Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more ➡
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Add note
Save to My Library
Sync to mobile
Look up keyword
Like this
3Activity
×
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Prop 39 Ballot Argument Lawsuit

Prop 39 Ballot Argument Lawsuit

Ratings: (0)|Views: 777|Likes:
Published by John Myers
Lawsuit alleging ballot arguments in support of Prop 39 misstate what the measure actually will do to business taxes in California.
Lawsuit alleging ballot arguments in support of Prop 39 misstate what the measure actually will do to business taxes in California.

More info:

Published by: John Myers on Aug 03, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See More
See less

11/13/2012

pdf

text

original

 
1
2
3
4
5
67
8
910THOMASW.HILTACHK(SBN131215)ASHLEEN.TITUS(SBN227144)BELL,McANDREWS
&
HILTACHK,LLP455CapitolMall,Suite600Sacramento,CA95814Telephone:(916)442-7757Facsimile:(916)442-7759Email:tomh@bmhlaw.comEmail:atitus@bmhlaw.com
AttorneysforPetitioner,
LEWISK.UHLER
08/01/2012
B,\JJf-
5
Deput:1
SUPERIORCOURTOFTHESTATEOFCALIFORNIACOUNTYOFSACRAMENTO11LEWISK.UHLER,anindividualregisteredCaliforniavoter,121314Petitioner,vs.DEBRABOWEN,inherofficialcapacityas15SecretaryofState;andDOES1-100,16Respondents.17KEVINHANNAH,inhisofficialcapacityas18StatePrinter;JANEWARNER;TOMSTEYER;MARYLESLIE;ALANJOSEPH19BANKMAN;RUBENGUERRA;JANESKEETER,2021
22
232425262728RealPartiesinInterest.)CaseNo.
?;Lj"
'2.t:-\2.-
'6bOO
\'2.\y-
C\J-'
'Vt
)-6-fP5
)VERIFIEDPETITIONFOR)PEREMPTORYWRITOFMANDATE
)
)ELECTIONMATTER:PROPOSITION39)[ElectionsCode§9092;)GovernmentCode§88006]
)
)Date:)Time:)Dept.:J7)Judge:
))
)
)
))
)
)
VerifiedPetitionforPeremptoryWritofMandate
 
VerifiedPetitionforPeremptoryWritofMandate
1
INTRODUCTION
21.PetitionerLEWISK.UHLERseeksaperemptorywritofmandatepursuanttoSection39092oftheElectionsCodeandSection88006oftheGovernmentCodedirectingDebraBowen,4inherofficialcapacityasSecretaryofState,toamendtheargumentinfavorofProposition395andtherebuttaltotheargumentagainstProposition39,todeletefalseandmisleadingstatements6thatshouldnotbeprintedinthestateballotpamphlet.72.Proposition39qualifiedtoappearontheNovember6,2012statewidegeneralelection8ballot.Proposition39wouldchangeCaliforniataxlawbyeliminatingthe40yearoldthree-9factorapportionmentformulaforcalculatingbusinessincometaxinfavorofwhatisknownasthe10"singlesalesfactor"calculation,whichwasplacedintoCalifornialawin2009asanelective11alternativetothethree-factorformula.Atrueandcorrectcopyofthecompletetextof12Proposition39isdesignatedExhibitAtoPetitioner'sRequestforJudicialNotice.13
PAJlTIES
143.PetitionerLEWISK.UHLERisanindividual,aregisteredvoterintheStateof15California,andanauthoroftheargumentagainstProposition39.164.RespondentDEBRABOWENistheSecretaryofStateoftheStateofCalifornia,and17isresponsibleforpreparingtheballotpamphletforthestatewidegeneralelection.Theballot18pamphletwasmadeavailablebytheSecretaryofStateforpublicdisplayonJuly24,2012.The19publicdisplayperiodendsonAugust13,2012.AtrueandcorrectcopyoftheSecretaryof20State'sGeneralElection2012CalendarisdesignatedExhibitBtoPetitioner'sRequestfor
21
JudicialNotice.225.RealPartyinInterestKEVINHANNAHistheActingStatePrinteroftheStateof23California,andisresponsibleforprintingtheballotpamphletforthestatewidegeneralelection,24·uponsubmissionofthefinalcopyfromtheSecretaryofStateuponthecloseofthepublicdisplay25period.266.RealPartiesinInterestJANEWARNER,TOMSTEYER,andMARYLESLIEarethe27authorsoftheArgumentinFavorofProposition39.AtrueandcorrectcopyoftheArgumentin28FavorofProposition39isdesignatedExhibitCtoPetitioner's
Request.for
JudicialNotice.
1
 
VerifiedPetitionforPeremptoryWritofMandate
17.RealPartiesinInterestALANJOSEPHBANKMAN,RUBENGUERRA,andJANE2SKEETERaretheauthorsoftheRebuttaltotheArgumentAgainstProposition39.Atrueand3correctcopyoftheRebuttaltotheArgumentAgainstProposition39isdesignatedExhibitDto4Petitioner'sRequestforJudicialNotice.
5
BACKGROUND
68.In1966,Californiaadoptedathree-factorapportionmentformula-ascribingequal7weighttoproperty,payrollandsales-fordeterminingincometaxowedbybusinesses.(Rev.
&
8Tax.§25128,addedbyStats.1966,ch.2,§7;seegenerallyhistoricaldiscussionin
Gillette
v.
9FranchiseTaxBoard
(Cal.App.1Dist.)2012WL3008238,1-2.)In1974,thesamethree-factor10apportionmentformulawasratifiedbyCaliforniaintheformofaninterstatecompact.(Rev.
&
11
Tax.Code§§38001and38006,addedbyStats.l974,ch.93,§3.)129.In1993,Californiamodifiedthethree-factorapportionmentcalculationbygiving13doubleweighttothesalesfactor.(Rev.
&
Tax.Code§25128,amendedbyStats.1993,ch.946,§141.)1510.In2009,aspartofthestatebudget,a"singlesalesfactor"alternativeelectiveformula16wasadopted,whileretainingthecompactthree-factorapportionmentformula.(Rev.
&
Tax.17Code§25128.5,addedbyStats.2009,ch.17,§11;amendedbyStats.2009,ch.544,§8.)In18eachtaxyear,abusinesscanelectwhichapportionmentformulatoapply.
(ld.)
.1911.Proposition39wouldmakesinglesalesfactorthemandatoryapportionmentformula20andeliminatethethree-factorapportionmentformulaasanoption.(SeeProposition39,Sections214through9,amendingsectionsoftheRev.
&
Tax.Code.)2212.ThecruxoftheargumentsinsupportofProposition39isthatProposition39is23neededtoundothe2009politicaldark-of-nightdealprovidinganadvantageoustaxloopholeto24outofstatebusinesses-namely,thethree-factorapportionmentformula-wheninfact,the200925legislationaddedsinglesalesfactortothetaxcode.Thesocalledloophole__thethree-factor26apportionmentformula-:hasbeeninCalifornialawforover40years.2713.InaccordancewithSection9092oftheElectionsCodeandSection88006ofthe28GovernmentCode,aCourtshallissueawritofmandateamendingordeletingcopyfromthe2

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->