Existing law restricts a state agency’s access to specified financial records, except, among other things, the disclosure to the State Board of Equalization of information relating to specified taxes.
This bill would additionally permit disclosure of information relating to specified other special taxes.
Existing law requires the State Board of Equalization to conduct surveys with respect to the procedures, practices, and general performance of county assessors. It requires the board to include in its survey a sampling of local assessments, requires the board to audit, where useful, the original accounting records of any person owning or controlling property included in a survey, requires a board survey to include certain information concerning the supplying, funding, and staffing of the assessor’s office being surveyed, and specifies a process for a response by a surveyed assessor to a board survey report.
This bill would make these duties permissive rather than mandatory. It would also require a State Board of Equalization survey to include a review of assessor practices with respect to the uniform treatment of all classes of property subject to tax, require that board surveys of the 10 largest counties and cities and counties, and, except as otherwise provided, of at least 3 counties annually selected at random, include samplings of local assessments, and authorize the board to contract with a requesting county or city and county to perform a survey not otherwise scheduled. This bill would also reduce the period in which a county assessor may respond to a board survey from 90 to 30 days, authorize the board to extend this period for good cause, require the board to issue a final survey within 2 years of commencement, and require a county assessor to annually report with respect to county implementation of board findings and recommendations contained in a board survey report. By placing additional reporting requirements on county assessors, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
The California Constitution generally limits ad valorem taxes on real property to 1% of the full cash value of that property. For purposes of this limitation, “full cash value” is defined as the assessor’s valuation of real property as shown on the 1975–76 tax bill under “full cash value” or, thereafter, the appraised value of that real property when purchased, newly constructed, or a change in ownership has occurred.
Existing statutory provisions implementing this constitutional authority provide, as specified, that the taxable value of real property for any fiscal year is the lower of that property’s fair market value or that property’s full cash value base, as adjusted for inflation.
This bill would require, for purposes of this inflation adjustment, that the applicable inflation percentage be rounded to the nearest one-thousandth of 1%.
Existing property tax statutes implementing the definition of “full cash value” provides that the term “change in ownership” does not include certain transfers, including any transfer of a lessor’s interest in taxable real property subject to a lease with a remaining term, including renewal options, of 35 years or more.
This bill would make a technical, clarifying change with respect to a conclusive presumption contained in this provision with respect to the length of a renewal option.
The California Constitution also excludes from the terms “purchase” and “change in ownership” the purchase or transfer of the principal residence of the transferor, or the purchase or transfer of the first $1,000,000 of all other real property, in the case of a transfer between parents and their children, as defined by the Legislature. As amended at the March 26, 1996, primary election, the California Constitution also extends these exclusions to similar purchases or transfers of real property between grandparents and their grandchildren, as defined by the Legislature, in the case in which all of the parents of those grandchildren, who themselves qualify as the children of those grandparents, are deceased.
Existing statutory law implements constitutional authority for exclusions for purchases or transfers of real property between parents and children, but does not implement constitutional authority for purchases or transfers of real property between grandparents and their grandchildren.
This bill would, as provided, implement constitutional authority for exclusions from the terms “purchase” and “change in ownership” for purchases and transfers of real property between grandparents and grandchildren. By placing additional duties on local tax officials in the administration of these exclusions, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
Existing property tax law provides for the proration of property taxes assessed on the supplemental property tax roll in accordance with specified proration factors corresponding to dates upon which a change in ownership of property or the new construction of property is deemed to have occurred.
This bill would provide for a proration factor of 0.42, rather than 0.25, in the case in which the change in ownership or new construction is presumed to have occurred on February 1.
Existing property tax law with respect to supplemental tax assessments authorizes an eligible county, as defined, to recover its costs of administering the supplemental property tax roll.
This bill would explicitly extend this authority to a city and county, and would, in the case in which a board survey finds that no significant assessment problems exist, allow that survey to be conducted without the sampling of local assessments.
