Supreme Court of California

In a petition for a writ of administrative mandate, brought by several cities, challenging a county's method of calculating the property tax administration fee and seeking a writ ordering the county and its auditor-controller to reimburse cities for the amount disputed in fiscal year 2006-2007, the court of appeal's judgment in favor of the cities is affirmed where: 1) the court of appeal correctly held that section 97.75 does not authorize county's collection of the disputed administration fee; 2) the Legislature intended no change in how property tax administration fees are calculated under section 95.3; and 3) Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund monies diverted by the "Triple Flip" and vehicle license fee "Swap" remain exempt from the property tax administration fee.

Appellate Information

• Decided 11/19/2012
• Published 11/19/2012

Judges

• Cantil-Sakuye

Court

• Supreme Court of California

Counsel