Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Aircraft Situs Value Mccarron topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hearing officer accepts assessor’s apportioned aircraft values, sustains penalty; owner argued aircraft had Utah situs
Summary
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.
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.
