[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6251636,"mediaKeyId","3193827-c5c3397f8d25aa5d6863075a86fc3496","parentId",3193827,"title","Prop 19 inheritance rules leave heirs, assessors and counties seeking clearer guidance","audioSeconds",242,"startMs",3774000,"endMs",4016000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3193827-c5c3397f8d25aa5d6863075a86fc3496&start=3774&end=4016","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3193827-c5c3397f8d25aa5d6863075a86fc3496/thumbnail_3774000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6251636/California/Prop-19-inheritance-rules-leave-heirs-assessors-and-counties-seeking-clearer-guidance","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6251636-fc58e47934cd8710db99bf52e0d7d119/orig.mp4?Expires=1770789968&Signature=fYCzYvRBOFI1AI8cjdzewI5U3oX0cOtsQsikRkzlKqMuMUx7WjsUej9KUJLOihDEmdcP2ZFVHPLub86q9L5pNW81awCVfXhRR-8wBKsvfxH0tUNrTRNutKZBx-m9-OLWcdSGOPxfzpyVQIpyAWsbmqIpsaY~Dn~yjbCDH-ZIsPMkLHWvX070dvA1HHAL-L76ziSzCFnI4mhF8J2l-Hg56PUj95IfNuVOI8ocfqzH1HRPnOQ~KQi92D-2yqM7mUgyZz-INjYUvgbLACSwwCdW5r2LXjV48AK3khQCK04183716oR2RSWWz1ZN-ESBVl-oxLdFr6Q7lxDZ7ECdom9Q0A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Board of Equalization","date","2025-05-06T04:21:53.71Z","article","Assessors from Sacramento, San Diego and Humboldt counties told a Board of Equalization work group that Proposition 19’s changes to intergenerational transfers and base-year value rules have produced unanticipated burdens for taxpayers and assessors.

Sacramento County presented concrete examples in which heirs lost retroactive benefit because probate or trust settlement delayed their ability to occupy a transferred family home or file the homeowner’s exemption within one year. Jared Detifor, Assistant Assessor for Sacramento County, described three cases where probate or trust settlement prevented heirs from meeting the one‑year requirement; in those cases the appeals board affirmed county denials or granted only prospective relief. \"This denial resulted in the annual tax bill increasing from $1,264 to $3,370 per year,\" Detifor said in one example.

Linda Cogburn, Sacramento County chief appraiser, pointed the work group to the constitutional and statutory language that assessors rely on. She quoted Article 13A, section 2.1 (subdivision C1) language that the work group had on its slide deck: \"for the purposes of subdivision A of section 2, the terms purchased and change in ownership do not include the purchase or transfer of a family home of the transferor in a case of a transfer between parents and their children ... if the property continues to be the family home of the transferee.\" Cogburn noted the same constitutionally derived rules also state that certain exemptions and claims must be filed within one year, and she asked whether regulations or clearer definitions (for example, \"court-ordered transfer,\" \"trust settlement within a year\") could accommodate probate or trust timelines.

Assessors said the ambiguity is particularly acute for the so-called \"family farm\" component of Prop 19’s intergenerational rules. Humboldt County Assessor Howard Laahee said in his county the provision is difficult to administer because \"99% of the properties either grow timber or potentially grow timber in Humboldt County,\" and assessors have struggled to apply a clear, consistent definition that distinguishes commercial agricultural operations from incidental residential gardens or hobbies.

San Diego County provided examples that illustrate how the new market-value-based calculations under Prop 19 create varying \"caps\" for heirs depending on the assessed value at transfer and the home’s fair-market value. San Diego Division Chief Robert Gomez suggested a possible remedy: lengthening the filing window for a homeowners-exemption claim following a transfer to three years (which he compared to an existing three-year period used elsewhere in the code) to reduce denials tied to probate or trust delays.

Assemblymember Mike Gibson, chair of the Assembly Revenue and Taxation Committee and attending the work group, told members he is prepared to work with the board and stakeholders on constitutional or legislative changes if that is the agreed path: \"I think there's been unintended consequences as relates to Proposition 19,\" Gibson said, and he said a constitutional amendment would be needed to alter the voter-approved text.

Sacramento County said some taxpayers intend to pursue denials in court, and county staff asked whether BOE regulations could be revised or clarified to address probate and trust timing so that inheritance effective dates and the one‑year filing requirement can be interpreted consistently across counties.

