Existing law authorizes the county board of equalization or the assessment appeals board to order the penalty abated for failure to file a specified property statement or change in ownership statement, if the assessee establishes to the satisfaction of the county board of equalization or the assessment appeals board that the failure to file the property statement or change in ownership statement within the specified time required was due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect and the assessee has filed a written application for abatement of the penalty, as provided.

This bill would instead authorize the penalty to be abated if the assessee establishes that the failure to file the property statement or change in ownership statement within the specified time period was due to reasonable cause and circumstances beyond the assessees control, and occurred notwithstanding the exercise of ordinary care in the absence of willful neglect.

Existing law authorizes the county board of equalization or the assessment appeals board to order the penalty abated for failure to file a specified property statement or change in ownership statement, if the assessee establishes to the satisfaction of the county board of equalization or the assessment appeals board that the failure to file the property statement or change in ownership statement within the specified time required was due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect and the assessee has filed a written application for abatement of the penalty, as provided.

This bill would instead authorize the penalty to be abated if the assessee establishes that the failure to file the property statement or change in ownership statement within the specified time period was due to reasonable cause and circumstances beyond the assessees control, and occurred notwithstanding the exercise of ordinary care in the absence of willful neglect.

Existing law authorizes the county board of equalization or the assessment appeals board to order the penalty abated for failure to file a specified property statement or change in ownership statement, if the assessee establishes to the satisfaction of the county board of equalization or the assessment appeals board that the failure to file the property statement or change in ownership statement within the specified time required was due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect and the assessee has filed a written application for abatement of the penalty, as provided.

This bill would instead authorize the penalty to be abated if the assessee establishes that the failure to file the property statement or change in ownership statement within the specified time period was due to reasonable cause and circumstances beyond the assessees control, and occurred notwithstanding the exercise of ordinary care in the absence of willful neglect.

Existing law authorizes the county board of equalization or the assessment appeals board to order the penalty abated for failure to file a specified property statement or change in ownership statement, if the assessee establishes to the satisfaction of the county board of equalization or the assessment appeals board that the failure to file the property statement or change in ownership statement within the specified time required was due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect and the assessee has filed a written application for abatement of the penalty, as provided.

This bill would instead authorize the penalty to be abated if the assessee establishes that the failure to file the property statement or change in ownership statement within the specified time period was due to reasonable cause and circumstances beyond the assessees control, and occurred notwithstanding the exercise of ordinary care in the absence of willful neglect.

The California Constitution and existing property tax law authorize persons over the age of 55 and persons who are severely and permanently disabled, as specified, to transfer the base year value, as defined, of property to replacement property, if certain conditions are met.

This bill would additionally authorize the transfer of the base year value of property to replacement property for persons who have a severely and permanently disabled child. This bill would apply this property tax relief to replacement dwellings that are purchased or newly constructed on or after January 1, 2016.

Existing law authorizes the county board of equalization or the assessment appeals board to order the penalty abated for failure to file a specified property statement or change in ownership statement, if the assessee establishes to the satisfaction of the county board of equalization or the assessment appeals board that the failure to file the property statement or change in ownership statement within the specified time required was due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect and the assessee has filed a written application for abatement of the penalty, as provided.

This bill would instead authorize the penalty to be abated if the assessee establishes that the failure to file the property statement or change in ownership statement within the specified time period was due to reasonable cause and circumstances beyond the assessees control, and occurred notwithstanding the exercise of ordinary care in the absence of willful neglect.

By imposing new duties upon local county officials with respect to the implementation of the property tax relief described above, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

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.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions.

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 the bill.

CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

CSA1 Bill Id:AB 571

Author:(Brown)

As Amended Ver:September 1, 2015

Majority vote

Original Committee Reference: REV. & TAX.

SUMMARY: Revises the "reasonable cause" standard for abating penalties related to late-filed "change in ownership" (CIO) statements and property statements.

The Senate amendments specify that the revised "reasonable cause" standard for abating penalty would also apply to late-filed or incomplete CIO statements for transfers of real property or manufactured homes.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Provides that all property is taxable, unless otherwise provided by the California Constitution or federal laws [California Constitution Article XIII, Section 1(a)]. Limits ad valorem taxes on real property to 1% of the full cash value of that property [California Constitution Article XIII A, Section 1(a) (Proposition 13 of 1978)]. Requires real property to be reassessed to its current fair market value whenever a "change in ownership" occurs. (California Constitution Article XIII A, Section 2; Revenue and Taxation Code Sections 60 to 69.5).

2. Requires new owners of real property and certain legal entities to submit a change-in-ownership or a change-in-control statement, either with the county recorder or assessor, at the time of recording or, if the transfer is not recorded, within 90 days of the date of the CIO, except as provided.

3. Imposes a penalty for failure to file any of the following statements within the prescribed time period:

   1. A change-in-ownership statement required to be filed by a new property owner for real property transfers that must be reported to the local county assessor;

   2. A Legal Entity Ownership Program (LEOP) change-in-ownership or a change-in-control statement required to be mailed by a legal entity to the State Board of Equalization (BOE);

4. A response to a BOE written request for a legal entity to file a LEOP change-in- ownership statement or change-in-control statement.

5. Allows the county board of equalization or the assessment appeals board, whichever is applicable, to abate the penalty if the assessee, among other things, establishes to the satisfaction of the board that the failure to file the change-in-ownership statement or change-in-control statement, as required, was due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect.

6. Requires any person owning taxable personal property having an aggregate cost of $100,000 or more for any assessment year to file a signed property statement with the county assessor. Imposes a penalty of 10% of the assessed value of unreported taxable tangible property if the annual statement has not been filed within the prescribed time limit. Allows the county board of equalization or the assessment appeals board to abate the penalty for failure to file an annual business property statement if the assessee establishes that the failure was due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect.

AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY, this bill revised the "reasonable cause" standard for abating penalties imposed for failure to timely file a CIO statement or business property statement to require the assessee to establish, in addition to reasonable cause and absence of willful neglect, that the failure to file the statement:

1. Was due to circumstances beyond the assessee's control; and,

2. Occurred notwithstanding the exercise of ordinary care in the absence of willful neglect.

FISCAL EFFECT: None

COMMENTS:

1. Proposition 13. Much of the law pertaining to property taxation is prescribed by Articles XIII and XIII A (commonly known as "Proposition 13") of the California Constitution. Proposition 13 was added to the California Constitution in June 1978 and was most recently amended by Proposition 26 in 2010. Proposition 13 was designed to provide real property tax relief by imposing a set of interlocking limitations upon the assessment and taxing powers of state and local governments.

Section 1 of Article XIII A states that, as a general rule, the maximum amount of any ad valorem tax on real property may not exceed one percent of the property's full cash value, as adjusted for the lesser of inflation or 2% per year. The term "full cash value" means the "county assessor's valuation of real property as shown on the 1975-1976 tax bill" or, thereafter, "the appraised value of real property when purchased, newly constructed, or a change in ownership has occurred after the 1975 assessment" (emphasis added) [California Constitution Article XIII A, Sections 1 and 2]. In other words, the California Constitution requires that real property be reassessed to its current fair market value whenever a "change in ownership" occurs. The definition of a "change in ownership" was not included in Proposition 13, but was left to implementing legislation.

2. Legal Entities: Change in Ownership: Transfers of Real Property. Generally, county assessors discover a CIO via grant deeds or other documents that are recorded with the county recorder. In addition, the county recorder must provide the assessor with a copy of the transfer of ownership document as soon as possible. However, ordinarily the transfer of ownership interests in a legal entity does not involve a recorded deed even if a property reassessment is called for under existing law.

The Legislature has attempted to reduce the volume of unreported business property ownership transfer transactions. The most significant accomplishment was the creation of the Legal Entity Ownership Program (LEOP). Under this program, the BOE gathers, and subsequently disseminates to county assessors, information regarding changes in control and ownership of legal entities that own or lease an interest in real property located in California. The purpose of the program is to assist county assessors in discovering changes in control or changes in ownership that have not been captured by a county's own discovery systems.

Thus, similarly to the filing requirements applicable to buyers of real property, a person or legal entity that acquires control of another legal entity is responsible for filing a LEOP change-in-ownership statement within 90 days of the event that triggers a change-in-control or CIO of a legal entity, where the entity or any subsidiary owned or held California real property at the time of the change. A legal entity must also file a CIO statement within 90 days of the BOE's written request. If a legal entity fails to report and the failure is discovered later on, then an escape assessment will be made for every tax year that the entity failed to file the CIO statement. There is no statute of limitations applicable to these escape assessments. The penalty for failure to file is 10% of the taxes applicable to the new base-year value of the real property (e.g., land, improvements, and fixtures) if a change in control or CIO has occurred or 10% of the current year's taxes on the real property if a change in control or CIO has not occurred. However, the penalty is limited to $5,000 in the case of the property eligible for the homeowners' exemption and to $20,000 in the case of other types of property, provided that the failure to file was not willful.

3. Abatement of Penalties. The purpose of imposing a penalty for failure to file a change-in- ownership or a change-in-control statement is to ensure that property owners have an incentive to report required information to the county assessor or respond to the assessor's inquiry, so that assessors may accurately assess properties after a CIO. The penalty, however, may be abated if the property owner establishes to the satisfaction of either the county board of equalization or the assessment appeals board, whichever is applicable, that the failure to file a statement is due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect. Similarly, a penalty imposed for failure to timely file an annual property statement may also be abated under the same "reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect" standard.

The county assessment appeals boards have the authority to abate penalties for reasonable cause for numerous violations of property tax law. However, different standards for abatement apply to different penalties. This bill proposes to align various property tax provisions to create identical standards for abatement of property tax related penalties. The proposed language mirrors the "reasonable cause" standard employed in many other provisions of the property tax law and provides that penalties may be waived if a taxpayer demonstrates that the failure to file was due to reasonable cause and circumstances beyond their control and occurred notwithstanding the exercise of ordinary care.

Analysis Prepared by: Oksana Jaffe / REV. & TAX. / (916) 319-2098 FN: 0002079

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 571

Author: Brown (D)

Amended: 9/1/15 in Senate

Vote: 21

SENATE GOVERNANCE & FIN. COMMITTEE: 7-0, 7/1/15

AYES: Hertzberg, Nguyen, Beall, Hernandez, Lara, Moorlach, Pavley

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 77-0, 5/28/15 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Property taxation: property statement: change in ownership statement: penalty

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST: This bill changes the standard used by assessment appeals board when determining whether to abate three property tax penalties.

Senate Floor Amendments of 9/1/15 apply this bill’s standard to change in ownership statements (COSs) for transfers of real property.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Provides that all property is taxable unless explicitly exempted by the Constitution or federal law.

2. Precludes assessors from revaluing real property for tax purposes unless a property is newly constructed, or changes ownership.

3. Charges each County Board of Supervisors, or an assessment appeals board of its own creation, with fairly and impartially conducting hearings between taxpayers and the assessor, including requesting penalty abatement.

4. Requires the new owner to file a COS with the assessor when ownership changes.

5. Imposes the following penalties for failing to file a COS:

   1. For real property eligible for the homeowners’ exemption, $100, or 10% of the taxes applicable to the new value up to $5,000, whichever is greater.

   2. For real property not eligible for the homeowners’ exemption, $100 or 10% of the taxes applicable to the new value up to $20,000, whichever is greater.

   3. For legal entities, 10% of the taxes applicable to the new value if a change occurred, or if not, 10% of the taxes based on the current value.

6. Requires assessors to revalue personal property annually.

7. Directs taxpayers to list taxable personal property on the business personal property statements, and submit them annually to the assessor after the January 1st lien date but before April 1st each year; however, taxpayers can submit the statement without penalty by May 7.

