...

BEFORE THE STATE BOARD EQUALIZATION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

by user

on
Category: Documents
4

views

Report

Comments

Transcript

BEFORE THE STATE BOARD EQUALIZATION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
BEFORE THE STATE BOARD
OF EQUALIZATION
OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In the Matter of the Appeal of 1
83A-1323-SW
SPECIALTY RESTAURANTS
CORPORATION
For Appellant:
Stephen Kunkel
Certified Public Accountant
For Respondent:
Anna Jovanovich
Counsel
O P I N I O N
'This appeal is made pursuant to section 2566&
of the Revenue and Taxation Code from the action of the
Franchise Tax Board on the protest of Specialty
Rastaurants Corporation against proposed assessments of
additional franchise tax in the amounts of $12,096 and
$25,922 for the income years ended June.30, 1977, and
June 30, 1978, respectively.
I/ Unless
____ _ otherwise sgecified, all section references
%e to sections of the-Revenue-and Taxation Code as in
effect for the income years in. issue.
-35-
i
Appeal of Specialty Restaurants Corporation
a
There are five issues presented in this
appeal:
(1) Whether subsidiary corporations which were
in the process of formation during the years in question
should be included within appellant's unitary business.
(2) Whether related corporations which are
engaged. in distinctly separate enterprises should be
combined within appellant's unitary business.
(3) Whether respondent's actions in reducing
appellant's bad debt reserve constituted an abuse of
discretion.
(4) Whether income from the sale of particular
property should be included in the year the promissory
note fcr Fnyment was issued t? appellant or in the y e a r
the proceeds were actually received.
(5) Whether the minimum franchise tax is
payable when the apportioned tax,due from certain unitary
'subsidiaries is less than the minimum .tax,
The following facts give a general view of.
appellant's operations,. The facts which apply only to a
single issue will be discussed in detail in the portion
of thfs appeal which relates directly to that issue,
Appellant is engaged primarily in the restaurant business. Its founder and major shareholder is
David C. Tallichet, St., a former World War II bomber
pilot. Because of Tallichet's interest in vintage
aircraft, many of appellant's restaurants are located at
airports and feature restored aircraft. The majority of
appellant's 50 restaurants and shopping villages.are
located in California and are on publicly owned land near
harbors, railroad stations, and airports.
In addition to the restaurants and shopping
villages, appellant also controls three subsidiaries
which are involved in the aircraft business, One of
these, Military Aircraft Restoration Corporation
(M.A.R.c.), is engaged in the business of purchasing,
restoring, and displaying antique,military aircraft. It
is M.A.R.C. which restores,the planes for use in
conjunction with appellant's airport restaurants.
Appellant owns 6f percent of &other subsidiary, Euroworld, which was incorporated in California on
-36-
0
_
L
:
Appeal of Specialty Restaurants Corporation
July 8, 1977, for the express prirpose of importing a
specified number of aircraft for resale primarily to
Third World nations and airplane enthusiasts. Appellant's partner in this company is Visionair International, Inc., a foreign corporation which helped locate
the airplanes for Euroworld's activities.
Appellant is also involved in a joint venture,
entered into on February 21, 1975, with Vintage Aircraft
International, Inc. As part of the agreement, 24 World
War II fighter bombers were purchased from the government
of Iraq. All of these planes have been kept in Florida,
pending resale. One has undergone restoration in Texas,
but none of them have been used in conjunction with
appellant's restaurant business.
In X.93, appellant's frarchlsc tax returns for
the income years ended June 30, 1977, and June 30, 1978,
were audited by respondent. Nine areas of potential
discrepancies were found, and Notices of Additional Tax
Proposed to be Assessqd were sent to appellant on
March 20, 1981. Appellant protested the proposed assessinents and a hearing was held on October 26, 1982.
Respondent affirmed its position on five of the.issues
and-four were resolved in appellant's favor. Appellant
was notified of this result by notices of action sent by
respondent on October 17, 1983, in response to which
appellant filed this timely appeal.
0
The first issue presented in this appeal is
whether subsidiary corporations which were in the process
of formation during the years in issue were includible in
appellant's combined report.
