HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 11281995 - C90 C.88 and
C.90
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on November 28, 1995, by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Rogers, Smith, DeSaulnier, Torlakson and Bishop
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
SUBJECT: Correspondence
C.88 LETTER dated November 8, 1995, from Pat O'Brien, General Manager, Regional Parks, East
Bay Regional Park District, 2950 Peralta Oaks Court, Oakland, CA 94605, regarding
prospective access to the Las Trampas Regional Park and Hemme Avenue.
****REFERRED TO DIRECTOR, GROWTH MANAGEMENT AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
AGENCY.
C.90 LETTER dated November 14, 1995, from Anita M. Mangels, Executive Director, Californians
Against Hidden Taxes, P. 0. Box 52, Laguna Beach, CA 92652, requesting the Board to
take a position in opposition to the electric vehicle mandate.
""REFERRED**REFERRED TO TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the recommendations as noted (****) are
approved.
1 hereby certify that this is a true and correct Copy of
an action taken and entered on the minutes of the
Board of Supervisors on the date shown.
A?TESTED:�-XA144%44,b AZ 1991!
PHIL BATCHELOR Clerk of the Board
of Supervisors andp6unty Administrator
4a�06��
8y .Deputy
c.c. Correspondents
Director, GMEDA
Transportation Committee
s RECEIVED C. D
Nov 1 5 M
All
►DpEiV z
TAXES;. y CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
y CONTRA CESTA Ct7.
November 14, 1995
The Honorable Gayle Bishop
Contra Costa County
651 Pine Street
Martinez, CA 94553
Dear Supervisor Bishop:
California's electric vehicle mandate will cost taxpayers,utility ratepayers and consumers
$20 billion, yet will yield less than I% of the emissions reductions required under the Air
Resources Board's own State Implementation Plan (SIP).
That is the bottom line of testimony presented by Californians Against Hidden Taxes at a
November 8 cost/benefit workshop sponsored by the Air Resources Board.
In the year 2010,with almost three-quarters of a million electric cars on the road in
the South Coast Air Basin alone,we will enjoy less than 1% of the necessary air pollution
relief, according to calculations prepared by CARB's own staff.
A CARB spokesman confirmed that statistic in a November 8 Sacramento Bee article,
saying: "one percent actually is pretty good."
Clearly, one percent is not"pretty good," especially at a cost to the public of$20 billion.
As the enclosed statement indicates, there are better, more cost-effective ways to clean the air.
Please take the time to read the enclosed copy of the testimony and supporting charts
illustrating the enormous cost and minuscule benefits. We hope you'll agree that California's
electric vehicle mandate should be abandoned.
Thank you for your time and attention to this important issue. Please feel free to call me
at (714) 499-6995 if you have any questions or would like additional information.
Very truly yours,
Oat-
Anita
M. Mangels
Executive Director
�D D / O BOX 52, LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92652 • 714/499-6995 • FAX 714/499-6695
L'J 1 1 1 ANZA BOULEVARD, SUITE 406, BURLINGAME, CA 94010 9 415/340-0470 • FAX 415/340-1740
California's Electric Car Mandate:
Question: Will it really clean our air?
Q: What is the California Electric Car Mandate?
A: The California Air Resources Board (CARE) has mandated that starting in 1998, 2% of
all new cars offered for sale in California must be electric vehicles (EVs). The mandate
increases to 10 %just five years later. Electric cars are the only type of vehicle that meets
CARB's definition of Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV).
Q: Will the electric car mandate result in any significant reduction in air pollution?
A: No. According to CARB's own documents, the electric car mandate will result in less
than I% of the air pollution reductions required by CARB's State Implementation Plan
(SIP).,
As a matter of fact, CARB's former Executive Officer, Thomas Austin, described the
clean air benefits of the electric car mandate as "too small to measure."2
Even a pioneer in the electric car industry, Paul MacCready, president of AeroVironment,
Inc. said, "The electric canis not going to have an appreciable effect on smog. To think
that it will is to lean on a rubber crutch."3
Q: Is the electric car mandate the most cost-effective way to clean the air?
A: No. An independent analysis by Sierra Research states that the electric car mandate could
end up costing almost $227,000 pet ton of reduced air pollution -- or, on average, more
than 25 times more than other light duty!. mobile source control measures to reduce air
1201111tion.4
Q: Are there better, cheaper ways to achieve equal or greater clean air benefits?