8. Requires assessors to impose a penalty of 10% of the value of the unreported property for filing late.

9. Allows assessment appeals board can abate penalties attributable to the failure to file a COS or business personal property statement if the taxpayer can establish that the failure to file the statement was due “to reasonable cause and not willful neglect.”

This bill amends the standard used by assessment appeals boards for penalties for failing to file a business property statement, COS for real property, or COS for legal entities to allow abatement upon “reasonable cause and circumstances beyond the assessee’s control, and occurred notwithstanding the exercise of ordinary care in the absence of willful neglect.”

Comments

The Board of Equalization states that the standard that AB 571 applies for failing to file business property statements and COS appears in 56 of 76 relevant sections of property tax law. Ultimately, assessment appeals boards in 58 counties will determine how to apply AB 571’s standard when they adjudicate specific cases, but legislators may want to consider whether AB 571’s consistency is worth the potential effect of limiting abatement for successors who inherit control of property or legal entities.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No

SUPPORT: (Verified 9/2/15)

California Assessors Association

OPPOSITION: (Verified 9/2/15)

Executive Committee of the Trusts and Estates Section of the State Bar of California

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the author, “AB 571 aligns existing penalty forgiveness provisions in Revenue & Taxation Code Sections 463 and 483 to mirror the language used in Section 4985.2. The consistent standard will provide individuals with an opportunity to have their penalty waived if they are able to demonstrate that the failure to file was due to circumstances beyond their control and occurred notwithstanding the exercise of ordinary care. Clarification of this discrepancy will benefit taxpayers qualifying for penalty forgiveness. AB 571’s standard has been in place for 35 years, and ample case law exists to interpret it. Assessors add that cases interpreting the standard require that the standard of ordinary care increase in direct proportion to the sophistication of the taxpayer.”

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: According to the Executive Committee of the Trusts and Estates Section of the State Bar of California (TEXCOM), “this bill’s effort to make penalty abatement consistent may make abatement more difficult for taxpayers to obtain. TEXCOM argues that the current standard is well established in law, and sufficient to establish grounds to abate a penalty that accounts for unusual circumstances that a surviving spouse, child or other personal representative can face after the death of a property owner. TEXCOM also asserts that requiring abatement only on circumstances beyond the assessee’s control, doesn’t fit in the particular circumstances of the successors of an entity coping with a property owner’s death, where successor property owners are trying to establish control of potentially valuable property or a legal entity shortly after death.”

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 77-0, 5/28/15

AYES: Alejo, Travis Allen, Baker, Bigelow, Bonilla, Bonta, Brough, Brown, Burke, Calderon, Campos, Chang, Chau, Chávez, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Dababneh, Dahle, Daly, Dodd, Eggman, Frazier, Beth Gaines, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gray, Hadley, Harper, Roger Hernández, Holden, Irwin, Jones, Jones-Sawyer, Kim, Lackey, Levine, Linder, Lopez, Low, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Melendez, Mullin, Nazarian, Obernolte, O'Donnell, Olsen, Patterson, Perea, Quirk, Rendon, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Santiago, Steinorth, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Wagner, Waldron, Weber, Wilk, Williams, Wood, Atkins

NO VOTE RECORDED: Achadjian, Bloom, Grove

Prepared by: Colin Grinnell / GOV. & F. / (916) 651-4119

9/2/15 18:05:27

**** END ****

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 571

Author: Brown (D)

Amended: 5/4/15 in Assembly

Vote: 21

SENATE GOVERNANCE & FIN. COMMITTEE: 7-0, 7/1/15

AYES: Hertzberg, Nguyen, Beall, Hernandez, Lara, Moorlach, Pavley

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 77-0, 5/28/15 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Property taxation: property statement: change in ownership statement: penalty

SOURCE: California Assessors’ Association

DIGEST: This bill changes the standard used by assessment appeals board when determining whether to abate two property tax penalties.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Provides that all property is taxable unless explicitly exempted by the Constitution or federal law.

2. Precludes assessors from revaluing real property for tax purposes unless a property is newly constructed, or changes ownership.

3. Charges each County Board of Supervisors, or an assessment appeals board of its own creation, with fairly and impartially conducting hearings between taxpayers and the assessor, including requesting penalty abatement.

4. Requires the new owner to file a Change in Ownership Statement (COS) with the assessor when ownership changes.

5. Imposes the following penalties for failing to file a COS:

   1. For real property eligible for the homeowners’ exemption, $100, or 10% of the taxes applicable to the new value up to $5,000, whichever is greater.

   2. For real property not eligible for the homeowners’ exemption, $100 or 10% of the taxes applicable to the new value up to $20,000, whichever is greater.

6. Requires assessors to revalue personal property annually.

7. Directs taxpayers to list taxable personal property on the business personal property statements, and submit them annually to the assessor after the January 1st lien date but before April 1st each year; however, taxpayers can submit the statement without penalty by May 7.

8. Requires assessors to impose a penalty of 10% of the value of the unreported property for filing late.

9. Allows assessment appeals board can abate penalties attributable to the failure to file a COS or business personal property statement if the taxpayer can establish that the failure to file the statement was due “to reasonable cause and not willful neglect.”

This bill amends the standard used by assessment appeals boards for penalties for failing to file a business property statement or COS for real property to allow abatement upon “reasonable cause and circumstances beyond the assessee’s control, and occurred notwithstanding the exercise of ordinary care in the absence of willful neglect.”

Comments

The Board of Equalization states that the standard that AB 571 applies for failing to file business property statements and COS appears in 56 of 76 relevant sections of property tax law. Ultimately, assessment appeals boards in 58 counties will determine how to apply AB 571’s standard when they adjudicate specific cases, but legislators may want to consider whether AB 571’s consistency is worth the potential effect of limiting abatement for successors who inherit control of property or legal entities.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No

SUPPORT: (Verified 7/2/15)

California Assessors’ Association (source)

Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association

OPPOSITION: (Verified 7/2/15)

The Executive Committee of the Trusts and Estates Section of the State Bar of California

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the author, “AB 571 aligns existing penalty forgiveness provisions in Revenue & Taxation Code Sections 463 and 483 to mirror the language used in Section 4985.2. The consistent standard will provide individuals with an opportunity to have their penalty waived if they are able to demonstrate that the failure to file was due to circumstances beyond their control and occurred notwithstanding the exercise of ordinary care. Clarification of this discrepancy will benefit taxpayers qualifying for penalty forgiveness. AB 571’s standard has been in place for 35 years, and ample case law exists to interpret it. Assessors add that cases interpreting the standard require that the standard of ordinary care increase in direct proportion to the sophistication of the taxpayer.”