.
l
Appellant has an Atlanta Hill restaurant which
opened to the public in 1982. Appellant selected the
site for the restiiurant ori January 24, 1977, and Atlanta
Hill was incorporated on August 29, 1977. All other
activities relating to Atlanta Hill were initiated after
the appeal years. For example, the land was not purchased until 1979 and construction did not begin until,
1981.
Appellant, allegedly for internal purposes,
oonsidered Atlanta Hill to be an "inactive company"
because it was in its development state. However, it is
appellant's position that because it was involved with
the financing and management of Atlanta Hill during its
development, it should be-considered part of appellant's
unitary business.
i
Appeal of Specialty Restaurants Corporation
Respondent does not dispute that Atlanta Hill
was part of appellant's unitary business once it was
fully operational, but in the income years at issue, it
is respondent's position that Atlanta Hill had not
commenced doing business. In support of its position,
respondent notes that Atlanta Hill is not listed as a
going concern in appellant's annual report for the years
in issue.
We have held that a subsidiary can be part of a
unitary business from the time it commences business in
this state. (Appeal of Household Finance Corporation,
Cal. St. Bd. of Equal., Nov. 20, 1968.) Section 23101
defines "doing business" as. actively engaging in any
transaction for the purpose of financial or pecuniary
gain or profit.. The regulations provide that a
corporation may be considered to have commenced doing
business at ar,y time acter ij;s artir?.es of incor2oratisn
are filed. (Cal. Admin. Code, tit. 18, reg. 23222.)
In the present case, Atlanta Hill's articles of
incorporation were filed on August 29, 1977. The only
activity conducted during the
the__s&egtion of a site for the
not purchased and construction
the appeal years. Selecting a
appeal.years, however, was
restaurant. The land was
did not begin until after
site, under these circum-
stances, seems clearly to constitute an act-preliminary
to doing business. (See Appeal of Devmar, Inc., Cal. St.
Bd. of Equal., Feb. 6, 1973.) .We must conclude,
therefore, that Atlanta Hill was not "doing business"
during the years at issue.
A second subsidiary, Boatyard Village, was
incorporated on May 15, 1978, just six weeks before the
close of the last income year at issue. The site was
selected on October 27, 1977, by appellant, but all other
activities relating to this corporation did not commence
until after the period in issue. For the reasons
discussed in detail above, we conclude that respondent's
action as to Boatyard Village must also be sustained.
The second issue is whether two of appellant's
other subsidiaries, Euroworld and Sea Furies, were part
of its. unitary business. On its corporate franchise tax
return, appellant included Euroworld as part of its
unitary group. Euroworld is in the business of acquiring
vintage aircraft for resale. Appellant contends that
Euroworld is part of its unitary business because (1) it
.
has majority ownership with appellant: (2) it has interlocking boards of directors and common officers with
-38-
.
.
i
Appeal of Specialty Restaurants Corporation
appellant; (3) it has joint use of offices, facilities,
equipment, and labor with appellant; (4) it has joint
management functions and common accounting and budgeting
with appellant; (5) it has centralized accounting and tax
services with appellant; and (6) it has common legal
counsel, accounting, tax services and financing with
appellant.
0
Respondent concluded that Euroworld was not a
part of appellant's unitary business because appellant
did not provide any information which would indicate that
Euroworld's operations were integrated i
appellant's unitary restaurant business.
position is that appellant was merely overseeing its
investments and that Euroworld's activities were completely separate and apart from appellant's. Euroworld
was formed to purchase 31.specific aircraft from the
%~,a1 ~Moic~ct'an tir Force. The'plarles were to be sold,
primarily, to the Honduran Air Force and to other
interested parties. There is no evidence that any of the
aircraft were used in connection with appellant's
restaurants.
kesiondentws,determination is ptesumptively
correct, and appellant bears the burden of proving that
it is incorrect. (Appeal of The Amwalt Group, Inc., Cal.
St. Bd. of Equal., June 25, 1985.) Appellant must,
therefore, show that the relationship of Euroworld to
appellant was of sufficient substance to demonstrate the
existence of a single unitary business.
The existence of a unitary business is established if either of two tests is met. (Appeal of F. W.
