Laserfiche WebLink
ATTORNEY GENERAL 'S OFF TEi. : 1-916-324-2960 Sep 17 93 14 :51 No .015 P . 07 <br /> 1 Code of Civil Procedure section 663x. <br /> 2 r <br /> 3 THE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION Is AN AGGRIEVED <br /> PERSON <br /> 4 <br /> 5 Sumiden' s argument that the Board i6 not an aggrieved <br /> 6 person is premised on its position that the Board has no <br /> 7 authority to determine the amount of fees owed by Sumiden. As <br /> 6 demonstrated in the Board's pleadings, the Board does have the <br /> 9 authority to determine the proper fees. The stipulated Judgment <br /> 10 purports to restrict that authority. Restriction of the Board's <br /> 11 authority, makes it an aggrieved person. <br /> 12 V <br /> 13 THE STIPULATED JUDGMENT WAS BASED ON THE <br /> ERRONEOUS BASIS THAT THE DTSC COULD DETERXINE <br /> 14 IF A PERSON PAID THE PROPER FEE AS REQUIRED <br /> BY THE ACT <br /> 15 <br /> 16 The erroneous legal basis for the Stipulated Judgment <br /> 17 is the parties assumed the DTSC had the authority to determine if <br /> 18 A fee owed under the Act was properly paid. As demonstrated by <br /> 19 the Board, that authority rests solely with the Board. <br /> 20 Consequently, the DTSC executed a settlement affecting a <br /> 21 statutory obligation of the Board, and area of law over which the <br /> 22 DTSC has no jurisdiction. <br /> 23 CONCLUSION <br /> 24 One State agency has no authority to bind a second <br /> 25 State agency if the second state agency has exclusive authority <br /> 26 over a specific field. Certainly, if the Board were to rule, <br /> 27 contrary to Revenue and Taxation Code section 43301 that a <br />