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: The Executive Committee of the Trusts and Estates Section of the State Bar of California (TEXCOM) oppose AB 571, stating that this bill’s effort to make penalty abatement consistent may make abatement more difficult for taxpayers to obtain. TEXCOM argues that the current standard is well established in law, and sufficient to establish grounds to abate a penalty that accounts for unusual circumstances that a surviving spouse, child or other personal representative can face after the death of a property owner. TEXCOM also asserts that requiring abatement only on circumstances beyond the assessee’s control, doesn’t fit in the particular circumstances of the successors of an entity coping with a property owner’s death, where successor property owners are trying to establish control of potentially valuable property or a legal entity shortly after death.

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 77-0, 5/28/15

AYES: Alejo, Travis Allen, Baker, Bigelow, Bonilla, Bonta, Brough, Brown, Burke, Calderon, Campos, Chang, Chau, Chávez, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Dababneh, Dahle, Daly, Dodd, Eggman, Frazier, Beth Gaines, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gray, Hadley, Harper, Roger Hernández, Holden, Irwin, Jones, Jones-Sawyer, Kim, Lackey, Levine, Linder, Lopez, Low, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Melendez, Mullin, Nazarian, Obernolte, O'Donnell, Olsen, Patterson, Perea, Quirk, Rendon, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Santiago, Steinorth, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Wagner, Waldron, Weber, Wilk, Williams, Wood, Atkins

NO VOTE RECORDED: Achadjian, Bloom, Grove

Prepared by: Colin Grinnell / GOV. & F. / (916) 651-4119

7/2/15 13:38:52

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNANCE AND FINANCE

Senator Robert M. Hertzberg, Chair

2015 - 2016 Regular

PROPERTY TAXATION: PROPERTY STATEMENT: CHANGE IN OWNERSHIP STATEMENT: PENALTY

Changes the standard used by assessment appeals board when determining whether to abate two property tax penalties.

Background and Existing Law

Section 1 of Article XIII of the California Constitution provides that all property is taxable unless explicitly exempted by the Constitution or federal law Proposition 13 (1978) amended Article XIIIA of the California Constitution to preclude assessors from revaluing real property for tax purposes unless a property is newly constructed, or changes ownership. Assessors revalue property at current, full market value for property tax purposes whenever either of these two events occurs.

Each County Board of Supervisors, or an assessment appeals board of its own creation, constitutes the county board of equalization, which equalizes the values of all property on the assessment roll by adjusting individual assessments. Currently, 19 California county boards of supervisors perform this duty. Counties may have up to five of these boards to hear and adjudicate assessment appeals, constituted of members selected by the presiding judge of the superior court and nominated by the County Board of Supervisors, or selected directly by the Board. These boards are charged with fairly and impartially conducting hearings between taxpayers and the assessor, including requesting penalty abatement.

Whenever ownership changes, state law requires the new owner to file a Change in Ownership Statement (COS). Alternatively, the new owner may file a Preliminary Change in Ownership Report, which is nearly identical to the COS, at the time the deed for change in ownership is recorded, thereby generally satisfying the requirement for filing the Change in Ownership Statement. If a taxpayer must submit a change in ownership statement, and the Board of Equalization (for legal entities) or the assessor (for real property) sends one, and the taxpayer fails to file the statement within 90 days of the request, the following penalties apply:

• For real property eligible for the homeowners’ exemption, $100, or 10% of the taxes applicable to the new value up to $5,000, whichever is greater.

• For real property not eligible for the homeowners’ exemption, $100 or 10% of the taxes applicable to the new value up to $20,000, whichever is greater.

• For changes in legal entities, a penalty of 10% of the taxes applicable to the new value if a change of ownership occurred, or 10% of the taxes applicable to the current value if no change of ownership took place, provided the violation was not willful (SB 507, DeSaulnier, 2011).

While the Constitution limits the maximum amount of any ad valorem tax on real property at 1% of full cash value, and precludes reassessment unless the property is newly constructed or changes ownership, assessors value personal property each year. Each year, taxpayers with more than $100,000 in value of business personal property complete business personal property statements, which list the value of each item of business equipment the taxpayer owns, which the assessor uses when determining the total value of property subject to tax. Taxpayers must submit the statement to the assessor after the January 1^st lien date but before April 1^st each year; however, taxpayers can submit the statement without penalty by May 7^th. Assessors must impose a penalty of 10% of the value of the unreported property.

An assessment appeals board can abate penalties attributable to the failure to file a change in ownership statement or business personal property statement if the taxpayer can establish that the failure to file the statement was due” to reasonable cause and not willful neglect.” However, state law allows assessment appeals boards to abate penalties under other property tax laws according to a slightly different standard, that of “reasonable cause and circumstances beyond the assessee’s control, and occurred notwithstanding the exercise of ordinary care in the absence of willful neglect.” Assessors want to conform the standard assessment appeals board apply to abating penalties for failing to timely file business personal property statements and change of ownership statements.

Proposed Law

Assembly Bill 571 amends the standard used by assessment appeals boards for penalties for failing to file a business property statement or change in ownership statement for real property. Instead of allowing abatement based upon “reasonable cause and not willful neglect,” AB 571 allows as for abatement based upon” reasonable cause and circumstances beyond the assessee’s control, and occurred notwithstanding the exercise of ordinary care in the absence of willful neglect.”

State Revenue Impact

BOE estimates minimal revenue impact.

