Recommendation
APPROVE AND AUTHORIZE County Counsel, or designee, on behalf of the Auditor-Controller, to enter into a tolling agreement in SFPP, L.P. v. County of Contra Costa, et al., Contra Costa Superior Court, Case No. C25-00808, related to SFPP, L.P.'s claim for refund of property taxes for the 2019-2020 fiscal year.
Fiscal
No negative fiscal impact.
Background
Under the California Constitution, certain property owned or used by pipeline companies, among others, is annually assessed by the State Board of Equalization ("BOE"). (Cal. Const., article XIII, ? 19.) The amount of these "unitary property" assessments attributed to the County by the BOE are then taxed by the County in accordance with a statutory formula. (See Rev. & Tax. Code, ? 100.) The Auditor-Controller uses the amount of unitary property assessments annually provided by the BOE to calculate the amount of taxes to be levied on these properties in accordance with a formula mandated by state law. (Rev. & Tax. Code, ? 100).
SFPP, L.P. ("Plaintiff") is a pipeline company that contests the tax rate applied to its unitary property for the 2019-2020 fiscal year. In March 2024, Plaintiff submitted a claim for partial refund of property taxes pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code section 5097 ("Claim for Refund"). Through the Claim for Refund, Plaintiff requested that the County refund the sum of $313,948.91, plus appropriate interest, in property taxes levied for the fiscal year 2019-2020. After the Claim for Refund was denied, Plaintiff filed a complaint against the County on March 24, 2025, SFPP, L.P. v. County of Contra Costa, Contra Costa Superior Court, Case No. C25-00808 ("Action").
Plaintiff requests a refund on the asserted basis that the formula used to calculate the tax rate is unconstitutional. However, the County is given no discretion in its calculation of the unitary tax rate; it is a mandated formula set by the State. Further, recent decisions from Firs...
Click here for full text