|
AMBRECHT & BRITTAIN, LLPNew Cases and DevelopmentsBy Dibby Allan Green, CLAS |
|
The subject property is a single family residence, occupied by the taxpayer. The issues on appeal were (1) whether the County's evidence of valuation was legally incompetent, and (2) whether there was substantial evidence to support the Assessment Appeals Board's finding. Both were answered no. The Appellate Court noted that the question of whether an assessor complies with Board of Equalization rules in applying the comparable sales valuation method is a matter of law and subject to review de novo. The assessor, in using the comparable sales method, is required to comply with Rule 4 and make adjustments to reflect the differences between the comparable sales and the subject property. While affirming that the presumption lies with the taxpayer in an owner-occupied single family dwelling, the Court was unwilling to enter the valuation requested by Taxpayer. Instead, the matter was remanded to the Superior Court to issue a peremptory writ of mandate directing the Assessment Appeals Board to hold further hearing. The request for attorneys' fees and costs was also transferred to the Superior Court. Mitchell v. County of Los Angeles, 58 Cal.App.4th 497 (Dec. 1977)
Several parties together presented applications to the San Francisco City and County Assessment Appeals Board, and the Board failed to act on them within the two-year period under Rev. & Tax Code §1604(c). San Francisco contended on appeal that Taxpayers affirmatively waived the two-year requirement and are otherwise estopped to enforce it. However, San Francisco failed to plead the waiver and estoppel issues as an affirmative defense in their answer at the trial court level, and thus were barred from raising those defenses. Additionally, constitutionality of the time limitation provided by §1604(c) was affirmed. Thus, even though only nominal values were given on Taxpayers' application to the Assessment Appeals Board, these values were required to be entered on the roll. Taxpayers were applying for refunds for a number of years. The Appeals Court held that certain of the claims for refund filed beyond the Rev. & Tax. Code §5097 period (four years after payment) were not entitled to a refund. The fact that the Taxpayers were waiting for determination by the Assessment Appeals Board did not extend this four-year period; applications must still be filed within the four years. Other claims for refund were improperly verified by Taxpayer's attorneys, but the Court held that this was not fatal to the claim. The subject of the dispute as to the remaining claims was whether the Assessor's use of the band-of-investments method of valuation was proper. The Court noted the standard of review of factual determinations (i.e., valuation issues) of Assessment Appeals Boards is the "substantial evidence test" and not an independent reassessment. However, as to questions of law, which interpretation of statutes and administrative regulations are, then the Court is to make an independent assessment. Thus, a challenge to the validity of a valuation method used by the assessor is a question of law subject to independent review of the Court, but a challenge to the application of a method is subject to the substantial evidence test. The Court also noted that in filing an application with the Assessment Appeals Board, the taxpayer has the burden of proof, as the presumption is that the assessor has properly performed his/her duty. This requires the taxpayer to present independent evidence relevant to the full value of the property. In this case, Taxpayer's challenge also meant that they must show the assessor's use of the band-of-investments method was arbitrary, in excess of discretion, or in violation of standards prescribed by law. Although Taxpayers brought in comparable sales, they failed to show the Assessor's use of the band-of-investments method was improper. 18 Cal.Code Regs. §8(g) only indicates comparable sales is the preferred method, it does not mandate use of the method. Each of Taxpayer's challenges against the Assessor's method came from standards applied to comparable sales valuation method, not to band-of-investments method. The presumption not being overcome, the assessor's use of the valuation method was upheld. Finally, Taxpayers had asked for attorneys' fees under Gov't. Code §800 and Rev. & Tax. Code §5152, which had been denied by the trial court. Because the Appeals Court partly reversed the trial court, the matter was remanded to the trial court for determination as to the Gov't. Code §800 request. Rev. & Tax. Code §5152 applies to errors by the assessor, and in this case the error was by the Assessment Appeals Board, and thus the statute was inapplicable. Mission Housing Development Co. v. City and County of San Francisco, 58 Cal.App.4th 55 (Nov. 1977)
Four-year statute of limitation for challenging an Assessor's redetermination of base-year value does not apply to non-judgmental (non-valuation) corrections, and such corrections may be made at any time Several persons formed a partnership called "Sunrise Retirement Villa" and in 1986 conveyed two parcels of real property into the partnership name. One parcel was held in the name of several of the partners, another parcel was held in the name of one partner only. Because proportional ownership interests in each property was not retained, the Placer County Assessor determined a change in ownership had occurred and reassessed the property, establishing a new base year. In 1994, the partners discovered facts that indicated notwithstanding vesting on the deeds, that true ownership as to all the parcels was by all the partners and that the proportional ownership interest exclusion should have been applied and so no change in ownership would have occurred. The Assessor, however, was not persuaded to change the assessment; and the Assessment Appeals Board said it had no jurisdiction because the application was filed more than four years after the Assessor had redetermined the base-year value under Rev. & Tax Code §80(a)(3). The Court of Appeal held that the categorical language of Rev. & Tax Code §51.5 shows a clear intent to remove any and all time restrictions on correcting nonjudgmental errors in determining base-year values. §51.5 provides, "Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, any error or omission in the determination of a base year value . . . which does not involve the exercise of an assessor's judgment as to value, shall be corrected in any assessment year in which the error or omission is discovered." The purpose of §51.5 is to remove any time limits on correcting the base-year value for non-valuation issues. The Court also addressed procedural issues, and indicated administrative mandate is generally not applicable to an Assessment Appeals Board. The proper remedy is to order the agency to perform its statutorily mandated duty, but the court may not step into the shoes of the agency and perform its function for it, since mandate does not lie to control the discretion conferred in a public agency. Thus, the Superior Court erred in issuing a writ ordering the assessor to correct the roll. The Court of Appeal held that the Superior Court should have issued a writ compelling the Board to act. Sunset Retirement Villa v. Dear, 58 Cal.App.4th 948; 68 Cal.Rptr.2d 416 (Oct. 1997)
This page: www.taxlawsb.com/resources/PptyTax/cases.htm
|