Court Opinion

ID: 9546577
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:32:19.745069+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:16:38.329863
License: Public Domain

THE COURT.
In denying this petition for rehearing we reiterate that the reason why we have held that the challenged portion of the statute is invalid is that it is unconstitutionally discriminatory, in that the classification contained therein is not based on any valid or constitutional distinction, and is arbitrary. What is said in the opinion as to the “fairness” of the tax or as to “public policy” relates only to the constitutional question of the reasonableness of the classification. While a city has wide discretion in mating classifications for tax purposes (Fox etc. Corp. v. City of Bakersfield, 36 Cal.2d 136 [222 P.2d 879]), a tax for revenue purposes cannot be upheld where the classification is unreasonable and is not based upon natural, intrinsic or fundamental distinctions. In such event, the tax violates constitutional limitations. This, in our opinion, is such a tax.