[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-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",[32,75],{"_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":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6485680,"mediaKeyId","5594550-56de132ef43e37fc88af3faeddc1ad3d","parentId",5594550,"title","Hearing officer accepts assessor’s apportioned aircraft values, sustains penalty; owner argued aircraft had Utah situs","audioSeconds",3469,"startMs",6001000,"endMs",9470000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5594550-56de132ef43e37fc88af3faeddc1ad3d&start=6001&end=9470","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5594550-56de132ef43e37fc88af3faeddc1ad3d/thumbnail_6001000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6485680/Ventura-County/California/Hearing-officer-accepts-assessors-apportioned-aircraft-values-sustains-penalty-owner-argued-aircraft-had-Utah-situs","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6485680-7518bf10a7c346a831d54c07c5a97494/orig.mp4?Expires=1771159357&Signature=QK0QNlvUNe~Yr0YmPie8dv6agxRMD7V3Hicxt5xsWr1ns95EJxF~kJQ5L3lWFX4BYbWnpmCtviwZZbsR0EWr-sYNABAe91~D81QdRNT-KdFbZNRAYFx93e9b8RetlwnJoDSfp6z~RfuLN5w0RzVS3q5-x1ZOTxOpMIL0gFAQ5EMEyzgNeFYPluQbxPIMUMv3ns2HT0cUMruuyTb-OBT5KYpwpjwi9g6E3zY279cfYHJMuo8pOc9n54NCTG3g~U3HMcX0xIuQCBzvmiZqQ-w0HEHFacah8x5dKQQlxH7CZaHHuPeJEeS8SShqlKKn9AWxUeIYWylh2RSiPp~UaER-Ug__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Ventura County (Top 100)","date","2025-08-18T20:57:35Z","article","A Ventura County hearing officer on Aug. 18 sustained the assessor’s apportioned valuations for an aircraft and upheld a 10% penalty for failure to timely file the aircraft property statement, after a contested hearing over where the aircraft had taxable situs.

Nancy and Timothy McCarron (applicants) told the hearing the aircraft’s operational base and corporate title were in Hurricane, Utah, the aircraft paid Utah registration/fees and was maintained in Utah, and that the family had long personal ties to Utah. The McCarrons said they had not received earlier county mailings and had relied on Utah registration and payments; they asked the board to consider that due process required additional outreach from the county before imposing penalty.

Assessor’s representative Michael Gillinger presented the assessor’s review of the applicant’s flight logs, FAA registration, insurance and registration documents and the airport tenant list. Gillinger testified the assessor calculated Ventura County ground time from the flight logs and used that apportionment in the state‑approved aircraft valuation methodology (price guide adjusted for hours and a standard 10% statewide reduction). The assessor’s revised valuations after the applicant’s submissions were summarized in the assessor’s exhibit — the assessor proposed apportioned values of roughly $217,200 for the 2023 lien year and a similar adjusted figure for 2024 (values were calculated after adjusting for out‑of‑state time and sales‑tax element per guidance).

Hearing Officer Sisk heard argument about whether California’s tax situs rules apply when an aircraft is principally operated and titled in another state. The McCarrons cited cases and administrative guidance on situs and urged that the assessor misapplied California Property Tax Rule 205 (which governs allocation among California counties) to a multistate situs question. The assessor replied that the county’s practice was to apportion value based on documented ground time; the FAA registration and airport hangar records provided the assessor a valid mailing address for notices. The assessor also introduced an exchange with Utah registration staff indicating Utah’s rules about registration fees for aircraft that operate outside Utah for more than six months per year.