Ending: Board staff said they are reviewing the examples and legal questions raised and will include recommendations and potential regulatory or legislative next steps in the work group minutes for the June meeting; stakeholders and an assemblymember signaled willingness to explore legislative remedies.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","April 30, 2025 BOE Board Meeting - PM Session","oneSentenceSummary","County assessors told a Board of Equalization work group that probates and unsettled trusts are preventing heirs from meeting the one‑year filing requirement created by Proposition 19, producing denials or only prospective relief in some cases and prompting calls for clearer guidance or legislative fixes.","taxTitle","Board of Equalization, Other State Agencies, Executive, California","taxId",16214,"location","California","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6251641,"Fragmented e‑filing systems and signature rules slow county tax administration",174,1935000,2109000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3193827-c5c3397f8d25aa5d6863075a86fc3496&start=1935&end=2109","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3193827-c5c3397f8d25aa5d6863075a86fc3496/thumbnail_1935000.jpg","/articles/6251641/California/Fragmented-efiling-systems-and-signature-rules-slow-county-tax-administration","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6251641-b7bc35b7e85172821fe215bd8b390e69/orig.mp4?Expires=1770789968&Signature=Jc1m66spLQIWOdq-YOCL2pPInFONdm1MmhCP2CnKqsOUYGnGMHDZBNk5yY7ypBCvfMsCSgfoBLDrav3uKutJ9NZswSD8AaMXM3qia1BCmR8T6nuyXgGpSJ40RBofwyNsJj1hlhqR5Fi87phomOUBni8lh-uoh75ufwMrH9bCGdWu-s2PS4vLIg4GZ81UaZ5FDvqIS9w9dXEpQgpyOPjXkXNxa8yq9kND69iwUZlrMOy9y2S3usvijPB0NTRCwAR6jdLH~GkchSQHBWfJqmziCAZn3yP4rDutu8rebwhOLtSqXMS8xCNpHgu6REG0ugzleSdFeI2mMuXCLR0WTAS~yg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","County assessors, technical representatives and tax lawyers told a Board of Equalization work group that fragmentation across multiple electronic filing platforms — together with uneven rules about digital signatures — is creating administrative burden that disproportionately affects smaller counties and the taxpayers who file there.

Practitioners described three practical problems: (1) multiple incompatible filing systems, (2) uncertainty about whether and how counties will accept e‑signatures, and (3) out-of-pocket costs or penalties tied to signature method.

Paul Waldman of the Ryan Group explained that personal-property returns and bulk filings are handled through several different systems. \"You have this SDR system that is statewide, but counties can either opt in or not,\" he said. In testimony to the panel Waldman summarized adoption counts shared with the work group: roughly 37 counties had adopted the SDR batch filing system, about 21 accepted single-record online filing (E‑SDR), and approximately 21 counties used a vendor known as Megabyte for online filing; a few very small counties reportedly had no electronic option. \"So they need to file some on SDR, some on ESDR, some on Megabyte, some by paper. It's not worth it. So they do it all by paper,\" Waldman said.

Waldman and other witnesses also described uneven acceptance of electronic signatures. The legislature passed AB 1879 to require counties to accept an electronic signature when a document is e-filed, witnesses said, but many filers still face wet-signature rules in practice because they must use county-specific portals or counties have verification concerns. A 10 percent penalty for lack of a wet signature on certain personal property filings was reported in testimony as a real cost in some counties; practitioners said penalties could sometimes be abated on appeal but were onerous for some taxpayers.

Digital-signature verification is the core technical concern, witnesses said. Common commercial solutions (for example, DocuSign) can verify identity but incur per-signature or account fees; witnesses reported that DocuSign costs could be roughly $5 per signature for very small counties and less for medium and large counties. That cost is typically borne by the county if the county hosts the signing link; witnesses suggested counties could either absorb the cost, pass it through as a processing fee, or maintain a wet‑signature option for no extra charge.

Smaller counties emphasized limited budgets. Humboldt County Assessor Howard Laahee told the panel his clerk of the board considered an assessment-appeals module that would have cost about $30,000 per year in maintenance and setup, an amount his budget could not support while the county faces a multi-million dollar shortfall.

Witnesses proposed practical steps: compile a statewide inventory of which counties accept which filing systems and signature types; encourage or subsidize county adoption of a single statewide portal for appeals filing (which could include Prop 19 functions); permit a one-time signature card on file to reduce repeated wet signatures; and provide clear guidance and outreach to tax professionals to increase e-filing uptake.

No formal decisions were reached at the work group. Staff said they would include the testimony and suggested next steps in the meeting minutes and recommendations for the board.