Existing property tax law authorizes any eligible county, as defined, to participate in the State-County Property Tax Administration Program (SCPTAP) by means of a contractual agreement with the Department of Finance, and authorizes a loan, as specified, to that eligible county under that agreement. SB 218 would modify the SCPTAP as to the administration of that program with respect to certain counties.
This bill would amend the SCPTAP, as modified by SB 218, to also require the State Board of Equalization, at the request of the Department of Finance, to assist that department in evaluating contracts entered into pursuant to the State-County Property Tax Administration Program.
Existing property tax law authorizes a party to recover damages from the contracting state or local public entity with whom the party has a contract creating a possessory interest in real property, where the private party can show that without the agency’s inclusion of a required notice in the contract concerning the potential tax liability for that interest, the party had no actual knowledge of the existence of a possessory interest tax.
This bill would delete an obsolete statutory reference in that provision.
Existing law authorizes a county board of supervisors to provide by ordinance for the reassessment of property that is damaged or destroyed, without fault on the part of the assessee, by a major misfortune or calamity, upon the application of the assessee or upon the action of the county assessor with the board’s approval. Existing law requires the reassessed value of the damaged or destroyed property to be applied to that portion of the fiscal year in which the damage or destruction occurred that is subsequent to that damage or destruction.
This bill would clarify the meaning of the term “fiscal year” for purposes of applying these reassessment provisions in the levy of supplemental property taxes.
Existing provisions of the California Constitution provide that specified publicly owned property is exempt from ad valorem property taxation.
This bill would provide that any property that is exclusively devoted to public purposes and is owned by a nonprofit entity, the property, assets, profits, and net revenues of which are irrevocably dedicated to the Ventura Port District, shall be deemed to be property owned by the Ventura Port District. This bill would, with respect to these provisions, make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity for a special statute.
Existing law provides, pursuant to the authorization of the California Constitution, for the exemption from property taxation of the home of a person or that person’s spouse in the case in which the person has, as a result of a service-connected disease or injury, died while on active duty in military service. Existing law also establishes methods for the property tax valuation of enforceably restricted historical property.
This bill would correct obsolete references to federal entities in those provisions.
Existing property tax law requires the State Board of Equalization to issue to county assessors data relating to the costs of property, and other information that in the board’s judgment will promote uniformity in appraisal practices and assessed values.
This bill would additionally authorize the board, after a public hearing, to review and approve commercially available data with respect to commercial and industrial property.
Existing property tax law provides that, effective with the January 1, 1997, lien date, the property tax lien date is established as the January 1 immediately preceding the fiscal year for which property taxes are levied.
This bill would provide that contracts entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 and recorded between January 1, 1997, and February 28, 1997, and land zoned as timberland pursuant to specified statutory provisions between January 1, 1997, and February 28, 1997, shall be deemed timely for purposes of inclusion on the January 1, 1997, property tax roll.
Existing property tax law requires each person owning taxable personal property, other than a mobilehome taxed under specified provisions, to file with the assessor a signed property statement if that person’s taxable personal property has an aggregate cost of $30,000 or more for the initial assessment year or an aggregate cost of $100,000 or more for any subsequent assessment year.
This bill would eliminate the $30,000 threshold amount for the initial assessment year, and instead apply the $100,000 threshold amount for all assessment years.
Existing property tax law requires that penalties of a specified percentage of additional assessed value be imposed in the case in which an escape assessment is levied in connection with a taxpayer’s willful evasion or fraud.
This bill would make clarifying revisions to these provisions, and would make other technical, nonsubstantive changes.
Existing property tax law provides that a party affected by an equalization proceeding or the county assessor may object to the hearing of a matter before a member of the assessment appeals board and specifies a procedure for determining the disqualification of the member.
This bill would change that disqualification procedure in various ways. The bill would provide that an objection to a member shall be presented at the earliest practicable opportunity after the party’s discovery of the facts constituting the ground for disqualification, instead of after the party’s appearance and discovery of those facts. The bill would provide that, when the affected parties cannot agree on who will determine the matter of disqualification, the clerk of the assessment appeals board, instead of the county board of supervisors, shall assign a member to hear and determine the matter.