A: Yes. Enhanced smog inspection and maintenance programs, efforts to buy back and scrap
older cars, reformulated gasoline, better catalytic converters, on-board diagnostic
systems, programs to find and repair higher polluting cars -- all achieve equal and often
much greater air pollution reductions for much less money.5
I Letter from CARB Deputy Executive Officer Tom Cackette,August 4, 1995
2 "Mandatory Production of Electric Vehicles won't Solve State's Smog Problems,"Thomas Austin—April 20,1994
3 "Truth Again A Casualty—Zero-Emission Car Mandate Needs to Be More Flexible,"James Flanigan:LA Times,June 7,
1995
a
Siena Research
5
Comparison figures provided by California Air Resources Board Staff,October 16, 1995
W
A i 1 1 1 i i ♦�
i I I 1 1 1
l f 1 1 1 1
I i 1 1 1 t
l i t 1 1 1
i 1 I 1 1 1 O
'� A, i I I 1 1 V �µ`�•
1 s l 1 1 1 V •../ �.
.ro I I 1 1 i l ° M• N
Vol
W
V N ,- O
.y may!^' I i , ...`
•1w* V�'� 1 i. t /1 I 1 8160
�a
I I t {r/� 1 1 'I S
° m
0
i 1 CC d d
i 1 •✓ i ,
1 1 I 5 t t
I I d Z" o
CL.
• 1 1 I V - i g
Vol
i t t i i tl
1 1 i
O moww'``
s MC N
� �'
Ln 1 Sw �- O
a �
Ott
cc
.Poo � �
', I { ■'■
t 1 i
U
0 0 0 `D �'
d
E
+ , p
,
0. 0
� Y
4
.� •�ie O cc s
TP
, t�
Q
{TP •• ,,, •� ✓ N
c
so
y a
•raj �'' N
O N
O O
Q O 00 •cfi
p �
O
t—
c
O
N
N
W
• m
C, r
n
� Z o O �
C vs
v� °
o ° _ N
Vo N o °
N
-------------------- -----------------w N d
`..i cr
rn
Vp
U d
=� ---------------------------------------------
C:) -
°
LO
2 z
Vl v v T C N
U °
oc
rn o o ° ° o
rn ---- ---------- ---------o-------- o O
•r� M O OC3 ------- r
cn
ti O f--
w 06
4 40d
L
U Eocn
o
o U U aJ C _m
4- cts
U
m c � Cl) m
m L >
(Sf U 70U
POEM � p U) m v
• C 7C3 (� m
O E w
O
UfD m m
c O Q
U
C
CES
C
W
�3
3484 Property Taxes Law Guide
V2-M94-1 PROPERTY TAXATION
refund,due and owing to a former owner of that property,in the amount
of the taxes on the reduction in base value after the former owner sold or
transferred ownership,of the property, shall be applied to satisfy that
supplemental assessment.
(b) Any person claiming a refund due to,a reduction in base year value
shall certify,under penalty of perjury whether he or she has sold or
transferred ownership of the property to any other person,and if so, the
date of sale or transfer.
(c) This section shall not apply in any county unless the board of
supervisors adopts a resolution by majority vote to make the provisions of
this section applicable in the county.
History.--Added by Stats.lgg0,Ch.876,in effect January 1,1891.
5097. Conditions. (a) No order for a refund under this article shall
be made, except on a claim:
(1) Verified by the person who paid the tax, his or her guardian,
executor, or administrator. '
(2) Filed within four years after making of the payment sought to be
refunded or within one year after the mailing of notice as prescribed in
Section 2635, or the period agreed to as provided in Section 532.1,
whichever is later.
(b) An application for a;reduction in an.assessment filed pursuant to
Section 1603 shall also constitute a sufficient claim for refund under this
section if the applicant states in the application that the application is
intended to constitute a claim for refund.If the applicant does not so state,
he or she may thereafter and within the period provided in paragraph (2)
of subdivision (a) file a separate claim for refund of taxes extended on the
assessment which applicant applied to have reduced pursuant to Section
1603 or Section 1604.
(c) If an application for equalization of an escape assessment is filed
pursuant to Section 1603,a claim may be filed on any taxes resulting from
the escape assessment or the original assessment to which the escape
relates within the period provided in paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) or
within 60 days from the date the board of equalization makes its final
determination.on the application, whichever is later.