Woolworth Compan , Cal. St. Bd. of Equal., July 31,
1972 ) The Cali%ornia Supreme Court has determined that
the ixistence of a unitary business is definitely estab(1) unity of ownership; (2)
lished by the presence of:
unity of operation as evidenced by,central purchasing,
advertising, accounting, and management divisions; and
(3) unity of use in its centralized executive force and
general system of operation. (Butler Bros. v. McColgan,
17 Cal.2d 664, 678 (19411, affd., 315 U.S.. 501 186 L.Ed
9911 ('19421.) The court has also stated that a businesi
q Respondent has agreed thdt another subsidiary,
0
Military Aircraft Restoration Corporation, was part of
the unitary business, because it restores and supplies
airplanes which are used in conjunction with appellant's
airport restaurants.
-39-
.
.
L
0
Appeal of Specialty Restaurants Corporation
is unitary when the operation of the portion of the
business done within California is dependent upon or
.contributes to the operation of the business outside
California. (Edison California Stores, Inc. v. McColqan,
30 Cal.2d 472, 481 L183 P.2d 161 (19471.) Subsequent
cases have affirmed these tests and given them broad
application.' (Superior Oil Co. v. Franchise Tax Board,
60 Cal.2d 406 [34 Cal.Rptr. 545 (1983); Hon;lul; Oil
Franchise Tax Board, 60 Cal.2d 41 13
v,
Corp.
CaLRptr. 5521 (1963)..) In order for appellant to carry
its burden of proof, it must show that it is functionally
integrated with Euroworld: and that Euroworld is more than
an unrelated investment. (Appeals of Santa Anita
Consolidated, Inc., et al., Cal. St. Bd. of Equal.,
Apr. 5, 1984.)
We have held that, in the case of affiliated
corporations, both of the unitary tests require controlling ownership. (Appeal of Revere Copper and Brass,
July 26, 1977,) ControlCal. St. Bd. of Equal
$$ownership does not req;ire lOO-percent stockownership, but simply common ownership,'directly or ---indirectly, of more than 50 percent of a corporation's
votfng stock. (Appeal of Saga Corporation, Cal. St,.Bd.
of Equal.,, June 29, 1982.) In the present easer unity_ of
ownership did exist as appellant owned two-thirds of the
outstanding stock of Euroworld. Respondent argues,
however, that the unities of use and operation were not
present and that contribution or dependency did not exist
between the corporations. We agree with respondent,
.
In the case of vertical or horizontal integration, the benefits to the group from certain basic
connections are usually readily apparent. In a situation
such as this one, however, where.the appellant annd
Euroworld each engaged in a distinct type of business,
without vertical or horizontal integration, we must
scrutinize the connections labeled "unitary factors" to
see if. in substance, they result in a single unitary
business the income of which is appropriately reflected
in a combined report. "Where the businesses are distinct
in nature, the mere recital of a number of centralized
functions is not sufficient, in our opinion, to establish
unity of operation, unity of use or contribution or
dependency between the operations." (Appeal of Allied
a7
,
Properties, Cal. St. Bd. of Equal., Mar,
Appeal of The Amwalt Group, Inc., supra.)
Appellant contends that unity of operation was
demonstrated by the financing provided by appellant and
-4o.
:_
l
0
..
..
Appeal of Specialty Restaurants Corporation
the loans that appellant guaranteed for Euroworld. We
agree with‘appellant that intercompany financing has been
considered "substantial evidence of unity of operation.'
(Chase Brass & Copper Co. v. Franchise Tax Board, 10
Cal.App.3d 496, 503 187 Cal.Rptr. 2391, app. dim. and
cert. den., 400 U.S. 961 [27 L.Ed.Zd 3811 (19701.) In
this case, however, the financing and guarantees provided
by appellant were not used for any common business
peal of Simco, Incorporated,
activity. As we stated in
decided October 27, 1964, n If such financing results in
a unitary business virtually every business would be
unitary no matter how unrelated were the various
activities."
There is evidence that unity of staff functions
did exraL to the exterlt of common directors and officers,
offices, legal oounsel, tax and accounting counsel, and
centralized corporate records. This, in itself, however,
is not conclusive, As we stated in Appeal of Santa Anita
Consolidated, Inc., et al., supra:
0
To demonstrate the.existence of a single
unitary business, it is necessary to do more
than simply list circumstances which are .
labeled "unitary factors." Such "factors"
are distinguishing features of a unitary
business only when they show that there was
functional integration between the corporations or divisions involved. We must
distinguish "between those cases in which
unitary labels are applied to transactions
and circumstances which, upon examination,
have no real substance, and those in which
the factors involved show such a significant
interrelationship among the related entities
they all must be considered to be parts
of a single integrated economic enterprise."