Existing property tax law allows the correction of certain errors resulting in incorrect entries on the property tax roll, including the failure to reflect a decline in the taxable value of real property as required by a specified statutory provision.
This bill would make technical, clarifying changes with respect to correcting a failure to reflect a decline in the taxable value of real property as required by this specified statutory provision.
Existing property tax law requires the State Board of Equalization to establish standards and fix guides to be used by county assessors in the assessment of aircraft at market value.
This bill would, for the same purpose, require the board to also review and approve commercially available guides, after a public hearing.
The Sales and Use Tax Law provides, under regulations prescribed by the State Board of Equalization, that if both spouses’ names appear on an application for a seller’s permit, as specified, and a tax liability under the sales and use tax law is unreported or understated due to certain omissions of one spouse, and the other spouse did not know of, and had no reason to know of, the understatement, and certain other criteria are met, then the other spouse shall be relieved of liability for tax, interest, and penalties attributable to that understatement, as provided. Existing law provides that this relief provision does not apply to any calendar quarter that has been closed by a statute of limitations, res judicata, or otherwise.
This bill would eliminate the requirement that both spouses’ names appear as applicants on the permit application. The bill would allow similar relief when any amount of the tax reported on a return was unpaid, and the nonpayment of the reported tax liability is attributable to one spouse. The bill would instead provide that this relief provision shall not apply to any calendar quarter that is more than 5 years from the date on which the board issued determination becomes final, 5 years from the return due date for nonpayment on a return, or one year from the first contact with the spouse making a claim for relief, or closed by res judicata.
The bill would make related changes.
The Sales and Use Tax Law provides for the specified payment of taxes, including payment by electronic funds transfer.
This bill would provide under that law that any person who fails to file a return, as provided, shall pay a penalty of 10% of the taxes due. This bill would limit the penalties imposed for a failure to file and for specified violations of the electronic funds transfer provisions, to a maximum of 10% of the taxes due for any one return.
The Sales and Use Tax Law imposes a tax on the gross receipts from the sale in this state of, or the storage, use, or other consumption in this state of, tangible personal property. That law requires distributors of motor vehicle fuel to collect prepayments of sales tax on motor vehicle fuel from the person to whom the fuel is distributed. The rate per gallon of the prepayment is established annually by the State Board of Equalization, as provided, on the arithmetic average selling price of gasoline as determined by a specified publication.
This bill would allow the board to base its determination on other sources of the arithmetic average selling price of gasoline, in the event that publication is delayed or discontinued.
The Sales and Use Tax Law provides, among other things, for the prepayment of sales tax on motor vehicle fuel distributions.
This bill would provide, for purposes of those prepayment provisions, that the term “fuel” shall include diesel fuel as that term is defined by the Diesel Fuel Tax Law.
The Sales and Use Tax Law authorizes the State Board of Equalization to require taxpayers to post security up to a maximum of $10,000 whenever the board deems it necessary to insure the payment of taxes due.
This bill would increase that maximum security amount to $50,000, and would allow the board to release the security after a designated period of full compliance by the taxpayer.
The Sales and Use Tax Law establishes specified limitation periods for the approval by the State Board of Equalization of any refund for an overpayment.
This bill would provide that, notwithstanding that provision, a refund of an overpayment of any tax, penalty, or interest collected by the board by means of levy or by other enforcement procedures, shall be approved if a claim is filed within 3 years of the date of overpayment.
The Sales and Use Tax Law and the Integrated Waste Management Fee Law require any person who collects a tax or fee reimbursement in excess of the amount due to either refund the excess to their customer or remit the excess to the state.
