Programming-Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles

Citations: 215 Cal. App. 3d 281; 263 Cal. Rptr. 558; 1989 Cal. App. LEXIS 1104Docket: B038437

Court: California Court of Appeal; November 6, 1989; California; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The Court of Appeals of California ruled in favor of Programming-Enterprises, Inc., awarding a refund of $128,404.90 plus prejudgment interest for business taxes paid from 1982 to 1986. The case centers on the application of the City of Los Angeles's business license ordinance, which taxes businesses based on gross receipts, with specific rates for different types of businesses. Programming-Enterprises, operating as Mini-Systems Associates, is classified as a "temporary help agency," subject to a tax rate of 0.35 percent on its gross receipts. The agency offers workers the choice to be classified as its employees or independent contractors, with the tax implications of the latter arrangement being the focal point of the dispute. 

In a hypothetical scenario illustrating the case, Mini-Systems provides temporary engineers to Aeroshear, an aerospace firm outside Los Angeles. Mini-Systems facilitates the hiring process and allows the engineers, Smythe and Jones, to choose their employment classification without consulting Aeroshear. Smythe opts to work as an employee, leading to a formal employment agreement with Mini-Systems. The court's decision hinges on the tax implications of this arrangement, particularly regarding whether Mini-Systems's classification of workers impacts its tax obligations under the city's ordinance.

Aeroshear is not involved in the agreement regarding the employment and taxation of Smythe and Jones. Mini-Systems provides worker's compensation insurance for Smythe, its employee, and withholds employment taxes. In contrast, Jones prefers to operate as an independent contractor, leading to a written agreement where Mini-Systems engages him for consulting services at a rate of $42 per hour, without tax withholdings; Jones is responsible for his own taxes. Mini-Systems pays both Smythe and Jones regularly, often before receiving payment from Aeroshear.

Under the city’s taxing ordinance, Mini-Systems is classified as a temporary help agency for its arrangement with Smythe, incurring a 0.35 percent tax on the $50 per hour received from Aeroshear, with a significant adjustment due to the location of Smythe's work in Torrance, outside Los Angeles city limits. The city mandates a 20/80 allocation rule, taxing only the portion attributable to activities within the city, resulting in a tax of 3.5 cents per $50 for Smythe.

However, there is a dispute regarding the tax treatment of Jones's work. The city does not recognize Mini-Systems' gross receipts from Jones as those of a temporary help agency, classifying them under a higher tax rate of 0.50 percent, as Jones is not Mini-Systems' employee. Mini-Systems argues this classification is incorrect and violates equal protection rights. Furthermore, the city insists on taxing the entire $50 for Jones’s work, rejecting the application of the 20/80 apportionment rule, which Mini-Systems contends is necessary. Consequently, the tax on Jones's arrangement is 25 cents per $50, significantly higher than the tax for Smythe.

Mini-Systems is taxed at a 0.50 percent rate by the city, but argues it should exclude certain receipts from its gross receipts calculation under section 21.190(c)(6) of the ordinance. Mini-Systems contends that when it receives $50 from Aeroshear, it acts as an agent for Jones, retaining only $8 for itself and paying $42 to Jones. Therefore, it claims that only $8 should be subject to tax. The city's refusal to apply the lower tax rate for temporary help agencies and the 20/80 apportionment is also challenged by Mini-Systems. 

The trial court agreed with Mini-Systems on certain points and ordered a refund based on its interpretation. However, the city appeals, and the court ultimately sides with the city on all issues. It concludes that Mini-Systems does not qualify as Jones's agent under the definition provided in the ordinance, meaning it cannot exclude the entire $50 from gross receipts. The court finds that Aeroshear owes the full $50 to Mini-Systems, not to Jones, based on their contractual relationship. Thus, Mini-Systems is liable for the tax on the full amount received. Additionally, the court rules that Mini-Systems is not entitled to the 20/80 apportionment or to claim that the 0.50 percent tax rate violates equal protection rights. The summary references relevant case law to support the court's conclusions.

A travel agent or stockbroker can exclude from gross receipts amounts received for purchasing airline tickets or investment securities. However, taxpayers cannot subtract sums paid out for their obligations from gross receipts subject to tax. Gross receipts are defined as the total amount charged or received for services, without deductions for costs or expenses. Mini-Systems' gross receipts related to Jones's work are not subject to apportionment because the city's tax cannot apply to business activities outside its limits. The city asserts that all of Mini-Systems' gross receipts from Jones's work are attributable to activities conducted within the city, as Mini-Systems has no property or employees outside the city, and Jones is self-employed. 

Constitutionally, apportionment is required to avoid unfair discrimination against intercity businesses and prevent extraterritorial taxation. However, in this case, the taxation of Mini-Systems' gross receipts does not violate these principles, as there is no risk of double taxation from other cities, nor is the city taxing Jones's activities. The cases requiring apportionment typically involve transportation services operating both within and outside the taxing jurisdiction, which is not applicable here.

In Ferran v. City of Palo Alto, the court examined various cases to determine the nature of business activities for tax apportionment purposes, emphasizing that the work performed outside the taxing jurisdiction was typically carried out by the taxpayer's own employees, not independent contractors. The court cited several cases involving different industries, such as manufacturing and oil sales, to illustrate that extraterritorial activities conducted by the taxpayer's employees did not require apportionment when those activities were performed by independent contractors. 

The court referenced Irvine Co. v. McColgan, which stated that a corporation could not apportion state franchise tax for business conducted outside the state unless done through its officers or agents, supporting the city’s position but noting that constitutional considerations differ in interstate commerce contexts. 

The case of Hospital Medical Collections, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles was deemed irrelevant for apportionment because it focused on gross receipts rather than nonlocal activity allocation, although it did suggest that the city was not taxing outside its jurisdiction in the context discussed. 

Ultimately, the court concluded that the extraterritorial business activities requiring apportionment pertain solely to those performed by the taxpayer and their employees or agents, not by independent contractors. In the case of Mini-Systems, since its operations in Torrance were managed solely by an independent contractor, no apportionment was necessary. The court emphasized that contractual arrangements have significant legal implications and cannot be disregarded, underscoring that Mini-Systems and its contractor, despite their functional similarities, are distinct entities in the eyes of tax law.

Mini-Systems classified Jones as an independent contractor, resulting in significant cost and tax savings for both parties. This classification was also utilized as a marketing strategy, portraying contractors like Jones as elite technical consultants. Mini-Systems cannot contest the contractual arrangement's validity, despite its unfavorable tax implications, as affirmed in Independent Casting-Television, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, which emphasized that tax consequences are tied to business operations regardless of their soundness. The application of a 0.50 percent tax rate on Mini-Systems’ gross receipts is justified under the ordinance, and Mini-Systems does not qualify for the lower 0.35 percent rate designated for temporary help agencies, as Jones is not classified as an employee. The distinction in tax rates does not violate equal protection rights, as the burden of proof lies with Mini-Systems to demonstrate oppressive discrimination, which it failed to do. The court reversed the judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, affirming that the structure of business operations can significantly affect tax liabilities. The Supreme Court denied a petition for review, with some justices expressing dissent. The opinion notes the fixed gross receipts allocation of 20/80, despite adjustments that had been made based on Mini-Systems’ operations. The refund amount sought was similar under both the apportionment and agency theories, making further discussion on certain regulatory sections unnecessary.