Court of Appeal's Ruling in Traiman v. AUSD: A Shift in Property Tax Application Raises Equity Concerns

• Traiman, represented by Brillant Law Firm, v. Alameda Unified School District (AUSD) Supreme Court decision rules on no uniform taxation for parcel taxes
  
  
• Supreme Court decision has broad reaching implications for 25 similar California parcel tax statues
  
  
• Equitable taxation for California is a continued debated topic for ongoing litigation

WALNUT CREEK, Calif., Oct. 31, 2023 /PRNewswire/ -- In a move that's stirred up statewide discussions, the Supreme Court's decision, on 25 Oct 2023, to forgo reviewing the Traiman v. Alameda Unified School District (AUSD) case underscores a pivotal moment in California's property tax law. The initial case revolved around AUSD's Measure A, setting a 26.5-cent tax per square foot on improved properties but capping the total tax at $7,999 per parcel.

Here's where it gets tricky: the cap effectively lowered the tax rate for properties larger than 31,000 square feet. Only 150 properties hit that cap, enjoying a reduced rate not available to smaller parcels. This arrangement contradicts the traditional understanding of parcel taxes, which the law says must apply uniformly.

"The Court of Appeal's decision is a game-changer," says David Brillant, attorney for the petitioner, Leland Traiman. "It redefines 'uniform' in a way that permits disparity. If one group benefits from a cap, everyone else could carry a heavier burden. That's not uniform."

This outcome resonates beyond AUSD. It touches 25 similar statutes, affecting how districts might devise their tax structures. The ruling suggests that as long as there's a consistent formula - even with different effective rates - it passes muster. This interpretation, critics argue, allows a form of 'backdoor' classification, potentially leading to inconsistencies in tax burdens.

"We're talking about the potential for wide-reaching implications," adds Brillant. "Today it's AUSD. Tomorrow it could be any district in California. This ruling invites a re-examination of what 'uniform tax' means for everyone."

It's more than a matter of cents per square foot. It's a question of fairness that could prompt legislative reassessment, ensuring the spirit of uniform taxation isn't compromised by technicalities. As the debate continues, one thing is clear: the conversation about what constitutes equitable taxation in California is far from over.

ABOUT BRILLANT LAW FIRM

Founded in 2011 by David Brillant, a seasoned attorney with over 20 years of experience, the Brillant Law Firm provides expert services in complex tax, estate, and business legal matters. The firm is dedicated to ensuring clarity and equity in the application of the law, serving clients with diligence and precision.

FOR MEDIA INQUIRIES
For additional details and ongoing updates on this issue, contact:

David Brillant, Esq.
Brillant Law Firm
www.brillantlaw.com
(925) 274-1400

SOURCE Brillant Law Firm