In 1997, in an attempt to clarify the sometimes blurry distinction between a government “fee” and a government “tax,” the California Supreme Court explained that “taxes are imposed for revenue purposes, rather than in return for a specific benefit conferred or a privilege granted.” (Sinclair Paint Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization (1997) 15 Cal.4th 866, 874.) Recently, on August 18, 2009, California?s Fourth Appellate District Court further clarified the distinction in Weisblat, et al., v. City of San Diego (Super. Ct. No. GIC871893). The issue was whether the City of San Diego?s “Tax Collection Fee” charged to landowners to cover the expense of collecting and administering the City' rental unit business tax was, in fact, a general tax. The court held that it was a general tax because the purpose of the Tax Collection Fee was not to provide a government service to landlords (such as building inspection), but rather to facilitate the City's general tax collection efforts (processing rental tax applications, answering taxpayer questions, and generating and mailing out billing statements to collect the rental tax). As a general tax, the court voided the Tax Collection Fee because the City Council levied it in 2004 without approval of a majority of qualified voters in the City as required by the California Constitution. The City?s underlying rental unit business tax, which was established in 1942 and generates $11 million annually, was not challenged and remains in effect.