History.—Ststs.1963,p.43".In effect September 20,1963,added the second paragraph.State.1961L p.882(First
Extra Session),In effect October 6.1966.added"Section 1607 or"to the second paragraph.Stott.1967,p.2111L in
affect November 8,1891,added"or within one year...whichever is later,"after"refunded"in subsection(b);
and added everything after"refund under this section"in the first sentence of the second paragraph;and added
the second sentence of the second paragraph.Operative as to any payment made more than once prior to
effective
date and to any payment made after.Stats.1970,p.1037,,In effect November 23,1970,substituted"four"
for"three"In subsection(b)of the first paragraph.Stott.1975,Ch.224.p.604,In effect January 1,1976,substituted
"Section 1803"for"Section 1807 or Section 1780"In the first sentence of the second paragraph.State.1076,Ch.698,
p.1238,In effect January 1,IM,substituted"Section 1603 or Section 1601"for"Section 1807 or Section 1780"In the
second sentence of the second paragraph.Stats.1878,Ch.732,In effect January 1,1979,designated the first
sentence of the first paragraph as subdivision"(a)",the second sentence as"(a)(1)"In plata of(a),the;third
sentence as -(a)(21' In place of (b). Substituted the second paragraph as subdivision'"(b)",substituted
"provided In paragraph(2)of subdivision(a)"for"provided in subdivision(b)",and added subdivision(c).Stats.
1983,Ch.1226,in effect January 1,1964,added"or the period agreed to as provided in Section 4311,"after"Section
2634,"In subdivision(a)(2).Stets.1981,Ch.868,In effect September 10,1984.added subdivision(d).Stats.1897,Ch.
1186,In effect January 1.190&operative July 1,1988,added"or her"after"his".In subdivision(a)(1);added"or
stw"following"he"In the second sentence of subdivision (b);and deleted former subdivision (d),which
pertained only to refunds of property taxes levied by the City of Fresno
VeriflcationrSubstantial compliance with the requirement that a claim for refund be verified by the person who paid
the tax is achieved if representatives of the class verify the claim for refund for the class.Schodsrbak v.Carlson,113 Cal.
App.3d 1029.
HUU _4-1Jv.J Imo' I HJJLJJUf< -niu UJ
Contra Gus S. Kramer
of Assessor
Assessor
Costa
• 834 COURT STREET • MARTINEZ.CALIFORNIA 84553-1785 • (510)313-7400
County
August 18, 1995
Westco Consulting
1500 W. El Camino Avenue #273
Sacramento, California 95833
ATTN: Brian M. Miller
RE: Possessory Interest Account Number 127990-0004
Rear Mr. Miller,
This letter is in response to your letter to Louis Rivara dated August 15, 1995.
As I understand the question, we are correcting the base year value for an
assessment .that should not have been reappraised.
I agree this correction falls under Section 51.5(d) of the Revenue and Taxation
Code. That section states in part " . . .appropriate cancellations or refunds of
tax shall be granted in ,accordance with this division." The appropriate refund
" . . .is within four years after July 1 of the assessment year in which the
property escaped taxation or was underassessed." as stated in Section 532. .
Since you requested the change after we closed the 1995-96 roll , the four years
of corrections are for the 92-93, 93-94, 94-95 and 95-96 rolls.
In your letter, you implied that under Section. 5097, you deserve five years of
refunds rather than four. I remember you raising this issue several years ago.
Letter to Assessor (LTA) No. 91/53 addresses this very issue. Quoting from .page
2 of this document under the section titled Refunda Beyond Four Years, the letter
says "For the reasons stated below, the Board staff's view is that Section 2635
should not be construed as applying to base year value corrections under Section
51.5 so as to extend the four-year limit found in Section 5097." The letter goes
on to say, We believe that the normal four-year limit under Section 5097 is
applicable to 51.5 base year value corrections when a correction of a base year
value brought about a revision of the amount of taxes due as shown on the tax
rolls and the tax bills. "
1-1U1a-c4-1 yy� 12; 12 C.C.C. HSSESSOR 5110 .51.E 7488' P.0.3/03
Mr. Miller
August 18, 1995
Page 2
I believe (LTA) No. 91/53 is clear on this issue and four years of refunds is
appropriate in your case. .