Comments

1. Purpose of the bill. According to the author, “AB 571 aligns existing penalty forgiveness provisions in Revenue & Taxation Code Sections 463 and 483 to mirror the language used in Section 4985.2. The consistent standard will provide individuals with an opportunity to have their penalty waived if they are able to demonstrate that the failure to file was due to circumstances beyond their control and occurred notwithstanding the exercise of ordinary care. Clarification of this discrepancy will benefit taxpayers qualifying for penalty forgiveness.”

2. Hobgoblins. The Executive Committee of the Trusts and Estates Section of the State Bar of California (TEXCOM) oppose AB 571, stating that the measure’s effort to make penalty abatement consistent may make abatement more difficult for taxpayers to obtain. TEXCOM argues that the current standard is well established in law, and sufficient to establish grounds to abate a penalty that accounts for unusual circumstances that a surviving spouse, child or other personal representative can face after the death of a property owner. TEXCOM also asserts that requiring abatement only on circumstances beyond the assessee’s control, doesn’t fit in the particular circumstances of the successors of an entity coping with a property owner’s death, where successor property owners are trying to establish control of potentially valuable property or a legal entity shortly after death. However, the California Assessors’ Association states that AB 571’s standard has been in place for 35 years, and ample case law exists to interpret it. Assessors add that cases interpreting the standard require that the standard of ordinary care increase in direct proportion to the sophistication of the taxpayer. Ultimately, assessment appeals boards in 58 counties will determine how to apply the measure’s standard when they adjudicate specific cases, but the Committee may wish to consider whether AB 571’s consistency is worth the potential effect of limiting abatement for successors who inherit control of property or legal entities.

3. Dos mas. BOE states that the standard that AB 571 would apply for failing to file business property statements and change in ownership statements appears in 56 of 76 relevant sections of property tax law. To ensure further consistency, BOE also recommends making conforming changes to two sections of law for aircraft business property statements identical to the bill’s current change.

Assembly Actions

Assembly Floor 77-0
Assembly Appropriations 17-0
Assembly Revenue and Taxation 9-0

Support and Opposition

(6/25/15)

Support: California Assessors’ Association, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.

Opposition: Executive Committee of the Trusts and Estates Section of the State Bar of California.

-- END --

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 571

Author:(Brown)

As Amended Ver:May 4, 2015

Majority vote

SUMMARY: Revises the "reasonable cause" standard for abating penalties related to late-filed "change in ownership" (CIO) statements and property statements. Specifically, this bill:

1. Revises the "reasonable cause" standard for abating penalties imposed for failure to timely file a CIO statement or business property statement to require the assessee to establish, in addition to reasonable cause and absence of willful neglect, that the failure to file the statement:

   1. Was due to circumstances beyond the assessee's control; and,

   2. Occurred notwithstanding the exercise of ordinary care in the absence of willful neglect.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Provides that all property is taxable, unless otherwise provided by the California Constitution or federal laws [California Constitution Article XIII, Section 1(a)]. Limits ad valorem taxes on real property to 1% of the full cash value of that property [California Constitution Article XIII A, Section 1(a) (Proposition 13 of 1978)]. Requires real property to be reassessed to its current fair market value whenever a "change in ownership" occurs. (California Constitution, Article XIII A, Section 2; Revenue and Taxation Code (R&TC) Sections 60 to 69.5).

2. Requires new owners of real property and certain legal entities to submit a CIO or a change-in-control statement, either with the county recorder or assessor, at the time of recording or, if the transfer is not recorded, within 90 days of the date of the CIO, except as provided.

3. Imposes a penalty for failure to file any of the following statements within the prescribed time period:

   1. A CIO statement required to be filed by a new property owner for real property transfers that must be reported to the local county assessor;

   2. A Legal Entity Ownership Program (LEOP) CIO or a change-in-control statement required to be mailed by a legal entity to the State Board of Equalization (BOE).

4. A response to a BOE written request for a legal entity to file a LEOP CIO statement or change-in-control statement.

5. Allows the county board of equalization or the assessment appeals board, whichever is applicable, to abate the penalty if the assessee, among other things, establishes to the satisfaction of the board that the failure to file the CIO statement or change-in-control statement, as required, was due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect.

6. Requires any person owning taxable personal property having an aggregate cost of $100,000 or more for any assessment year to file a signed property statement with the county assessor. Imposes a penalty of 10% of the assessed value of unreported taxable tangible property if the annual statement has not been filed within the prescribed time limit. Allows the county board of equalization or the assessment appeals board to abate the penalty for failure to file an annual business property statement if the assessee establishes that the failure was due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect.

FISCAL EFFECT: None

COMMENTS:

1. Proposition 13. Much of the law pertaining to property taxation is prescribed by (commonly known as "Proposition 13") California Constitution Articles XIII and XIII A. Proposition 13 was added to the California Constitution in June 1978 and was most recently amended by Proposition 26 in 2010. Proposition 13 was designed to provide real property tax relief by imposing a set of interlocking limitations upon the assessment and taxing powers of state and local governments.

California Constitution Article XIII A, Section 1 states that, as a general rule, the maximum amount of any ad valorem tax on real property may not exceed one percent of the property's full cash value, as adjusted for the lesser of inflation or 2% per year. The term "full cash value" means the "county assessor's valuation of real property as shown on the 1975-1976 tax bill" or, thereafter, "the appraised value of real property when purchased, newly constructed, or a change in ownership has occurred after the 1975 assessment" (emphasis added) [California Constitution, Article XIII A, Sections 1 and 2]. In other words, the California Constitution requires that real property be reassessed to its current fair market value whenever a "change in ownership" occurs. The definition of a "change in ownership" was not included in Proposition 13, but was left to implementing legislation.

2. Legal Entities: Change in Ownership: Transfers of Real Property. Generally, county assessors discover a CIO via grant deeds or other documents that are recorded with the county recorder. In addition, the county recorder must provide the assessor with a copy of the transfer of ownership document as soon as possible. However, ordinarily the transfer of ownership interests in a legal entity does not involve a recorded deed even if a property reassessment is called for under existing law.

