Court Opinion

ID: 9586448
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:11:12.073653+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:28:51.704958
License: Public Domain

BURKE, J., Concurring
The holding of the opinion in this case, as I read it, is that insofar as concerns the gross receipts from sales of gasoline delivered from Shell’s in-city bulk terminal to locations outside the city, the city may not constitutionally assign as the controlling factor in fixing the measure of its tax on the business of “selling,” the element of delivery from in the city to out of the city when substantial elements of the sales process to the out-of-city customers actually take place outside the city. Instead, a fair apportionment must be made as between in-city and out-of-city activities contributive to those gross receipts.
Although I agree with that ruling, it also seems to me that storage in the bulk plant in the city and delivery from that plant to out-of-city points are plainly factors to be taken into account and accorded their fair weight in making the apportionment. Based on my understanding that nothing in the opinion precludes considering the storage and delivery factors, I concur.
It also appears appropriate to note that if the city’s code provisions undertook to cover businesses engaged in “handling and selling”; “storage, handling and selling”; “assembling and selling”; or “processing and selling,” as well as (insofar • as concerns Shell) merely “selling,” then *129we would have a case more closely analogous to Carnation (Carnation Co. v. City of Los Angeles (1966) 65 Cal.2d 36 [52 Cal.Rptr. 225, 416 P.2d 129]), in which the tax was levied on the business of “manufacturing and selling.”
McComb, J., and Wood, J.,* concurred.
Respondent’s petition for a rehearing was denied March 26, 1971.

 Assigned by the Acting Chairman of the Judicial Council.