If you do not agree with our position, then I recommend you contact the
Taxpayer's Rights Advocate, Jennifer L. Willis. She can be reached at (916) 324-
2798. Her address is P.O. Box 942879 MIC: 70, 22nd Floor, Sacramento, CA 94279-
0001.
Very truly yours,
-�D
STEPHEN DAWKINS
Chief, Standards
cc: Louis Rivara
Michael Menesini
SD/dm
standards/mi11895.ltr
i
TnTa1 P a4
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
1'
STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION WILLIAM M.BENNETT
1020 N STREET,SACRAMENTO,CALIFORNIA First District.Kenttield
(P.O.BOX 942879,SACRAMENTO,CALIFORNIA 94279-0001) BRAD SHERMAN
(916) 445-4982 Second District,Los Angeles
ERNEST J.DRONENBURG.JR.
Third District.San Diego
-MATTHEW K.FOND
July 16, 1991 Fourth OlitrlM Los Angeles
GRAY DAVIS
ConboLls/,Sacramento
CINDY RAMBO
Exeafhe Director
TO COUNTY ASSESSORS:
No. 91/53
REFUNDS RESULTING FROM BASE YEAR VALUE CORRECTIONS
The purpose of this letter is to clarify two issues with respect to refunds
of taxes paid when assessors correct base year value errors. The first
issue is whether refunds may be required after the assessor corrects a
base year value error involving his or her judgment as to value. The second
issue is whether, in the event of a base year value correction, taxpayers
may be entitled to claim 'a refund beyond- the normal four—year statute of
limitations.
Refunds and Assessor's Value Judgment
Some assessors have interpreted Revenue and Taxation Code Section 51.5
to mean that if a base year value is reduced by way of a correction involving
the assessor's judgment as to value, the assessee may receive only prospective
relief and is not entitled to a refund for taxes already paid. As we will
discuss below, the Board staff's position is that refunds are required
whenever a correction reduces the base year value (assuming taxes have
been paid based on the erroneous base year value), whether the error involves
the assessor's value judgment or not.
Section 51.5(a) requires that the assessor correct any error or omission
in the determination of a base year value. Subdivision (b) provides that
if the error or omission involves the exercise of the assessor's judgment
as to value, the error may be corrected only if it is. placed on the assessment
roll within four years after July 1 of the assessment year for which the
base year value was first established. Subdivision (d) provides: ..,th.at if
a .correction authorized by..subdiv :sions (a) and, (b) reduce;,-,;the base'year
value, appropriate cancellations of assessments .or refundsPbf taxes.paid. ;
shall be granted. This mandate,to grant appr.opri ate cancellations-of
assessments or refunds of taxes.:paid .expressly. references:;:both subdivi soon
(a), relating to general base ::year::v.alue corrections, ':and.subdivision .(b),,
relating to corrections of errors- o.r`omis!V ons .involving a exercise of
the assessor's judgment as.. t'0.'.`-.v' 1 -1',.Thus, the, language.:of. Section 51 .5
is clear in requiring refunds of taxes paid in either case: .
Refunds Beyond Four Years ' -
Section 5097 provides that refunds of taxes paid may be made, under specified
conditions, on a claim filed within four years after making of the payment .
TO COUNTY ASSESSORS —2— July 16, 1991.
sought to be refunded, or within one year after the mailing of notice as
prescribed in Section .2635, or the period agreed to as provided in Section
532.1 , whichever is later. Section 2635 provides that when the amount
of taxes paid exceeds :the amount due by, more than ten dollars, the tax
collector shall send notice of the overpayment to the taxpayer, stating
that a refund claim may be filed pursuant to the provisions of Section
5096 and following. For the reasons stated below, the Board staff's view
is that Section 2635 should not be construed as applying to base year value
corrections under Section 51.5 so as to extend the four—year limit found
in Section 5097.
Section 2635 may provide a mechanism for the county to make refunds beyond
the normal four-year limit imposed by Section 5097, where, pursuant to
Section 2635, the tax collector sends notice of tax overpayment to the
taxpayer. The question is when does Section 2635 authorize or require
the tax collector to send .this notice? One interpretation is that the
notice may be sent in ,any case where taxes have been overpaid, including
where a base year value is corrected under Section 51 .5. If, for example,
a 1980 base year value is reduced in 1991 for a nonjudgmental error, it
could be argued that the tax collector could notice the taxpayer who would
then have one--year in `which to file a claim for refund for the entire
11—year period. This interpretation effectively removes the statute of
limitations for refund claims. In theory, there would never be a time
limit for refund claims arising from assessment reductions or other causes
-of tax overpayment since the tax collector could always give recognition
for such overpayment and issue a Section 2635 notice creating a new one—
year statutory period.
