Board

February 4, 2009

MARIO DELUCCHI ET AL., PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLANTS,
v.
FRANCHISE TAX BOARD, DEFENDANT AND RESPONDENT.



APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Sacramento County, Loren E. McMaster, Judge. Affirmed. (Super. Ct. No. 06AS02661).

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Davis , J.

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

The plaintiffs (the individuals, couples, and other entities listed in Exhibit A of the complaint as the signatories on 58 state tax returns) brought the present action for a refund of approximately $17,000 each in state income tax that they had paid on the balance of proceeds received in 1995 from their 1986 sale of stock. The trial court ruled in favor of defendant Franchise Tax Board (FTB) on cross-motions for summary judgment on stipulated facts. Having timely appealed from the judgment, the plaintiffs contend that the FTB must apply the exclusion from taxable income that existed for their particular capital gain in 1986 to their income in the 1995 tax year, even though in 1989 the Legislature had repealed the statute that authorized the exclusion. We shall affirm.

FACTS

The facts, as noted, are undisputed. We therefore do not need to follow the customary three-part paradigm for our de novo review of a ruling on a motion for summary judgment. (Rio Linda Unified School Dist. v. Superior Court (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 732, 734-735.)

Each of the plaintiffs sold their shares in Norcal Solid Waste Systems, Inc. (Norcal) in 1986 to an ESOP (employee stock ownership plan and trust). Norcal was a small business within the meaning of former section 18162.5, subdivision (e), of the Revenue and Taxation Code.*fn1 (See Stats. 1985, ch. 106, § 133, pp. 323-324.)*fn2 All plaintiffs (but one) owned the same number of shares with an approximate cost basis of $19,000 for which the ESOP paid $417,000 in cash and gave a 14-year promissory note of $234,000 for the balance (we will round all figures to the nearest $1,000). All plaintiffs had held their shares for more than three years before the sale.

All plaintiffs (but one) reported a capital gain of $398,000 from the sale on their 1986 tax returns. Former section 18162.5 (then in effect) provided in pertinent part that "(b) In the case of any taxpayer, only the following percentages of the gain recognized upon the sale . . . of small business stock shall be taken into account in computing taxable income: [¶] . . . [¶] (3) Zero percent if the small business stock has been held for more than three years . . . ." (See Stats. 1985, ch. 106, § 133, pp. 322-323.)*fn3 None of the plaintiffs elected to treat the 1986 proceeds as anything other than an installment sale within the meaning of federal tax law, which is a disposition of property involving a receipt of at least one payment after the close of the tax year in which the disposition occurred. (26 U.S.C. § 453(b)(1) (hereafter Int.Rev. Code, § 453); see Rev. & Tax. Code, § 24667, subd. (a)(1) [incorporating provisions of Int.Rev. Code, § 453 defining installment sales and the installment method of taxation].)*fn4

At some point, the ESOP defaulted on the promissory notes. In settlement of the ensuing litigation, the ESOP paid $215,000 to every plaintiff (but one) in 1995. They reported a $197,000 capital gain on their tax returns for that year (the parties do not explain the $18,000 difference).

In 2002, the plaintiffs filed timely amended tax returns for 1995, seeking a refund of the income tax paid on capital gains from the 1986 stock sales proceeds. The FTB denied their claims, and the State Board of Equalization denied their administrative appeal in a March 2006 determination. They filed this action in June 2006.

DISCUSSION

Although the plaintiffs profess that "the obvious intent of the Legislature" was that the capital gain on the sale of stock held long-term in a small business should go untaxed, that would not give any significance to the subsequent legislative action of repealing this favorable treatment in 1989. Therefore, the issue is actually whether some other principle allows them to claim the benefit of the repealed law for proceeds of an installment sale that are received only after the repeal.

To state it in simplified form, the method for allocating tax liability for an installment sale of a capital investment calculates the percentage that the gain represents of the total 303, 305-306; 26 C.F.R. § 15a.453-1(d)(3)(i) [to opt out, taxpayer must report "amount realized equal to the selling price including the full face amount of any installment obligation" on return filed for taxable year in which installment sale occurred].) sales price and applies this percentage to each payment received to determine the amount of the total gain that is recognized for tax liability in any particular taxable year. (Int.Rev. Code, § 453(c).)*fn5

For example, where the cost basis is $1,050,000 and the sales price is $1,500,000, the capital gain is 30 percent of the total. If this transaction calls for $50,000 annual payments for 30 years, 30 percent of each payment ($15,000) is subject to tax in the taxable year of its receipt, as part of the total capital gain on the transaction.*fn6 The calculation of this percentage is a direct function of any tax policy that excludes a portion (or even the entirety) of an actual capital gain from tax liability. To stick with our example, if the Legislature wanted to encourage capital investment in the development of solar cells, it might exclude 50 percent of the actual capital gain on the sale of such investment from taxable income in the hope financing seeking such a favorable tax rate would flow to that industry. In that case, only $225,000 of the actual gain would be taxable, and there would be a resulting percentage of only 15 percent to apply to the subsequent payments.

The entire argument of the plaintiffs boils down to their emphasis on this latter distinction between the actual capital gain and the extent of the tax liability for the capital gain, asserting that "Once the gross profit percentage is determined, it does not change in subsequent years." However, while they cite to numerous administrative rulings of the Internal Revenue Service on various types of capital gains involved in installment sales, not one of them includes a situation where Congress has changed the degree to which it treated the tax liability for the capital gain over the course of the installment sale.*fn7 Cases are not considered authority for propositions neither ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.