The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRESOLUTIONS - 09132004 - 71-680 IN THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CON'T'RA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA In the Matter of Changes } of the Assessment Roll RESOLUTION NO. 71/680 of Contra Costa County ) } WHEREAS, the County Assessor having filed with this Board requests for correction of erroneous assessments, said request's having been consented to by the Rk I I County Counsel; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the County Auditor is authorized to correct the following assessments: For the Fiscal Year 1971-72 It has been ascertained from the assessment roll and from papers in the assessor's office what was intended and chat should have been assessed; and# therefore, pursuant to Revenue and Taxa- tion Code 4831., the following defects in description and/or form and clerical errors of the assessor on the roll should be corrected: Code 60014 - Assessment No. 20031 Alegre Bros. are assessed for personal property with assessed valuation of $8,500, less business inventory, exemption of i2P550, plus 10 penalty in the amount of $59.5 for failure to file within the time required by law. An audit discloses that this arbitrary assessment is in error since assessee reported: all of this property in Stan. Joaquin. County, there-- fore, this assessment should be correeted to zero value no business Inventory exemption, no penalty, resulting in a reduction of $6,545 assessed valuation. B. F. Wanaka., Assessor cc: Assessor (G. Giese) Auditor Page 1 of 5 Tax Collector -..-- RESOLUTION NO. 71/680 It has been: ascertained by the assessor from an audit of the assesseers books of account or other papers that there has been a defect of description or clerical error of the assessee in his property statement or in ether information or records''furnished to the assessor which ,caused the assessor to assess personal, property which should not have been assessed or to assess it at a substan- tially higher valuation than, he would have entered on the roll if the information had: been correctly furnished;; and, therefore, ';pur- suant to ur-suant ' to the Revenue and Taxation Code, Section 4831..5, the assessor certifies to the auditor that the following corrections should be made on the assessment 'aroll. Code 12012 - Assessment No. 2067, Fred Burchfield is errone- ously assessed 'f for personal property with assessed valuation of 730 and improvements of 24 since assessee included a licensed vehicle in reporting equipment on his property statement; therefore this assessment should be corrected to show personal. property $410 and. improvements $20.' FURTHER, for the 1970. 71 fiscal year: Code 02020 - Assessment No. 2133, Leo J. Pasquini is assessed .for personal property with assessed 'valuation. of 8 2300 improvements of $9,430,16ss business inventory exemption of 1,701. .�n audit discloses that assessee reported equipment grad improve- ments that are also included in a. real property assessment$* there- fore this assessment should be corrected to show personal property 7,130 and improvements 6,200s no change business inventory 33 , Q exemption, resulting in a reduction of . It has 'been ,ascertained by audit of the assess'eeis books of account or other papers that there has been a'defeat of deserip- tion or clerical error of the assessee in his property statement or in lother information or records furnished;by the assessee which causedthe assessor to assess taxable tangible property at sub- stantially' higher valuation than he would have entered on the roll had the information on been correctly furnishadi therefore$ such error on the roll should be corrected in accordance with Section 4$31.5 of the .Revenue and 'Taxation Code; further such error caused the assessor to erroneously allow business inventory exemption and$ therefore, an escaped assessment in the amount of the portion ',of' the exemption incorrectly allowed because of such erroneous or incorrect information. submitted by the taxpayer should be entered as escaped assessment pursuant to ;Section 531.5 of the Revenue and Taxation Code together with ;interest on taxes pursuant to section 506 of ` the 'Revenue and Taxation ,Code; and, in accordance with Section 533 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, the assessed values erroneously or illegally assessed should be offset against the proposed escaped assessment ''for ;the same' tax 'year; and if such values exceed the ;proposed escaped assessment for the same year, the assessor has notified the 'assessee that he ray file a claim for cancellation or refund. as ';provided' by Sections 4986' or 5096 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. U F. 'Wa aka, Assessvr u a Page 2 of 5 Cade 02020 Assessment No. 2089,; for the >fiscal year 1971-72, leo J. Fasquini, should have entered the following. Class Original Corrected .mount Of Assessed' 4asessed of; Pertinent Propert Value Value Change R&T Section. ers. op. '�� -. 