The Board staff's view is that Section 2635 should not be given such a
broad interpretation. After reviewing the legislative history of that
section, as well as related provisions of the code, we are of the opinion
that Section 2635 requires the tax collector to issue an overpayment notice
only when the amount of taxes paid exceeds the amount of taxes which are
shown to be due on the tax rolls provided to the tax collector by the auditor
and reflected in the tax bill sent.to .the taxpayer. We believe that the
normal four—year limit under Section 5097 is applicable to Section 51.5
base year value corrections when a 'correction of a base year value brought
about a revision of the amount of taxes due as- shown on the tax rolls and
the tax bills.
Bear in mind, that Section 2635 imposes a duty on tax collectors and not
assessors. It is not within the purview of the Board to advise county
tax collectors. Thus, the purpose of our advice with respect to Section
2635 is to inform assessors about possible consequences of correcting base
year values more than`, four years after they are first established.
As a reminder, the base year value correction process mandated by Section
51.5 is independent of the assessment appeal provisions. Reductions in
TO COUNTY ASSESSORS —3— July 16,• 1991 '
assessments under Section 80 apply for the assessment year in which the
appeal is taken and prospectively thereafter.
If you have any further questions, please feel free to, contact our Real
Property Technical Services Unit at (916) 445-4982.
Sincerely,
�A
Verne Walton, Chief
Assessment Standards Division
VW: sk
ATE OF CALIFORNIA ~'r •
STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION MEMBER 0
LWAL DIVISION (MIC!81) Fiat District
450 N STREET, SACRAMENTO,CALIFORNIA &RAD SHERMAN
(P.O,BOX 942819, SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 94179-0001) t;.cond District, Led Arvelo.
IB16) 3237713 ERNEST J. DRONENSURO•JR.
TNrd District, Son Diego
MATTHEW X. FONO
Fowth Dtstrlel. Loo Ae*olor
CRAY DAMS
Gannppsr, Bscrsmsnto
BURTON W. OLIVER
August 16, 1994 EXteUths Dbscrow
The Honorable Dick Frank
San Luis Obispo County Assessor
County Government Center, Room 100
San Luis Obispo, CA 93408
Attn: Ms. Barbara L. Edginton
Supervising Property Transfer Technician
In Re: RQll . Corrections: Int2petation of section 4831.
Dear Ms. Edginton; t
This is in response to your April. 21, 1994 letter to Mr.
Richard Ochsner, requesting our opinion concerning the time
limitations for making corrections to the assessment roll, under
the provisions of Revenue & Taxation Code section 4831.
Based on previous communications with the Board's staff, you
understood that under certain circumstances roll corrections
pursuant to Section 4831 could be made for up to twelve years.
You believe this view is based on the language in Section 4831
which states that (The correction. : .shall be made within four
yegIrs after the making -of the assessment whit • 's being
.corrected, " meaning that the four years shoo d bE± 'counted forward
from the date the original erroneous assessment was enrolled.
The . basicroblWm, as we understand it, is analyzing how
roll correction apply to escape assessments. If, for example,
the assessor made escape assessments in 1992, for an unreported
change in ownership that occurred in 1984, can the assessor now
make roll corrections to those underlying assessments? Stating
the question in another way, can the assessor correct a 1984 -
assessment entry because of the 1992 escape? The answer, in our
view, is no, because Section ,4831 does not permit roll
corrections beyond four years, apart from the audit exception
expressed in the statute. Thus, under the foregoing example,
roll corrections could only be made to -the 1992 escape
asdessments
l>A
The Honorable pick Frank -2- August 16, 1994
As you are aware, the assessor has a statutory right under
Section 4831 to correct "errors" in a particular entry on the
assessment roll at any point after the roll is delivered to- the
auditor (enrollment) up to and within four years of that date.
