Yolo County appeals board hears request to abate 10% penalty for Wake Forest Gardens LLC; no decision reached

The Yolo County Assessment Appeals Board on April 16 heard a request from Wake Forest Gardens LLC to abate a 10% penalty assessed for a late filing of a change-of-ownership statement with the State Board of Equalization.

The request was presented by Brenda Freeman, attorney for Wake Forest Gardens LLC, who asked the board to find that the delay resulted from circumstances linked to the death of the entity owner and therefore constituted "reasonable cause" under the Revenue and Taxation Code. Ashley Carpenter of the Yolo County Assessor's Office told the board the assessor applied the penalty after the county received state reporting and that the office had determined the 10% penalty had been calculated incorrectly by county financial services and should be corrected to reflect the full taxable value.

The matter mattered to the board because California law requires a change-in-ownership statement be filed within 90 days of a reportable transfer; the statute gives the county board the discretion to abate penalties where a taxpayer demonstrates reasonable cause. Carpenter read the statutory standard aloud during the hearing, noting the board "may order the penalty abated" if the assessee establishes the failure to file was due to reasonable cause and was filed within the timeframes required for an abatement application.

Carpenter, identified in the record as a representative of the Assessor's Office, told the board the assessor did not learn of the change of ownership until state reporting reached the county in 2021 and that the office had applied the 10% penalty after calculating the tax difference. Carpenter also said the assessor's office found the county's financial-services calculation of the penalty was incorrect and recommended correcting the penalty amount even if the board chose to uphold it.

Sandy Gomez, interim deputy assessor, explained how counties are normally notified of ownership changes: through recorded deeds or reports the state forwards to counties after a filer submits the Board of Equalization form. Gomez said this case involved transfers of membership interests in an LLC rather than a deeded transfer, which is why the county did not receive earlier notice through recorded deeds.

Brenda Freeman, counsel for the applicant, argued the delay should be viewed in the context of estate administration after the death of the LLC's principal. "Grief looks different for everyone," Freeman said, adding that families commonly wait months before engaging attorneys to administer an estate and that the 90‑day statutory timeline is aimed at business transactions rather than estate administration.

Freeman told the board her office submitted the BOE change-of-ownership form for the entity on Dec. 21, 2018, after the firm was retained in mid‑2018 to assist with trust administration, and that the client waived a request for written findings to speed the hearing. County staff confirmed the BOE filing was late under the 90‑day rule; the death that triggered the transfer occurred Sept. 14, 2017, according to the assessor's summary.

Board members questioned whether other filings or professional advisers would have put the taxpayers on notice earlier. One board member said the filing of tax returns or statements of information with the Secretary of State commonly triggers awareness of changes; county staff said reporting to the state and the state's subsequent reporting to counties are the mechanism that notifies the assessor's office.

No formal decision on the abatement was announced at the hearing. The board completed oral presentations, noted the assessor's position that the penalty generally applies where filings are late, and said it would take the matter under further consideration. At the conclusion of the meeting the board recessed into closed session; the board did not announce a vote on the abatement before recessing.

Votes at a glance: earlier in the meeting the board voted unanimously on procedural items: approval of the April 16 agenda; approval of consent agenda items 3–5; and approval of stipulations listed as item 7 (7a–7b). Individual member votes on those procedural items are not specified in the public hearing record.

The hearing record shows the parties discussed these factual points and timelines but the board did not render an immediate, on-the-record final decision on abatement during the public session. The board scheduled its next meeting for May 28, 2025.