After hearing testimony and reviewing exhibits, the hearing officer stated on the record that the assessor’s revised valuations (the assessor’s apportioned market values) were accepted for the two years under appeal and that the 10% non‑filing penalty for failure to timely file the annual property statement would be sustained. The transcript records the hearing officer’s bench decision sustaining the assessor’s position on valuation and penalty; no roll‑call vote was recorded on the transcript.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Assessment Appeals Hearing Officer Meeting - August 18, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","A Ventura County hearing officer on Aug. 18 accepted the assessor’s apportioned aircraft valuations and sustained a 10% non‑filing penalty after reviewing flight logs, FAA/Utah registration papers, and correspondence; the owner had argued the aircraft had taxable situs in Utah.","taxTitle","Ventura County, California","taxId",3398,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6485685,"Hearing officer sustains 10% non‑filing penalty for AeroCruise LLC aircraft",3194,3914000,7108000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5594550-56de132ef43e37fc88af3faeddc1ad3d&start=3914&end=7108","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5594550-56de132ef43e37fc88af3faeddc1ad3d/thumbnail_3914000.jpg","/articles/6485685/Ventura-County/California/Hearing-officer-sustains-10-nonfiling-penalty-for-AeroCruise-LLC-aircraft","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6485685-2bdf32f22bdcc450c86250778af1f563/orig.mp4?Expires=1771159357&Signature=EEnPUG9JB79Tg1s0xMAzteijyJPh4GfbwsrCxW2~SVN6t5V1M-SxRzZ90RcR~AhHBq06sRpU3DhFDWPW3llFX3znrmdRuM1XivYatjciMXFCyZkpsactp6wc4oIhxKm1oEBPIPiKXzkDHYDOxxSUO0-qSmsbr3WDqiueNzdGTX~P4xOHBRfoObnMrTenZbiOakkdFFzSt2VoLKJph5D8xLVmFqd-K~z7cmPqr7AGAjvq2Af0df61hs~jWUtudqYk~QRNu6ESx9SSTdelBj~vyHRGpcoFOrAIU2k~QCUz~UySuxhH2h6L~h7SXxrSzdGCAKP92X6In51s2KbeT4iUGg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A Ventura County hearing officer on Aug. 18 sustained a 10% non‑filing penalty applied to AeroCruise LLC’s aircraft for the lien date Jan. 1, 2023, after finding the owner did not meet the statutory duty to file an annual aircraft property statement.

The assessor’s office, represented by Michael Gillinger, said the county mailed the required annual property statement to the FAA‑listed owner’s address and relied on the Camarillo Airport tenant list to identify the aircraft. Gillinger told the hearing that the county’s standard practice is to send the statement to the aircraft registrant and that Revenue and Taxation Code requirements impose the filing duty and the penalty for failure to file. The assessor presented FAA registration records, a Camarillo Airport hangar report listing the aircraft tail number M565P and hangar P110E, and insurance and registration copies showing an owner address in Hurricane, Utah.

Applicant Gabriel Cruz (AeroCruise LLC) disputed the penalty, saying the aircraft remained in maintenance and was not physically in Ventura County at the lien date in a manner that should trigger tax liability, and that he had called the assessor’s office and was told no penalty would apply. Cruz testified he later filed the 2024 and 2025 statements after receiving later notices.

Hearing Officer Sisk ruled the county had shown the legal requirements for a filing and that the owner’s lack of awareness of the filing requirement does not by itself excuse the obligation to file. Under the cited Revenue and Taxation Code sections and case law the county relied upon, the hearing officer sustained the 10% penalty for failure to file for the 2023 lien date.

The hearing officer also explained the distinction between the assessor’s mailing obligations and the statutory duty to file: while a jurisdiction should attempt reasonable notice, the statutory filing requirement can create a penalty liability even if the assessor did not secure the statement prior to the due date. The hearing closed with the penalty sustained; no named motion or roll‑call vote was recorded in the transcript.","A Ventura County hearing officer sustained a 10% penalty for failure to file a required aircraft property statement for lien date Jan. 1, 2023. The assessor presented FAA registration and hangar records; the applicant said he had not received a timely notice. The hearing officer found the statute requires timely filing and sustained the penalty.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Hearing officer accepts assessor’s apportioned aircraft values, sustains penalty; owner argued aircraft had Utah situs

Hearing officer sustains 10% non‑filing penalty for AeroCruise LLC aircraft