The Legislature has attempted to reduce the volume of unreported business property ownership transfer transactions. The most significant accomplishment was the creation of the Legal Entity Ownership Program (LEOP). Under this program, the BOE gathers, and subsequently disseminates to county assessors, information regarding changes in control and ownership of legal entities that own or lease an interest in real property located in California. The purpose of the program is to assist county assessors in discovering changes in control or changes in ownership that have not been captured by a county's own discovery systems.

Thus, similarly to the filing requirements applicable to buyers of real property, a person or legal entity that acquires control of another legal entity is responsible for filing a LEOP CIO statement within 90 days of the event that triggers a change-in-control or CIO of a legal entity, where the entity or any subsidiary owned or held California real property at the time of the change. A legal entity must also file a CIO statement within 90 days of the BOE's written request. If a legal entity fails to report and the failure is discovered later on, then an escape assessment will be made for every tax year that the entity failed to file the CIO statement. There is no statute of limitations applicable to these escape assessments. The penalty for failure to file is 10% of the taxes applicable to the new base-year value of the real property (e.g., land, improvements, and fixtures) if a change in control or CIO has occurred or 10% of the current year's taxes on the real property if a change in control or CIO has not occurred. However, the penalty is limited to $5,000 in the case of the property eligible for the homeowners' exemption and to $20,000 in the case of other types of property, provided that the failure to file was not willful.

3. Abatement of Penalties. The purpose of imposing a penalty for failure to file a CIO or a change-in-control statement is to ensure that property owners have an incentive to report required information to the county assessor or respond to the assessor's inquiry, so that assessors may accurately assess properties after a CIO. The penalty, however, may be abated if the property owner establishes to the satisfaction of either the county board of equalization or the assessment appeals board, whichever is applicable, that the failure to file a statement is due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect. Similarly, a penalty imposed for failure to timely file an annual property statement may also be abated under the same "reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect" standard.

The county assessment appeals boards have the authority to abate penalties for reasonable cause for numerous violations of property tax law. However, different standards for abatement apply to different penalties. This bill proposes to align various property tax provisions to create identical standards for abatement of property tax related penalties. The proposed language mirrors the "reasonable cause" standard employed in many other provisions of the property tax law and provides that penalties may be waived if a taxpayer demonstrates that the failure to file was due to reasonable cause and circumstances beyond their control and occurred notwithstanding the exercise of ordinary care.

Analysis Prepared by: Oksana Jaffe / REV. & TAX. / (916) 319-2098 FN: 0000513

Date of Hearing: May 13, 2015

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Jimmy Gomez, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 571

Author:(Brown) – As Amended Ver:May 4, 2015

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: >

SUMMARY:

This bill conforms the "reasonable cause" standard for abating penalties related to failure to timely file a change in ownership statement or business property statement to other property tax law penalty abatement provisions, requiring the assessee to establish the failure was due to reasonable cause, the circumstances were beyond the assessee's control, and the failure occurred notwithstanding the exercise of ordinary care in the absence of willful neglect.

FISCAL EFFECT:

Minor and absorbable administrative costs to the Board of Equalization (BOE); minimal revenue impact.

COMMENTS:

1) Purpose. According to the author, this bill eliminates confusion over the legal standard for abating penalties for failure to file a change in ownership. The bill changes the standard from one of reasonable cause and not willful neglect to the standard used in other property tax law abatement provisions.

2) Property Tax Penalty Abatement. Penalties are assessed against those who fail to file, in a timely manner, change in ownership, or change in control, statements to ensure assessors are informed. The penalty may be abated if the owner establishes to the satisfaction of BOE or the county assessment appeals board that a failure to file was due to reasonable cause and not willful neglect. County assessment appeals boards have the authority to abate penalties for a number of violations of the property tax law, however, and this bill aligns the reasonable cause standard with that used in other abatement provisions.

Analysis Prepared by: Joel Tashjian / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: April 27, 2015

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON REVENUE AND TAXATION

Philip Ting, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 571

Author:(Brown) – As Introduced Ver:February 24, 2015

Majority vote. Fiscal committee.

SUBJECT: Property taxation

SUMMARY: Expands the existing property tax relief provision that allows an eligible person to transfer the base-year value of his/her principal residence to a replacement dwelling, as provided, to include a person who has a severely and permanently disabled child. Revises the "reasonable cause" standard for abating penalties related to late-filed "change in ownership" (CIO) statements and property statements. Specifically, this bill:

1. Provides that any person with a severely and permanently disabled child residing in property eligible for the homeowners' exemption, as defined, may transfer, as specified, the base-year value of that property to any replacement dwelling of equal or lesser value that:
   
   

   1. Is located within the same county or a county that allows an out-of-county transfer; and,
      
      

   2. Is purchased or newly constructed by that same person as his/her principal residence within 2 years of the sale of the original property.
      
      

2. Applies, with respect to the transfer of base-year value by a person with a severely and permanently disabled child, to replacement dwelling that are purchased or newly constructed on or after January 1, 2016.
   
   

3. Requires a person who claims the base-year transfer relief under this measure to provide to the assessor, in addition to other information, proof that she/he or his/her spouse, who resided in the original property with the person, had a permanently disabled child, as provided.
   
   

4. Revises the "reasonable cause" standard for abating penalties imposed for failure to timely file a CIO statement or business property statement to require the assessee to establish, in addition to reasonable cause and absence of willful neglect, both of the following:
   
   

   1. That the circumstances were beyond the assessee's control; and,
      
      

   2. That the circumstances occurred notwithstanding the exercise of ordinary care in the absence of willful neglect.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Provides that all property is taxable, unless otherwise provided by the California Constitution or federal laws [Section 1(a), Article XIII, California Constitution]. Limits ad valorem taxes on real property to 1% of the full cash value of that property [Section 1(a), Article XIII A, California Constitution (Proposition 13)]. Requires real property to be reassessed to its current fair market value whenever a "change in ownership" occurs. (California Constitution, Article XIII A, Section 2; R&TC Sections 60 – 69.5).

