Opinion ID: 1382971
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Wholesale sales of Chevrolets assembled at out-of-city plants and shipped to out-of-city dealers pursuant to orders placed at the in-city zone office.

Text: As indicated above, the City does not seek to include within General Motors' tax base the unapportioned gross receipts from the transactions in this category. Rather the City, applying the apportionment formula contained in paragraph 1(d) of Ruling 14, [18] seeks to include only 15 percent of the total gross receipts. (13) The taxpayer's burden in this instance is the same as that applicable when the taxing jurisdiction seeks to include total gross receipts in the tax base  to wit, the taxpayer must show by clear and cogent evidence that the application of the formula to it results in the taxation of significant extraterritorial values. (See City of Los Angeles v. Moore Business Forms, Inc. (1966) 247 Cal. App.2d 353, 361-363 [55 Cal. Rptr. 820].) General Motors has not sustained its burden in this regard. It has not shown that the apportionment of 15 percent of its gross receipts from sales in this category does not fairly reflect that proportion of relevant selling activity which is actually carried on within the City. Its objection to this aspect of the business tax levied against it must therefore fail. [19]
The judgments are reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to vacate its order granting defendant's motions for full summary judgment; to enter an order for partial summary judgment for defendant with respect to transaction categories (1) and (4) set forth herein; to proceed to determine a proper apportionment of plaintiff's gross receipts with respect to transaction categories (2) and (3) in conformity with the views herein expressed; and to enter judgment accordingly. Plaintiff shall recover its costs on appeal.