31*5 Imps. 9.1000 5:920 -3,080 4$31.«5 ; Bus. :env. 15,911 1,716 + 195 531.5 Net Offset -4.*575 533 OTB: Assessee has been notified. It has been ascertained from the :assessment roll and from records in the assessorts office that takes have been levied or charged erroneously or >illegally for the reasons as stated below . and, therefore,, pursuant to the Revenue and Taxation Code,, ;lection 4986 (1) (a), the following uncollected 'tax,j, penalty, or costs heretofore< or hereafter levied or charged, should be ''cancelled in whole or in part on the following assess .ent: Code 66035 - Assessment No. 2034, Tony and Sylvia Amaral are assessed for personal property with assessed valuation of ls740, less business inventory exemption of $318, plus 10% penalty in the amount of $142 for failure to file within the time required by law pursuant to Section 463 of the Revenue & Taxation 'Code. This is an erroneous assessment since it is also included in a secured'` real property assessment, AND, FURTHER, under ;Section 4986 (1) ;(b) Code 02013 - Assessment No, 2004, Rocco Battagli.o is errone- ously >assessed` for ;possessory interest in land with assessed valua- tion of $310 since his lease had expired before the lien date and he did not renew the option. Code 02013 - Assessment No. 2011,, Warren. Smith is 'erroneously_ assessed for possessory interest in land with assessed valuation of ls260 since a wrong Tax Area Code and the wrong; acreage was used, A correct assessment is being added to the 197172 roll. Cade 08007 - as'essm:ent No. 2112, Jurel L Puri.foy is assessed for personal property with assessed valuation of $380 less business inventory exemption. of 114, plus 10 penalty in the amount of 26 for failure to file` within the t .me required<by law pursuant to Section 463 , of the Revenue & Taxation: Code. This is a duplicate assessment' since this property has also be assessed to the correct owner; . 'WAnaka, Assessor Page of Code 08083 - Assessment No. 2002,; Francine Mandeles, Katherine Lowe and Mark Peters are erroneously assessed for personal property with €assessed valuation of ?150 since they had gone out of business and moved out of the State before the lien date. code 14002 - Assessment No. 2069, E. L. Bruce Co., Inc* is erroneously assessed for personal property with assessed valuation of 540 phis 10% penalty in the amount of for failure to file within the time required by law Baer Section. 463 of the Revenue & Taxation Cade. Deputy had incomplete inf onn: tion at the time of the estimated assessment, subsequent information furnished reveals` that equipment had no valueand office was closed' before the lien date. Code 66003 - assessment No. 2002 ; Lours C. and John V. -Banks- are assessed for personal property with assessed valuation of 4-2$200 lass business inventory exemption of $426. Subsequent 'docu- mentary evidence received shows that the machinery and equipment had been moved out sof the state prior to the lien' date; therefore, this assessment' should be corrected to show personal property $1,420 no change business inventory exemption. Code 77006 - ,assessment No. 2089, Carl. Johnson, at uxor are erroneously assessed for possessory interest in land with assessed valuation of $180 and improvements of $440 and net assessed valueb2C. 'tenant terminated residency within six months of the lien date. On month_to-month rental,, possessory 'interest' is con- sidered to be of no value if occupancy terminates less than sic months' after the lien date, or prior to August 31, 1971. Termina- tion of occupancy after' assessment has been made and within six` months ' of the lien date constitutes an opinion of no value. There- f ores In accordance with ass'essor's rolicy$ this assessment should be cancelled ' Code 82038 - Assessment No. 23810 Henry E. and Minnie B. Reitz are erroneously assessed for improvements with assessed valuation. of 70 since the property was sold before the lion date. An assessment is being 'levied against the correct assesses. FURTHER. for the 1970-71, fiscal year: Code 08007 -- Assessment No, 2096, Jurel L. Purifoy_is erroneously assessed for persona. property with assessed valuation of $380 less business inventory exemption sof $114 since assesses had moved from this location before the lien ' date. --e 4 ��I W av"toh E. F. WhWA, Assessor Page, of 5 ANS, 'IFURTXE under Section 4986 (1) (<d) Code 62039 - Assessment No. 2005s David Biddinger is errone- ously assessed for improvements with 'assessed valuation of $210 since the building was removed before the lien date. Code 82038 - Assessment No. 2337, ''Carl Moody$ Hazel Moody and Earl A Hoody are erroneously assessed for improvements with assessed valuation of 140 since the Improvements were dismantled and removed prior to the lien date. I hereby consent to the above chimes and/or corrections.' JOHN B. CLAUSEN, County Counsel By E +�. anaka, l ssessor 13eputy ADGPTED by the Board this 12th day of October,, 1971. RESOLUTION NO. 71/680' Page of