This bill would require that excess amounts of taxes or fee reimbursements under the Sales and Use Tax Law, the Motor Vehicle Fuel License Tax Law, the Use Fuel Tax Law, the Hazardous Substances Tax Law, the Oil Spill Response, Prevention, and Administration Fees Law, the Underground Storage Tank Maintenance Fee Law, the Fee Collection Procedures Law, and the Diesel Fuel Tax Law be returned to the customer, as provided.
The Use Fuel Tax Law provides that a fuel user who fails to pay any taxes shall pay a penalty of 10% of the amount of the tax or $50, whichever is greater, as provided.
This bill would provide that the penalty shall be 10% of the amount of the tax.
The Diesel Fuel Tax Law imposes specified taxes that are administered by the State Board of Equalization. That law authorizes the board to issue diesel fuel trip permits to holders of trip permits, as specified, and to enter into an interagency agreement with the Department of Motor Vehicles for the issuance of use fuel trip permits.
This bill would permit the board or its authorized representative to issue a California fuel trip permit to interstate users or holders of trip permits, and would authorize the issuance of California fuel trip permits, instead of use or diesel fuel trip permits.
The Private Railroad Car Tax Law and the Timber Yield Tax Law provide for the payment of interest on underpayments or overpayments of tax imposed by those laws.
This bill would correct statutory references relating to the determination of the applicable interest rate.
The bill would also make technical changes in those provisions.
The Cigarette and Tobacco Products Tax Law authorizes the State Board of Equalization to make determinations of tax under that law under various circumstances.
This bill would authorize the State Board of Equalization to increase or decrease a determination of tax made by the board under the Cigarette and Tobacco Products Tax Law, and would require any increase in a determination to be made pursuant to a claim by the board, asserted within a specified period of years, except as provided.
This bill would impose a state-mandated local program by making it a crime under that law, punishable as a misdemeanor, to possess, sell, offer to sell, purchase, or offer to purchase false or fraudulent stamps or meter impressions.
The Alcoholic Beverage Tax Law requires taxpayers to file security with the State Board of Equalization. That law also imposes a penalty for a failure to file a return of 5% of the estimated tax owing.
This bill would authorize the board to determine the amount and form of that security, and would increase the penalty for failure to file a return to 10% of the estimated tax owing.
The Alcoholic Beverage Tax Law prohibits the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board or any person having an administrative position under that law from making known in any manner certain information that is contained in a winegrower’s report.
This bill would, notwithstanding a specified statute, allow information in a specified vendor’s report relating to beer shipments into this state to be made public.
The Alcoholic Beverage Tax Law imposes specified taxes upon the sale of alcoholic beverages.
This bill would impose a state-mandated local program by making it a crime under that law, punishable as a misdemeanor, to possess, store, retain, sell, or offer to sell any container of alcoholic beverages if the taxes on those beverages have not been paid and exceed $500, as provided.
The Energy Resources Surcharge Law authorizes the State Board of Equalization to relieve a person of penalties imposed by specified statutes if the board finds that the person’s failure to timely make a payment or return is due to reasonable cause.
This bill would extend this authorization to penalties imposed pursuant to additional specified statutes.
The Emergency Telephone Users Surcharge Act requires returns and payments to be made on a quarterly basis.
This bill would allow the State Board of Equalization, if it deems it necessary, to require returns and payments of tax under that act to be made for quarterly periods other than calendar quarters, or for multiples of quarterly periods. This provision would not become operative if AB 3204 is chaptered, as specified.
Existing law with respect to integrated waste management fees requires any determination made by the State Board of Equalization with respect to the refund or credit of fee, penalty, or interest amounts in excess of $15,000 to be made available as a public record for at least 10 days prior to the effective date of that determination.
This bill would increase the $15,000 threshold to $50,000.
Existing law with respect to integrated waste management fees requires interest to be paid, in the case of a refund, to the 15th day of the calendar month following the date upon which the claimant is notified by the State Board of Equalization that a claim may be filed, or the date upon which the claim is certified to the State Board of Control, whichever is earlier.
This bill would instead require interest to be paid, in the case of a refund, to the last day of the monthly period, as defined, following the date the claimant is notified by the board that a claim may be filed.
