What keeper fees did California staff calculate under the collection statutes in effect in 1995?

Short answer Staff calculated a $300 first-day maximum for installation plus three keeper shifts, and $246 for each later day, rejecting an unsupported increase in the daily custody fee.
State
CA
Ruling
Annotation 170.0007.750
Tax type
Sales and Use Tax
Issued
1995-09-14
Issued by
California State Board of Equalization
Requested by
The Board's Supervisor of Collections
Topics

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1995. Ask about yours and see what current California tax law says, with citations.

Currency note: this ruling is from 1995
Subsequent statutory amendments, regulation changes, court decisions, or later rulings may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current tax advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, rate, or position mentioned here.
Disclaimer: This September 14, 1995 internal memorandum calculates dollar fees under statutes then in effect. The amounts are historical and should not be treated as current sheriff or levy charges. Current statutory rates, local schedules, number and necessity of keepers, custody duration, services performed, and later amendments control.
About this page: The plain-English summary, reader guidance, and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official state tax ruling. The original ruling (linked on this page as a PDF) is the authoritative source for any reliance.
View original ruling (PDF)

Plain-English summary

California legal staff calculated the maximum 1995 keeper charges for property held under levy as $300 for the first day and $246 for each later day when three separate keepers provided 24-hour coverage.

The calculation combined a $75 installation fee under Government Code section 26722 with up to three $75 eight-hour keeper shifts under section 26726(a). After the first day, section 26726(b) added a $21 daily custody charge. The memorandum rejected a schedule that changed that $21 amount to $24 without justification.

Staff noted that the levying officer had discretion over how many people were necessarily employed and could charge an additional $75 for people other than the on-premises keeper who cared for levied property.

Common questions

What was the first-day maximum in the memorandum?

$300 for installation plus three keeper shifts.

What was the maximum for each additional day?

$246 under the rates discussed.

Did staff approve increasing the $21 daily fee to $24?

No.

Citations and references

  • California Government Code section 26722 — $75 installation/service fee quoted
  • California Government Code section 26726 — keeper-shift and custody fees quoted
  • California Government Code section 26738 — not-found return referenced
  • Nisbet v. Clio Mining Co. (1905) 2 Cal.App. 436 — additional property-care personnel cited

Source

Original ruling text

State of California

Board of Equalization

170.0007.750

Memorandum
To:

From:

Subject:

Mr. Rick Slater
Supervisor of Collections

Date:

September 14, 1995

Ronald L. Dick
Supervising Staff Counsel
Keeper Fees
This is in reply to your July 10, 1995, memorandum concerning the Ventura District Office’s inquiry on the maximum keeper’ s fees permitted by the Government Code. Government Code section 26722 provides: “The fee for serving; executing, or processing any writ or order where the levying officer is required to take immediate possession of the property levied upon is seventy-five dollars ($75.00).” Government Code section 26726 provides: “(a) The fee for keeping and caring for property under a writ of attachment, execution, possession, or sale shall not exceed seventy-five dollars, ($75,00) when necessarily employed for any eight-hour period or any part thereof. If an additional keeper or keepers are required during these periods; the fee for the additional keeper or keepers shall be the same as fixed but, in no event shall any one keeper receive more than one hundred fifty dollars ($150.00) during any 24-hour period when so employed. “(b) In addition to the fees provided by section 26721, the fee for maintaining custody of property under levy by the use of a keeper is twenty-one dollars ($21.00) for each day custody is maintained after the first day. “(c) Notwithstanding any other fee charged, a keeper shall receive twenty one dollars ($21.00) when pursuant to section 26738 a levying officer prepares a not found return.” We believe a levying officer may charge the Board $75.00 pursuant to Government Code section 26722 to install a keeper. The levying officer may charge for each eight-hour period, or fraction thereof, that a keeper performs his or her duties as provided in Government Code section26726(a). If the levying officer installs a separate keeper for another eight-hour shift, up to a maximum of three separate keepers for a 24-hour period, the maximum amount that should

Mr. Rick Slater

-2-

September 14, 1995
170.0007.750

be charged pursuant to Government Code section 26726(a) is $225.00 per day. After the first day that a keeper is installed, a separate charge of $21.00 pursuant to Government Code section 26726(b) is applicable. The maximum amount that should be charged to install a keeper and to provide 24-hour coverage (three separate keepers per day) is $300.00 for the first day and $246.00 for each additional day. We note that Government Code section 26726(a) appears to give the levying officer discretion to decide how many persons are to be “necessarily employed” or “required” “for keeping and caring for property.” The levying officer may charge an additional $75.00 for the expense of persons other than the keeper installed at the debtor’s premises to care for property levied upon. See Nisbet v. Clio Min. Co. (1905) 2 Ca1.App. 436. In the fee schedule attached to Doug Carroll’s memorandum, fees are apparently charged for four separate keepers per day to provide 24-hour keeper coverage in addition to the $75.00 Government Code section 26722 fee. We note the fee schedule attached to Mr. Carroll’s memorandum is altered to change the
$21.00 fee authorized under Government Code section 26726(b) to $24.00. We see no justification for that increased fee. Otherwise, we believe the schedule shows fees that would be authorized under the law. RLD/TJC/cmm

What does the law say today, for your facts?

This ruling is from 1995. Ezel checks current California tax law against your situation and cites the authority it relies on.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace