In an opinion handed down on June 29th, the California Supreme Court held that notwithstanding the legislature’s decision against localities imposing excise taxes on transfers in ownership of stock, it did, however, intend for localities to impose documentary transfer taxes on stock transfers in property-holding entities. In particular, the Court held that Cal. Rev. & Tax. Code §§ 64(c) and (d) applied to transfers for consideration resulting in more than 50% ownership of voting stock in any partnership, LLC, or other entity where the stock transfer effectively changes the owner of the beneficial interest in real property. Unless the stock transfers concern an entity federally-taxed as a partnership and the transfer does not result in a technical termination of that partnership, a city or county is empowered to ignore the corporate form, reassess the underlying real property, and impose documentary transfer taxes for every property held therein. While documentary transfer taxes can be de minimis in amount in cases concerning an individual property, this decision could have a substantial impact on the purchase of large entities, both in and out of bankruptcy. Practitioners who oversee the purchase and sale of business concerns should take note that cities and counties are poised to assert documentary transfer taxes on a range of stock transactions in the future. A copy of the published opinion 926 North Ardmore Avenue, LLC v. County of Los Angeles is available by hyperlink here.
Blog
California Cities and Counties are Poised to Substantially Increase Assessment of Documentary Transfer Taxes on Stock Transfers in Corporate Entities
On behalf of Shulman Bastian Friedman & Bui LLP | Aug 14, 2017 | Business Litigation |
Categories
- Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (17)
- Business Litigation (68)
- Chapter 11 (36)
- Contract Disputes (24)
- Employment (9)
- Firm News (2)
- Mergers & Acquisitions (51)
- Potential Claims (1)
- Sales & Dissolutions (15)
Archives
- December 2020 (2)
- July 2020 (3)
- June 2020 (1)
- May 2020 (2)
- April 2020 (3)
- December 2019 (2)
- November 2019 (1)
- October 2019 (3)
- September 2019 (3)
- August 2019 (2)
- July 2019 (1)
- June 2019 (1)
- May 2019 (2)
- February 2019 (1)
- January 2019 (1)
- September 2018 (1)
- June 2018 (2)
- May 2018 (5)
- April 2018 (6)
- March 2018 (1)
- February 2018 (2)
- December 2017 (1)
- November 2017 (1)
- October 2017 (5)
- August 2017 (10)
- July 2017 (1)
- June 2017 (3)
- March 2017 (1)
- February 2017 (2)
- January 2017 (4)
- November 2016 (6)
- October 2016 (4)
- September 2016 (2)
- August 2016 (2)
- July 2016 (2)
- June 2016 (2)
- May 2016 (6)
- April 2016 (10)
- March 2016 (7)
- February 2016 (7)
- January 2016 (10)
- December 2015 (9)
- November 2015 (10)
- October 2015 (7)
- September 2015 (10)
- August 2015 (9)
- July 2015 (10)
- June 2015 (8)
- May 2015 (9)
- April 2015 (11)
- March 2015 (12)
- February 2015 (6)
- January 2015 (12)
- December 2014 (8)
- November 2014 (9)
- October 2014 (10)
- September 2014 (16)
- August 2014 (13)
- July 2014 (10)
- June 2014 (11)
- September 2010 (1)
Recent Posts
- Melissa Davis Lowe Named Director to Federal Bar Association
- The Firm Holds YogaWorks Auction to Nearly Double the Stalking Horse Price
- In re Brace
- The General Rules for Implementing the Alternative Work Schedule Within A Company
- Bankruptcy Courts Still Have Power to Retroactively Annul Stay, Regardless of Recent Supreme Court Ruling in Acevedo