California Supreme Court Watch

#21-130 Prang v. Amen, S266590. (B298794; 58 Cal.App.5th 246; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BS173698.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a civil action. This case presents the following issue: Does the term “stock” in Revenue and Taxation Code section 62, subdivision (a)(2), which defines when certain transactions transferring real property will or will not result in a change of ownership calling for reassessment of the property, refer to all types of stock shares, or only voting shares?

Review granted: 3/17/2021

Case fully briefed: 6/10/2021

Cause argued and submitted: 3/05/2024

Opinion filed: Judgment affirmed in full: 5/30/2024

See the Court of Appeal Opinion.

See the Petition for Review.

See the Oral Argument.

See the California Supreme Court Opinion.  (Prang v. Amen (2024) __ Cal.5th __.)

“We conclude the [Board of Equalization] agency’s implementing regulation and interpretative materials do not support the trustees’ reading of [Revenue and Taxation Code] section 62, subdivision (a)(2). To understand why that is the case, however, it is necessary to begin with the plain language of the statute and the usual statutory interpretation framework. Applying this framework, we conclude that section 62, subdivision (a)(2) measures proportional beneficial ownership interests in corporate real property by corporate stock generally. Further, because sections 62 and 64 concern different ownership interests — ownership interests in real property and ownership interests in legal entities, respectively — section 64 does not compel a contrary reading of section 62. The Board of Equalization’s guidance either concerns section 64, and is therefore not pertinent, or fails to directly consider the issue presented here, and is therefore unpersuasive. Accordingly, we affirm the Court of Appeal, which held in a manner consistent with these conclusions.”

Justice Evans authored the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Guerrero and Justices Corrigan, Liu, Kruger, Groban, and Jenkins concurred.