The language of Section 4831 is mandatory with regard to the
timing of the correction of "any error resulting in incorrect
entries on the roll." The mandatory language states in pertinent
part:
(a) Any error resulting in incorrect entries on the roll may
be corrected under this article. The correction may be made
at any time after the roll is delivered to the auditor but
shall be made within foyr years after the making of the
assessment which is being corrected.
There are two exceptions from the roll correction provisions
and one exclusion to four-year limit on roll. corrections, which
are expressly stated as follows:
Exclusions:
(1) Errors involving the exercise of value judgments.
(2) Escape assessments caused by the assessee's failure
to report the information required by Article 2
(commencing with section 441) of Chapter 3 of Part 2 .
Excaptiora
If any error referred to in this subdivision is
discovered as the result of an audit of a .taxpayer' s
books and records, that error may be corrected at any
time prior to the expiration of six months after the
completion of the audit.-
The--purpose of roll corrections is to allow the assessor to
resolve clerical errs only, which result in incorrect entries
on the roll. Section 4831, subdivision (a) (1) prohibits the
assessor from invoking the roll correction procedure to correct
errors involving the exercise of value judgments. The reason for
the prohibition is that once the current. assessment roll is
completed and delivered to the auditor, the assessor may not make
changes apart from correcting clerical errors.
It must be recognized'tliat the Revenue and Taxation Code
provides the assessor at least three separate and distinct tools
to bring about changes in the assessed value of property. These
are roll, corrections, escape assessments and base year value
corrections. The correction of an entry on the roll is made
The Honorable Dick Frank -3- August 16, 1994
under Section 4831. That Section contains its own four year time
limit, which must be`applied when making a qualified correction
of a roll item. - Every roll correction must satisfy that time
limit. That time limit commences to run from the date that -the
particular roll entry being corrected is made. The fact that ,the
property being assessed by a particular entry is later the
subject of an escape assessment made under Section 531 (as
described in the above example) does not extend the four year
limit on correction of that particular entry.
Base year value corrections authorized- by Section 51. 5 are
not subject to- roll corrections, since base year value
corrections are not roll entries. As indicated in subdivision
(d) of Section 51.5, a base year value correction shall be
reflected in either a cancellation or refund .of tax or an escape
assessment. Thus, a roll correction under Section 483.1 cannot be
used to implement a base year value correction. Since roll
corrections, escape assessments and base year value corrections
are separate and distinct procedures and each has its own time
limitations, the time for making roll .correcti.ons is limited by
the terms of Section 4831.
Apart from factual situations which may fall within the
exception, the basic problem is how to apply the four-year
statute of limitations under Section 4831. Its application is
relative only to roll corrections." ' It does not apply to base
year value corrections or to escape assessments. The calculation
of time limitations for roll corrections is hereinafter compared
to and distinguished from base year value corrections and escape
assessments in an attempt to eliminate the apparent confusion.
CoMparisou of Itoll Corrections and ;pose Year Val.u2 66rr2ct.ons.
Section 51.5 states ;that if an error orwomission is in the
determination of a base year value and involves the exercise of
"an assessor's judgment as to value, " the error can be corrected
only if it is placed?on the current roll or roll being prepared,
or within four years after July I of the assessment year for
. which the base year value was first established. Expressly
excluded from the four-year limitation are errors or omissions
resulting from taxpayer fraud, misrepresentation, - or failure to
furnish information and clerical errors.
section 51.. 5 also mandates the correction of an error or
omission in base-year value, by requiring a correction of this
control figure as. of the time the error or omission occurred.
Note that subdivision (d) provides for appropriate cancellation
or refund of taxes or escapes, but does not authorize roll
The Honorable Dick Frank -4- August 26, 1994
corrections after the base year value is corrected. (See LTA No.
88/50, page 2 , copy enclosed. ) This would apply where, for
example, a parent/child exclusion was granted. The base year
value would be corrected and the appropriate cancellations or
refunds of taxes granted.