2. Allows property owners over 55 years of age and disabled persons once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to transfer the base-year value of their principle residence, within two years from the sale of the original residence, to a replacement home of equal or lesser value within the same county (Proposition 60, 1988), or to a replacement home in counties that have adopted ordinances allowing the transfer (Proposition 90, 1990), provided certain conditions are met and the county assessor is properly notified. Currently, Alameda, El Dorado, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, San Mateo, Santa Clara, and Ventura Counties allow these out-of-county transfers. Base-year transfers allow taxpayers to continue to pay property taxes at the amount and rate of growth of their previous home and prevent reassessments of their newly purchased homes to full market value.

3. Provides that, if the replacement dwelling is purchased before the original property is sold, the taxpayer may transfer the base-year value only if the replacement property is 100% or less of the original property’s value. If the replacement dwelling is purchased within the first year after the sale, then the taxpayer may transfer the base year if the replacement property is within 105% of the original property’s value. And, if the replacement dwelling is purchased within the second year after the sale, then the taxpayer may transfer the base year if the replacement property is within 110% of the original property’s value.

4. Allows a homeowner, who has been granted a base-year value transfer, to perform new construction on the replacement property subsequent to the transfer and exempts the new construction from assessment. The new construction must be completed within two years of the sale of the original property and its value may not exceed the sales price of the original property.

5. Requires new owners of real property and certain legal entities to submit a change-in-ownership or a change-in-control statement, either with the county recorder or assessor, at the time of recording or, if the transfer is not recorded, within 90 days of the date of the CIO, except as provided.

6. Imposes a penalty for failure to file any of the following statements within the prescribed time period:
   
   

   1. A change-in-ownership statement required to be filed by a new property owner for real property transfers that must be reported to the local county assessor;
      
      

   2. A Legal Entity Ownership Program (LEOP) change-in-ownership or a change-in-control statement required to be mailed by a legal entity to the State Board of Equalization (BOE); or
      
      

   3. A response to a BOE written request for a legal entity to file a LEOP change-in- ownership statement or change-in-control statement.
      
      

7. Allows the county board of equalization or the assessment appeals board, whichever is applicable, to abate the penalty if the assessee, among other things, establishes to the satisfaction of the board that the failure to file the change-in-ownership statement or change-in-control statement, as required, was due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect.
   
   

8. Requires any person owning taxable personal property having an aggregate cost of $100,000 or more for any assessment year to file a signed property statement with the county assessor. Imposes a penalty of 10% of the assessed value of unreported taxable tangible property if the annual statement has not been filed within the prescribed time limit. Allows the county board of equalization or the assessment appeals board to abate the penalty for failure to file an annual business property statement if the assessee establishes that the failure was due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect.
   
   

FISCAL EFFECT: According to the BOE staff, this bill would reduce property tax revenues at the basic 1% tax rate by $1,400 per claim granted. This amount however could grow over time if assessed value differences also grow in relation to real estate market values.

COMMENTS:

1. Author's Statement. The author has provided the following statement in support of this bill:
   
   "First, the bill would allow the transfer of Proposition 13 base year value on residential property to assist those families caring for children who are permanently and severely disabled. Current law, Proposition 60, allows a Proposition 13 base year transfer for persons over the age of 55 and to persons who are severely and permanently disabled. The bill arises from a situation in San Diego County where permanently disabled veterans are returning from military action and returning to their parents' home, a house that is not accessible to permanently disabled inhabitants. Allowing base year transfers under these limited circumstances maintains the spirit of Proposition 60 and can easily be administered by the County Assessor's office.
   
   "'Second, Assembly Bill 571 eliminates confusion regarding the standard for the forgiveness of the application of a penalty for the lack of filing a change of ownership. Today, a County Assessor or the State Board of Equalization may request information regarding a change of ownership. A penalty may be assessed if the taxpayer does not respond in the required time. This penalty may be waived if the taxpayer demonstrates that the failure to file a response was due to circumstances beyond his or her control and occurred notwithstanding the exercise of ordinary care. The authority to waive the penalty occurs in Sections 463 and 483 of the Revenue and Taxation Code and in Section 4985.2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. Clarification of the Revenue and Taxation Code will provide consistency and eliminate confusion."

2. Arguments in Support. The proponents state that in order "to qualify for the disability based exemption under current law, the disabled individual must be on the title of the property" – a potentially "costly and complicated process if the only reason to do so would be to qualify for the exemption." The proponents also note that, "[o]ver the years, numerous parents have had to contend with the hardship of what occurs when a minor child becomes suddenly and severely disabled." The proponents argue that this bill is a "common sense measure to help homeowner" and it "maintains the spirit of Revenue and Tax Code 69.5 while also helping those who have serious needs."
   
   

3. Proposition 13. Much of the law pertaining to property taxation is prescribed by Articles XIII and XIII A (commonly known as "Proposition 13") of the California Constitution. Proposition 13 was added to the California Constitution in June 1978 and was most recently amended by Proposition 26 in 2010. Proposition 13 was designed to provide real property tax relief by imposing a set of interlocking limitations upon the assessment and taxing powers of state and local governments.¹

Section 1 of Article XIII A states that, as a general rule, the maximum amount of any ad valorem tax on real property may not exceed one percent of the property's full cash value, as adjusted for the lesser of inflation or 2% per year. The term "full cash value" means the "county assessor's valuation of real property as shown on the 1975-1976 tax bill" or, thereafter, "the appraised value of real property when purchased, newly constructed, or a change in ownership has occurred after the 1975 assessment" (emphasis added) [California Constitution, Article XIII A, Sections 1 and 2]. In other words, the California Constitution requires that real property be reassessed to its current fair market value whenever a "change in ownership" occurs. The definition of a "change in ownership" was not included in Proposition 13, but was left to implementing legislation.

