Appellant California State Board of Medical Examiners sought review of an order by the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which issued a peremptory writ of mandate directing the Board to vacate and set aside its order revoking appellee optician's dispensing license and ordering the Board to issue a dispensing optician's license to him. The optician had been charged with violating Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 2556.
The Board revoked the optician's license on the ground that he violated § 2256 by referring customers to nearby physicians for eye examinations, and the superior court issued a writ of mandamus ordering his license reinstated. The San Diego business law attorney affirmed the issuance of the writ and held that the superior court was justified in determining that the evidence was insufficient to support the Board's finding that the optician had employed, furnished, or maintained an optometrist or physician and surgeon in violation of § 2556. All of the physicians had practiced optometry before their arrangement with the optician and they were not performing his business, even though they rented premises from him, but were carrying on their own business of optometry under a reciprocal arrangement with him for the mutual financial benefit of both parties. It was within the superior court's province to believe some of the testimony of some of the witnesses and disbelieve some of the other testimony, and the superior court judge acted within his authority, based upon the record, to hold that the physicians in question were not employed by the optician and that their arrangement did not violate § 2556.
The court affirmed the superior court's order granting a peremptory writ of mandate directing the Board to vacate its order revoking the optician's dispensing license and ordering the Board to issue him a dispensing optician's license.
Defendant taxpayer appealed a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which awarded plaintiff city business taxes attributable to the taxpayer's out-of-city sales, pursuant to the Los Angeles, Cal., Municipal Code §§ 21.166 and 21.167.
The city clerk levied an assessment for business license taxes on the taxpayer's gross receipts attributable to sales outside the city. The board of review reduced the tax by recomputing it on only 12 1/2 percent of the out-of-city sales. The taxpayer appealed the city's judgment in its collection action. The court affirmed because the taxpayer's liability for tax on the privilege of carrying on its business within the city was properly apportioned. The court held that the allocation of gross receipts was justified by the fact that processing of orders took place in the city, sales executives spent up to 50 percent of their time in local offices, and the taxpayer's personnel in the city contributed substantially to activity designed to promote sales. The allocation reasonably reflected the extent to which the activities conducted from the taxpayer's places of business within the city contributed to the production of receipts from out-of-city customers and was directly attributable to the in-city activities. The court held that the taxes were self-reporting and that the penalty for the taxpayer's late payment accrued by operation of law despite any failure of notice.
The court affirmed the city's judgment for business taxes on the taxpayer's out-of-city sales.