In LTA N4. 89/34, April 7 , 1989, - we pointed out that a
change in base year value may not always result in a change in
the assessed value or in a change in the value on the roll , since
declines in value may have taken place. In addition, Section
51.5 has no time limits for correction of non-judgmental errors
in base year value, but roll corrections and escape assessments
.. have time limits. (Sections 4831 and 532 . ) Therefore, even
thpgah a roll correction is not permitted car is untimely, the
. . correction of-a base Y-ear value may be permitted and be timely,
requiring the enrollment of an escape assessment, cancellation,
or a refund of taxes.
o npar son of Corroolions and Escape Assessments,
Where the error is one involving the exercise of value
judgment, the appropriate remedy for the assessor is to levy an
escape assessment under Section 531 et seq. Unlike a roll
correction under Section 4831, the taxpayer in such event is
entitled to a hearing -before the assessment appeals board, and
the assessment appeals process, in effect, then becomes the means
-of rectifying (correcting) omissions or errors in the original
assessment. (Section 1605. ) The statute of limitations for
escape assessments-under Section 532 (see also subdivision (b) of
Section 531'.2) is the controlling provision in this regard, and
this provision does not pertain to the assessor's right to make
roll corrections under Section 4831. Therefore, even though a
correction e tted or ja unti=lv the enroll
a iday be permitted andflayle tinel
Sectoiops 531 et seq. are simply a mechanism which allows for
the correction of thle effects of an underassessment once the
underassessmentihas been identified. This permits the assessor
to increase an underassessment regardless of the cause (clerical,
error in judgment,. or otherwise) . The procedures related to
escape assessments are separate and distinct from roll
corrections.
With regard to the two hypotheticals you described, I have
enclosed a copy of LTA No.-'94/21, March 30, 1994, which contains
problems and answers -similar to those you submitted. I trust
that the information 'contained therein, together with the
4iscussion included in this letter, will be helpful in addressing
,r examples. If you would like further information, however,
_1.V11L L1Vlvl vi'
The Honorable Dick Frank -5- August 16, 1994
please feel free to call or write at any time with respect to
this matter.
The views expressed in this letter are, of course, advisory
only and are not binding upon the assessor of any county. Our
.intention is to. provide courteous and helpful responses to
inquiries such as yours. Suggestions that help us to accomplish
this objective are appreciated.
sincerely,
Kristine Cazadd
Tax Counsel
Enclosures
cc: Mr. John Hagerty, MIC: 63
Assessment Standards Division Chief, MIC:64
Ms. Jennifer Willis, MIC:70
precednt\bayrcors\94002.kec
WESTCO IiONSULTING
SUITE 273
1500 WEST EL CAMINO AVENUE
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95833
TEL: (916)888-0788
FAX: (916) 888-0997
FAX LETTER: 6 PAGES
August 15, 1995
Louis Rivara
Office of the Assessor
County of Contra Costa
834 Court Street
Martinez, CA 94553
RE: POSSESSORY INTEREST ACCOUNT NUMBER 127990-0004
Dear Mr. Rivara:
Per our conversation :;yesterday, I am faxing a response from the
State Board of Equalization to the San Luis Obispo Assessor' s
Office regarding roll :corrections . Addressed are the three methods
that are available to the assessor to bring about changes in
assessed value .
Because abase year value correction was warranted, and was made by
. Bob Kaseman on 7/26/95, Section 51 .5 (d) applies, not Section 4831 .
Furthermore, Section 51 .5 (d) mandates appropriate cancellation or
refunds of taxes when the ;value has been reduced. Section 5097
provides for refunds of taxes paid if the claim is filed within
four years after making the payment sought to be •refunded.
Following are the appropriate changes that should be made: The
1975 base year value of $75, 080 should be restored. The
appropriate inflation factor should be added to determine the
taxable value for each subsequent year. These values should then
be compared to the value on the roll and refunds issued for the
years still open under the statue of limitations (1991/92, 1992/93 ,
1993/94, 1994/95) .
Please contact me once you have reviewed this information. Thank
you for your time and consideration.
Very truly •yours,
Brian M. Miller
RECEIVE®
WESTCO IAONSULTING
SUITE 273 NOV 1 "3' 1995
1500 WEST EL CAMINO AVENUE
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95833
C�.ER COPITRAOCOSTA CO.ISORS`
TEL: (916) 888-0788
FAX: (916) 888-0997
November 10, 1995
Board of Supervisors
County of Contra Costa
651 Pine Street #106
Martinez, CA 94533
RE: CLAIM FOR REFUND OF PROPERTY TAXES
Clerk of the Board:
After numerous discussions with your office regarding the above
"Claim for Refund" , I am re-submitting this claim for
reconsideration.
In addition, a copy of the claim has been sent to Supervisor
DeFaulnier for review.
Sincerely,
Brian M. Miller
r