(Appeal of Saga Corporation, Cal. St.-Rd. of
Equal-, June 29, 1982.)
that
.
The facts available show that the airplanes
purchased by Euroworld were never used in appellant's
restaurants or shopping centers. Rather, it appears that
appellant's major shareholder,‘David Tallichet, Jr., was
purchasing aircraft because of his interest in vintage
airplanes. In sum, we find that the executive assistance
provided, by appellant lacks unitary significance because
it did not result in any integration between Euroworld
and appellant. Likewise, the financial guidance provided
-41-
Y
.
__
.
Appeal of Specialty Restaurants Corporation
merely indicates appellant's,interest in overseeing its
investments and providing funds so that Euroworld could
further its independent operations. There is also no
evidence that the common directors or officers‘had any
real control over Euroworld's actioites. It has not been
shown that any of the officers, other than Tallichet, had
any knowledge about the aircraft purchased by Euroworld.
Unity of use and operation, therefore, cannot be said to
have existed to any meaningful extent.
‘\
.
The lack of unity is also clear when judged by
the contribution or dependency test. The preceding
discussion shows that the,unitary factors propounded by
appellant do not show that the operations of appellant
'and Euroworld contributed to or depended on each‘other in
such a way as to compel the conclusion that both corporations were engaged in a single,integrated ecoro-ic enterprise. They are merely two commonly owned enterprises
which are unrelated operationally.
The other subsidiary, Sea Furies, is a joint
venture entered into between Tallichet and a representative of Vintage Aircraft International to purchase, for
'25es&e;-24 Hawker Sea Furies from the Iraqi Air Force. A
contract with Vi,ntage was signed February 21, 1975.
Appellant contends that it is unitary with Sea Furies
because it provided financing for the business operation,
general management, and other centralized services for
Sea Furies.
For the reasons discussed in detail above in
connection with Euroworld, we cannot conclude that
appellant is unitary with Sea Furies. Buying airplanes
to sell at retail is not a business that contributes or
depends on appellant's restaurant business. Bather, this
business, like Euroworld's, appears to be a personal
interest of Talliehet's, In the absence of any integration between Sea Furies and appellant, we must conclude
.
that the businesses are not unitary.
The third issue presented in this appeal is
whether respondentas actions in reducing appellant's bad
debt reserve constituted an abuse of discretion.
Appellant files its tax returns using the
reserve method of.deducting bad'debts. The formula used
to compute reserves is based upon an analysis of the
aging accounts receivable and applying the known facts of
each case. Generally, included in the reserve are all
accounts past due 90 days, and over 50 percent of those
0
‘:
.
-42.
”
0
..
P
Appeal of Specialty Restaurants Corporation
,
past due 60 to 90 days and all returned checks. Exceptions are made for certain factors based upon the taxpayer's knowledge of the customers and circumstances.
All past due accounts are closely monitored and repeatedly billed after 30, 60, and 75 days. After 9O'days, a
written request for write-off is prepared for approval of
a regional-manager. After 120 days,- accounts are written
off and forwarded to the central office for collection.
Usually, another 120 days pass before the account is
finally written off.
Respondent, using a six-year moving average
formula as defined in Black Motor Co. v. C&missioner, 41
B.T.A. 300 (1940), affd., 125 F.2d 977 (6th Cir. 1942),
determined that appellant's reserve for bad debts was
excessive. Appellant, however, believes that its method
used to determcne the bad debt reserve'is reasonable and
'that its formula is .bettcr bacausr Tt considers essential
factors such as industry practice and experience, the
.general business and economic environment, and the facts
and circumstances of each individual delinquent account.
Appellant further contends that the Black Motor formula,
which is dependent upon the timing of write-offs,.results
.
in an improper and unreasonable-year-end
reserve.
._
Subdivision (a) of section 24348 provides:
"There shall be allowed as a deduction debts which become
worthless within the income year; err in the discretion
of the Franchise Tax Board, a reasonable addition to a
reserve for bad debts." This language is substantially
the same as that of Internal Revenue Code section 166(c).
Consequently, federal precedent is persuasive in
interpreting section 24348. (Meanley v. McColgan, 49.
Cal.App.2d 203 f121 P.2d 451 (1942).)