4. Base-Year Value Transfers. Proposition 13 contains provisions allowing a homeowner over the age of 55² or a homeowner who is a disabled person³ a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to transfer the base-year values in his/her principal residence, within two years from the sale of the original residence, to a replacement home of equal or lesser value within the same county or to a replacement home in counties that have adopted ordinances allowing the transfer⁴, provided certain conditions are met and the county assessor is properly notified. Base-year transfers allow homeowners to continue paying property taxes at the amount and rate of growth of their previous homes and prevent reassessments of their newly purchased or constructed homes to full market value.

Thus, subject to certain conditions, the Constitution and implementing statute allow a severely and permanently disabled homeowner to sell his/her home, buy or build a new one, and transfer the base-year value to a replacement dwelling. To qualify, the move must be necessary to meet disability requirements and the new home must be of equal or lesser value and located in the same county or another county that offers this property tax benefit. In addition, the claimant must provide certain information to the assessor, including proof of severe and permanent disability.

5. Disabled Children. It is unclear if the definition of a "severely disabled homeowner" includes a child who resides in his/her parents' home but has no legal right as a homeowner. According to a BOE annotation⁵, a minor may obtain the benefit of a base-year value transfer indirectly if a guardianship or trust is created for the minor and the minor has received the title to both the original and replacement homes. A minor may not convey or make contracts relating to real property, even though he/she may own real property or an interest therein. Nonetheless, if a guardian or trustee is appointed to sell real property owned by a minor, the benefits of a base-year value transfer may be obtained indirectly through a guardianship or trust. In other words, a disabled child must qualify as a claimant and must be on title in order to transfer the base-year value. The act of adding the minor child on title to the original property can be excluded from CIO under the parent-child exclusion. However, adding a minor child to a home's legal title may be a lengthy, complicated and costly legal process.
   
   

This bill would extend the benefit of a base-year value transfer to any person with a severely and permanently disabled child who resides in the home. The intent of this bill is to assist a family caring for a child who is severely and permanently disabled by allowing the family to sell their home and build or buy a new one to accommodate their child's needs. To that end, this bill allows a parent to claim directly the benefit of the base-year value transfer without adding the child's name to title.

6. BOE's Implementation Concerns. In its analysis, the BOE staff noted that this bill does not appear to require that the child reside in the home with the parent. To clarify the intent of the author and minimize any future implementation issues, the BOE staff recommends amending R&TC Section 69.5(g)(12). Furthermore, under the language of this bill, any person, such as a caregiver, a relative or friend, and not just a parent, with a severely and permanently disabled child would qualify for the base-year value transfer relief. The Committee may wish to consider amendments that would clarify the intent of the bill.
   
   

7. Related Legislation: Contingency. ACA 6 (Brown), a companion measure to AB 571, would authorize the Legislature to provide for a transfer of base-year value of property to a replacement dwelling for persons who have a severely disabled child. The author intends to amend this bill to specify that the provisions relating to the expansion of the base-year value transfer relief would be operative only if ACA 6 is approved by the voters and would only apply to replacement dwellings that are purchased or newly constructed on or after the effective date of ACA 6. Because the base-year value transfer relief was created by constitutional amendments, a new constitutional amendment is required to expand the scope of the relief to include disabled children.
   
   

8. Legal Entities: Change in Ownership: Transfers of Real Property. Generally, county assessors discover a CIO via grant deeds or other documents that are recorded with the county recorder. In addition, the county recorder must provide the assessor with a copy of the transfer of ownership document as soon as possible. However, ordinarily the transfer of ownership interests in a legal entity does not involve a recorded deed even if a property reassessment is called for under existing law.
   
   The Legislature has attempted to reduce the volume of unreported business property ownership transfer transactions. The most significant accomplishment was the creation of the Legal Entity Ownership Program (LEOP). Under this program, the BOE gathers, and subsequently disseminates to county assessors, information regarding changes in control and ownership of legal entities that own or lease an interest in real property located in California. The purpose of the program is to assist county assessors in discovering changes in control or changes in ownership that have not been captured by a county's own discovery systems.

Thus, similarly to the filing requirements applicable to buyers of real property, a person or legal entity that acquires control of another legal entity is responsible for filing a LEOP change-in-ownership statement within 90 days of the event that triggers a change-in-control or CIO of a legal entity, where the entity or any subsidiary owned or held California real property at the time of the change. A legal entity must also file a CIO statement within 90 days of the BOE's written request. If a legal entity fails to report and the failure is discovered later on, then an escape assessment will be made for every tax year that the entity failed to file the CIO statement. There is no statute of limitations applicable to these escape assessments. The penalty for failure to file is 10% of the taxes applicable to the new base-year value of the real property (e.g., land, improvements, and fixtures) if a change in control or CIO has occurred or 10% of the current year's taxes on the real property if a change in control or CIO has not occurred. However, the penalty is limited to $5,000 in the case of the property eligible for the homeowners' exemption and to $20,000 in the case of other types of property, provided that the failure to file was not willful.

9. Abatement of Penalties. The purpose of imposing a penalty for failure to file a change-in- ownership or a change-in-control statement is to ensure that property owners have an incentive to report required information to the county assessor or respond to the assessor's inquiry, so that assessors may accurately assess properties after a CIO. The penalty, however, may be abated if the property owner establishes to the satisfaction of either the county board of equalization or the assessment appeals board, whichever is applicable, that the failure to file a statement is due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect. Similarly, a penalty imposed for failure to timely file an annual property statement may also be abated under the same "reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect" standard.
   
   The county assessment appeals boards have the authority to abate penalties for reasonable cause for numerous violations of property tax law. However, different standards for abatement apply to different penalties. This bill proposes to align various property tax provisions to create identical standards for abatement of property tax related penalties. The proposed language mirrors the "reasonable cause" standard employed in many other provisions of the property tax law and provides that penalties may be waived if a taxpayer demonstrates that the failure to file was due to reasonable cause and circumstances beyond their control and occurred notwithstanding the exercise of ordinary care.
   
   

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Diane L. Harkey, Member, State Board of Equalization

Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association

Opposition

None on file

Analysis Prepared by: Oksana Jaffe / REV. & TAX. / (916) 319-2098