The Fee Collection Procedures Law requires interest to be computed and paid upon any overpayment of any fee amount from the first day of the calendar month following the month during which the overpayment was made, and requires that interest be paid, in the case of a refund, to the 15th day of the calendar month following the date upon which the claimant is notified by the State Board of Equalization that a claim may be filed or the date upon which the claim is certified to the State Board of Control, whichever is earlier.
This bill would modify these provisions to instead require interest on any overpayment of any fee amount to be paid from the first day of the monthly period, as defined, following the monthly period during which the overpayment was made, and would require interest to be paid, in the case of a refund, to the last day of the monthly period, as defined, following the date the claimant is notified by the board that a claim may be filed.
The Fee Collection Procedures Law provides that every taxpayer is entitled to be reimbursed for any reasonable fees and expenses related to a hearing before the State Board of Equalization, provided that certain conditions are met.
This bill would modify these conditions to remove requirements with respect to the State Board of Control, and would require any award of fees and expense proposed by the State Board of Equalization to be available as a public record for at least 10 days prior to the effective date of the award.
The Diesel Fuel Tax Law prohibits any person from operating or maintaining a motor vehicle on the public highway with dyed diesel fuel, except if dyed diesel fuel is used in a manner that is lawful under the federal Internal Revenue Code by a person who is registered in a specific capacity under the Diesel Fuel Tax Law.
This bill would expand this exception to include the use of dyed fuel in a manner lawful under the federal Internal Revenue Code by an intercity bus operator who is registered as an interstate user under the Diesel Fuel Tax Law.
The Diesel Fuel Tax Law provides that any person who fails to file a report or return or to pay the amount of tax due, as specified, shall pay a penalty of 10% of the tax or $50, whichever is greater, as provided.
This bill would impose that penalty only for the failure to pay the tax and only in the amount of 10% of the tax.
The Diesel Fuel Tax Law does not authorize the Taxpayers’ Rights Advocate appointed pursuant to that law to release a levy or notice to withhold upon his or her finding that the levy or notice to withhold threatens the health and welfare of the taxpayer, or his or her spouse and dependents.
This bill would authorize the Taxpayers’ Rights Advocate appointed pursuant to the Diesel Fuel Tax Law to order the release of any levy or notice to withhold, or within 90 days from the receipt of funds pursuant to that levy or notice to order the return of received funds in an amount not to exceed $1,500, upon his or her finding that the levy or notice to withhold threatens the health and welfare of the taxpayer, or his or her spouse and dependents.
This bill would also make certain nonsubstantive technical or clarifying changes.
This bill would incorporate additional changes in Section 7480 of the Government Code, proposed by AB 3351, to be operative only if AB 3351 and this bill are both chaptered and become effective January 1, 1997, and this bill is chaptered last. In that event, these additional changes would become operative on the operative date of AB 3351.
This bill would incorporate additional changes in Section 62 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, proposed by SB 44 and SB 494, to become operative only if SB 44 or SB 494, or both, and this bill are chaptered and become effective January 1, 1997, and this bill is chaptered last.
This bill would incorporate additional changes in Section 6480.1 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, proposed by SB 956, to become operative only if SB 956 and this bill are both chaptered and become effective January 1, 1997, and this bill is chaptered last.
Section 2229 of the Revenue and Taxation Code requires the Legislature to reimburse local agencies annually for certain property tax revenues lost as a result of any exemption or classification of property for purposes of ad valorem property taxation.
This bill would provide that, notwithstanding Section 2229 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, no appropriation is made, and the state shall not reimburse local agencies for property tax revenues lost by them pursuant to specified provisions of the bill.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement, including the creation of a State Mandates Claims Fund to pay the costs of mandates that do not exceed $1,000,000 statewide and other procedures for claims whose statewide costs exceed $1,000,000.
This bill would provide that with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by certain provisions of this act for a specified reason.
With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that other provisions of the bill contain costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.