As we have noted in previous opinions, respondent's determinations with respect to additions to a
reserve for bad debts carry great weight because of the
express discretion granted it by statute. When the
Franchise Tax Board disallows an addition to a reserve
for bad debts, the taxpayer must not only demonstrate
that additions to the reserve were reasonable, but also
must establish that respondent's actions in disallowing
those additions were arbitrary and amounted to-an abuse
of discretion.
choosing-to use the reserve method, appellant has
-43-
_
Appeal of Specialty Restaurants Corporation
subjected itself to the reasonable discretion of respondent. (Union National Bank & Trust Co. of Elgin v.
Commissioner, 26 T.C. 537 (19561.)
A bad debt reserve is essentially an estimate
of future losses which can reasonably be expected to
result from debts outstanding at the close of the taxable
year. '(Valmont Industries, Inc. v. Commissioner, 73 T.C.
1059 (1980).) Under the reserve method of handling bad
debts, the reserve is reduced by charging against it
specific bad debts which become worthless during the
income year and is increased by crediting it with
reasonable additions. What is reasonable will depend on
the total amount of debts outstanding at the end of the
including current debts, as well as those of prior
~~a"f6, and the total amount of the existing reserve.
As was previously stated, respondent used the
Black Motor formula, which is a formula which applies
appellant's own experiences with losses in prior years
and establishes a percentage level for the reserve in
determining the-need for and amount of a current addition. .Appellant has not shown that respondent's use of.
the six-year moving average formula was arbitrary or
amounted to an abuse of discretion. Appellant contends
that the Black Motor formula does not adapt itself to the
method appellant uses.to write off its delinquent
accounts. The Black Motor formula is dependent upon the
timing of write-offs. Appellant, therefore, contends
that because its method of writing off debts is very
slow, that the Black Motor formula results in an improper
and unreasonable year-end reserve, We cannot agree. It
is well established that if a taxpayer's most recent bad
debt experience is unrepresentative for some reason, a
formula using that experience as data cannot be expected
to produce a "reasonable" addition for the current year.
(Thor Power Tool Co. v. Commissioner, 439 U.S. 522 [58
I,:-) In this case, appellant has not
s&c& either changes in conditions of business in general
or changes in customers specifically, Unless appellant
can establish conditions that will cause future debt
collections to be less likely than in the past, we cannot
conclude that the Black Motor formula is unreliable.
As was stated above, when the Franchise Tax
Board disallows an addition to a reserve, the taxpayer
must not only establish that respondentes actions in
disallowing the additions were arbitrary, but the
taxpayer must also establish that the additions to the
-44-
i
,
0
,
Appeal of Specialty Restaurants Corporation
reserve were reasonable. Here, we must conclude that
appellant has failed on both requirements.
The fourth issue presented in this appeal is
’
whether income from the sale of property should be
included in the year the promissory note received in
payment was issued to appellant or in the year the note
was actually'paid off. :
0
_..
On September 27, 1977, appellant sold to an
unrelated third party all leasehold improvements located
at Portland Village. Payment for the leasehold improvement consisted of the assumption of a mortgage payable in
the amount of $1,042,500 and issuance of a promissory
note. The promissory note was for the face amount of
$300,000; however, the terms of the obligation provided
for 3 sub&zantial discount if paid off early, and
principal payments were contingent upon the amounts of
rental income received by the buyer. Subsequently, in
accordance with the provision of the note relating to the
discount, $200,000 was received in the calendar year
ended December 31, 1979, as payment in full, and was
included in the corporate franchise tax return for the
fKEc%iGyear ended June 30, 1980.
.
Appellant contends that due to the contingency
involved and the uncertainty of collection, the obligation had no fair market value at the time of the sale.
It did not include the amount of the note in its return
for the income year ended June 30, 1978. Respondent's
audit staff included the en re $300,000 as income in the
year the note was executed. 9
Section 24651, subdivision (a), provides that
income shall be computed "under the method of accounting
on the basis of which the taxpayer regularly computes its
income in keeping its books." Appellant maintains its
records on an accrual method. It is elementary that
where a taxpayer keeps its books on an accrual basis, it
. is the right to receive and not the actual receipt of
such income that determines the year in which it is
includible in gross income. (Spring City Foundry Co. v.
