Procedural posture

Plaintiff corporation attorneys challenged the judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which entered summary judgment in favor of defendant Franchise Tax Board (California) with respect to the Board's determination that an amendment that reduced a franchise tax on the attorneys' businesses did not take affect until January 1, 1964.

Overview

Tax amendments promulgated in 1963 specified they were to become operative January 1, 1964. Probate Code 4120-4130 Durable Power of Attorney Law CA Codes (prob:4120-4130) 4120. A natural person having the capacity to contract may execute a power of attorney.... (c) Each witness signing the power of attorney shall witness either the signing of the instrument by the principal or the principal's acknowledgment of the signature or the power of attorney

Overview

Tax amendments promulgated in 1963 specified they were to become operative January 1, 1964. The attorneys sought a refund of franchise taxes paid in 1964, claiming that the taxes had been improperly determined on the basis of 1963 net income calculated under the old law. The trial court found for the Board. The court affirmed and held that Cal. Rev. & Tax. Code § 23058 provided that unless otherwise specifically provided the provisions of any law effecting changes in the computation of taxes applied only in the computation of taxes for income years beginning after December 31st of the year preceding enactment and the remaining provisions of any such law became effective on the date it became law. If no provision to the contrary had been made, the change in the manner of determining income would have been applied to income earned during 1963, and the amount of the tax would have been reduced beginning with the taxable year 1964. But the legislature specifically postponed the operative date of the statute to January 1, 1964, delaying the change in the determination of net income until the income year 1964 and delaying the reduction in tax revenue until the taxable year 1965.

Outcome

The court affirmed the trial court's judgment.

HOLDINGS: [1]-Because the determination of an acceptable risk level that would cause a medical entity to become a de facto health care service plan was a regulatory decision involving complex economic policy considerations that should be made by the Department of Managed Health Care, a trial court acted within its discretion in invoking the abstention doctrine as to a patient's unfair competition law and false advertising law claims against affiliated medical groups; [2]-The patient had an alternative forum to resolve her statutory claims, as the Department had the power to enforce the Knox-Keene Health Care Service Plan Act of 1975 and had repeatedly issued cease and desist orders that required health care service plans to obtain the required licenses, enjoin deceptive and misleading business practices and advertising, and order restitution.

Outcome

Judgment affirmed.

Procedural Posture

The Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco (California), entered judgment in favor of defendant loan and building company to reform a contract for purchase of real property and to quiet title. The original action was brought by plaintiffs, interested parties that included an estate executor, to quiet title. The interested parties appealed.

Easton Californ the determination of an acceptable risk level that would cause a medical entity to become a de facto health.