Ending: Work group members asked staff for an inventory of county filing systems and signature acceptance; stakeholders encouraged further study and outreach to reduce the current mix of systems and the resulting reliance on paper.","County assessors and tax practitioners told the Board of Equalization work group that multiple, nonstandard e-filing platforms and inconsistent acceptance of electronic signatures force many filers back to paper, raising costs and creating penalties for taxpayers who e-file without a wet signature in some counties.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6251646,"Counties say refunds often take weeks; Santa Clara reports five-week average",566,125000,691000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3193827-c5c3397f8d25aa5d6863075a86fc3496&start=125&end=691","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3193827-c5c3397f8d25aa5d6863075a86fc3496/thumbnail_125000.jpg","/articles/6251646/California/Counties-say-refunds-often-take-weeks-Santa-Clara-reports-five-week-average","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6251646-5075f6f02f07fe83afa3059aa5f61369/orig.mp4?Expires=1770789968&Signature=SFLAq15WoOKmLzITNytFcKvYRU1MUtg~1W2SYulo~knpFjtpzF5eGmMzWVINQQUWvCfRQ6rcqBo7JJkvfoywcnj0KVsDSW~mc6heWm102MxApc4WeKNL8T50i8caYmMcNMHLuwfzmEg5ruA3GWEs7m~jO1jfYWq-82ftxL-CAhS0kuycDBZNCYS7x5bV1R3Mx0E-7CqB76FNcPWIrGL~-sKkvlDjCmnOaX8-V9iiXp6BrtaxBwVOe69TeVw~WGgxpJ2VMqff-E5t4MW6rGBfwUOIOBbFuBSBpppV3pwXOs7~FxZ68rO9YOna7Qez2PR5kRHqDOCRCkYPaalKeV73fA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Santa Clara County and tax practitioners told a Board of Equalization work group that property-tax refunds after assessment appeals commonly take several weeks — not days — and that the time varies based on the steps required to verify payees and compute interest.

The difference matters, panelists said, because delay can create cash-flow problems for taxpayers and administrative congestion for counties.

Deputy County Counsel Bhavit Madvani, who advises the Assessment Appeals Board in Santa Clara County, said County Tax and Collections data show most refunds tied to reduced secured assessments are issued on average within five weeks. \"On average, we're talking about 5 weeks,\" Madvani said, adding that straightforward cases often take three to four weeks while more complex matters can rise to six or seven weeks.

Why it can take that long, panelists said, is that counties must confirm the correct recipient for the refund (it is sometimes an escrow company, mortgage lender, or a mailing address different from the property address), check for delinquent tax bills or taxpayer elections to apply the amount to other years, compute interest, secure managerial approvals for large amounts, and maintain documentation subject to public records requests. Madvani said manager review is required for refund amounts of $50,000 or more and that several additional clerical steps follow before a physical refund check is mailed.

Taxpayer advocates and private practitioners told the work group that in some counties the same process can take six to 12 months or longer. \"There's no similar timing requirements attributable to refunds,\" Brad Marsh, co-managing shareholder of Greenberg Terrain LLP and vice chair of CADAA, said, noting the absence of statutory deadlines that match taxpayers' payment timelines.

Marsh described two practical problems that lengthen processing time: (1) handoffs among multiple county offices (clerk of the board, controller/treasurer, assessor, tax collector) and (2) uncertainty about who paid the tax at closing (escrow, lender or owner). He said a recent county questionnaire showed wide variation in practice and that some counties lack reliable payor records for older assessments.

Marsh urged administrative fixes including clearer rollout of Revenue and Taxation Code–style procedures (he referenced a statutory citation in testimony) and suggested adding guidance to county tax-collector manuals to require a roll correction within 30 days of an Assessment Appeals Board decision and a refund within 30 days thereafter. He also proposed expanding circumstances in which the applicant listed on an appeals form could be treated as the refund payee to reduce time spent tracing intermediaries.

Work group members asked whether refunds could be paid electronically to speed delivery. Madvani said he would follow up with the controller/treasurer office on direct deposit options; the transcript records he did not advise the controller’s office and could not confirm whether direct deposit is available but agreed to report back.

Panelists discussed interest paid on late refunds. Marsh and others noted current law entitles taxpayers to interest computed as the greater of 3 percent or the county pool-apportioned rate. A previously introduced bill (discussed in testimony as \"AB 3134\") would have cut off interest for refunds not paid within 90 days; Marsh said it did not advance.

No formal actions or votes were taken at the work group. The panel concluded with staff saying written minutes and a summary of recommendations would be prepared for the board’s June meeting.

Ending: Board staff will compile the day's testimony and recommendations for consideration at the Board of Equalization's June meeting and may schedule follow-up work to pursue policy or administrative changes suggested by stakeholders.","A Board of Equalization work group heard that some counties issue property-tax refunds in weeks while others can take months. Santa Clara County officials told the panel their department averages about five weeks to issue refunds after assessment appeals, and stakeholders proposed procedural and statutory fixes to shorten delays.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Prop 19 inheritance rules leave heirs, assessors and counties seeking clearer guidance

Fragmented e‑filing systems and signature rules slow county tax administration

Counties say refunds often take weeks; Santa Clara reports five-week average