0'
y At the administrative protest level, respondent
agreed to allow the final figure to be $200,000, as that
was the amount appellant actually received, according to
the terms of the note, in its fiscal year ended June 30,
1980. However, respondent maintains its position that
the amount is includible on the 1978 return.
-45.-
._I
.
f.
Appeal of Specialty Restaurants Corporation
ComnisGioner, 292 U.S. 182 [78 L.Ed. 12001 (1934); Appeal
of Dant Investment Corporation,. Cal. St. Bd. of Equal.,
Mar. 2., 1977.) In the case of gains from the sale of
property, the accrual basis taxpayer realizes gain when a
sale is completed and the right to receive payment
becomes unqualified because the buyer is unconditionally
liable to,pay the purchase price. (Lucas v. North Texas
Lumber Co., 281 U.S. 11 [74 L.Ed. 6681 (1930);
Commissioner v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 86 F.2d 637
(2d Cir. 1936).) For tax purposes, a completed or closed
transaction results from a contract of sale which is
absolute and unconditional on the part of the seller to
deliver title to the buyer upon payment of the consideration, and by which the purchaser secures immediate
possession and exercises all the rights of ownership.
,(Appeal of N.S.B. Corporation, Cal. St. Bd. of Equal.,
Dec. 5, 19&c?.) A delay .in actual pJlmant does ;lot
prevent the earlier accrual of income, as long as the
contract gives the seller the unqualified right to
receive the purchase price. (See Consolidated Gas &
equipment Co, of America, 35 T.C. 675 (1961).)
In this case, appellant received the note which
was binding on the issuer in the income year.ended
June 30, 1978. Quite clearly, this is the year in which
..the income must be reported. Appellant contends that
because of the uncertainty of collection, the note had no
fair market value at the time of the sale. We cannot
agree. While we recognize that under some circumstances
a taxpayer.is not required to accrue income which it
knows to be uncollectible, there is nothing in the facts
of this case which indicates that by June 30, 1978,
appellant had any reason to believe that the note would
not be paid. (See Appeal of Alum Rock Development
Cal. St. Bd. of.Equal., Dec. 29, 1958.) In the
F
sence of this evidence, we must conclude that because
appellant had the right to enforce a collectible debt
during its fiscal year, the value of the note was
accruable in the income year ended June 30, 1978,.
The final issue presented in this appeal is
whether the minimum franchise tax is payable when the
apportioned tax due from certain unitary subsidiaries is
less than the mininum tax.
In its brief, appellant states that respondent
has held that certain of its subsidiaries are not part of
its unitary business. In fact, respondent acknowledges
that these subsidiaries are part of appellant's unitary
.
-46.
.
Appeal of Specialty Restaurants Corporation
business. Respondent, however, has assessed the minimum
franchise tax on each of these corporations.
Section. 23151 provides that, with the exception
of financial corporations,. every corporation which does
business in California must pay a tax for the privilege
of exercising its corporate franchise. Section 23153
provides that each corporation must pay at least a
minimum tax for the privilege conferred. Since each
corporation in question did business in California, we
*
must conolude that the action by respondent is
appropriate.
In sum, for the reasons discussed in detail
we
conclude
that the action taken by respondent in
above,
t-hl+ appeal must be upheld.
,
-47-
c
Appeal of Specialty Restaurants Corporation
O R D E R
Pursuant to the views expressed in the opinion
of the board on file in this proceeding, and good cause
appearing therefor,
IT. IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECRE$D,
pursuant to section 25667 of the Revenue and Taxation
Code, that the action of the Franchise Tax Board on the
'protest of Specialty Restaurants CorporatSon against
.proposed assessments of additional franchise tax in the
amounts of $12,096 and $29,922 for the income years ended
June 30, 1977, and June 30, 1978, respectively, be and
the sami is hereby sustained.
Done qt Sacr,tmen.to, California, this 10th day
Of Septemberr 1986, by the State Board of Equalization,
with Board Members Mr. Nevins, Mr. Collis, Mr. Dronenburg
and Mr. Harvey present.
r
Richard Nevins
-I Chairman
Conway H. Collis
# Member
Ernest J.
Dronenburs.
Walter
Jr-
Harvey*
#
Member
8
Member
Member
*For Kenneth Cory, per Government Code section 7.9'
,
-48-
.
.’
.-.-
.
c
0.
Fly UP