HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 04242001 - C.67 Date: 4/24/01 Item:
Considered With:
Listed in Error:
Deleted from Consideration : XX
On this date, the Board of Supervisors withdrew this matter from the Board's
consideration.
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS �-' `f T '' CONTRA
` '• COSTA
G M'�''' �``:• '��� COUNTY
FROM: John Sweeten, County Administrator �`'•_ . z '
DATE: April 24, 2001
SUBJECT: AB 934 (Hertzberg) - Oppose
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION(S):
1. OPPOSE AB 934 (Hertzberg) which would allow a taxpayer the right to a trial de novo if not
satisfied with the decision of an Assessment Appeals Board.
2. REQUEST the County Lobbyist to appropriately communicate the Board's position on AB 934.
BACKGROUND/REASON(S) FOR RECOMMENDATION(S):
Under current law, either a taxpayer or a County Assessor can appeal a decision of an Assessment Appeals
Board (AAB) to the Superior Court. The discretion of the Court is constrained by the record and findings
before the AAB, that is, the Court must sustain the findings of the AAB if supported by substantial evidence
in the record. Assuming an AAB has not committed prejudicial error of law, this "substantial evidence"
usually sustains an AAB decision upon Superior Court review.
AB 934 would substantially change property tax litigation by allowing for a trial de novo on taxpayer
appeals. Under AB 934, a taxpayer, but not an assessor, would have the right to a'trial de novo if not
satisfied with the decision of an AAB. Under such trial de novo review, the Court would not be constrained
by the record, analysis, findings or decisions of the AAB, but rather could ignore the record, retry the case ab
initio and make its own findings and decisions with regard to the determinations of the AAB.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE: �i
_ RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR_RECOMMENDATION OF BOA COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED_OTHER /
�J
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
AYES: NOES: / ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ON MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Contact:
j ATTESTED
JOHN SWEETEN,CLERK OF
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AND LINTY ADMINISTRATOR
cc: CAO
Gus K r,Assessor
De 8 Graves,County Counsel BY DEPUTY
BACKGROUND/REASON(S) FOR RECOMMENDATIONS (cont'd):
County Counsel and the County Assessor have reviewed this bill and feel that it would encourage appeals that
now settle and avoid subsequent court action. In particular, there is concern about appeals on the part of
refineries. If two per year were appealed, the cost to the County would be approximately $1.5 million a year
with a loss exposure of at least $10 million per year of tax receipts.
r
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE-2001-02 REGULAR SESSION
ASSEMBLY BILL No. 934
Introduced by Assembly Member Hertzberg
February 23, 2001
An act to amend Section 5170 of the Revenue and Taxation Code,
relating to taxation.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 934, as introduced, Hertzberg. Property taxes: refund
proceedings: local assessments.
Existing property tax law provides, with respect to suits for refund
of state-assessed taxes, that the trial court is not restricted to the
administrative record, but may consider all relevant admissible
evidence.
This bill would extend these provisions to property tax refund
proceedings involving locally assessed property.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no.
State-mandated local program: no.
The people of the State of California do enact asfollows:
1 SECTION 1. Section 5170 of the Revenue and Taxation Code
2 is amended to read:
3 5170. In stuts a suit for the refund of state-assessed or locally
4 assessed property taxes, the trial court sly may not be restricted
5 to the administrative record, but shall consider all evidence
6 relating to the valuation of the property admissible under the rules
99
i t
• AB 934 —2—
I
2-
1 of evidence. The court shall base its decision upon the
2 preponderance of the evidence before it.
O
99