Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Assessor Resources And Guidance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County assessors ask Board of Equalization for standardized templates, training and specialist support on intangibles
Summary
County assessors and counsels told the BOE work group they face evidence gaps, resource constraints, and inconsistent taxpayer submissions when separating taxable property value from enterprise intangibles, and requested checklists, statewide information-request templates, illustrative market data, and training.
County assessors and counsel urged the Board of Equalization work group to provide clearer, practical guidance and tools to address recurring problems in valuing intangibles during agenda item three.
Waqen Torres, speaking for the California Assessors Association and as San Francisco's assessor-recorder, framed the central question: "Where does taxable property end and where do the intangibles begin?" Torres and county speakers emphasized that the distinction is fact specific and often requires trained appraisal judgment.
San Diego Division Chief Albert Tapia and supervising appraiser Michael Triggeros presented concrete examples from hotels and student housing showing inconsistent taxpayer allocations for similar properties. They said two comparable luxury hotels presented nearly the same property but reported different intangible adjustments'about 22% of value in one filing and roughly 28% in another'and a student-housing submission reported about 14% intangible value. Those differences, they said, create significant workload and appeals activity for counties.
Los Angeles and San Francisco counsel (George Renkey and Carol Ruart) noted the courts are increasingly scrutinizing whether particular income streams arise from real-property use or from enterprise activity. They also described the Rushmore approach (using management and franchise fees to remove enterprise value) as viable in some cases but not a categorical shortcut: "No court has categorically rejected this method," Renkey said, "but courts are asking for evidence that the management or franchise fee accounts for the intangibles it is claimed to wipe out."
Operational recommendations from assessors and counsel included:
- A standard screening checklist identifying when an intangible review is warranted; - A statewide information-request template and reporting format for taxpayers to submit documentation in advance of assessment or appeals; - Up-to-date BOE guidance and educational materials that reflect recent case law and modern property types (data centers, embedded software, etc.); - Market-data examples and training tailored to complex appraisals; and - Consideration of centralized specialist capacity to assist counties on highly technical claims.
In public comment, Daniel Weedenoff of Protax suggested creating a state-level specialist unit to handle the narrow band of complex intangible disputes so that counties can rely on a team of subject-matter experts rather than trying to train all appraisal staff to a single advanced level.
Assessors warned that resource constraints and incomplete data provided by property owners hamper consistent application of the law, and they asked the BOE to prioritize tools and templates that would reduce appeals and improve uniformity across the 58 counties. The board recessed for lunch and scheduled further work-group sessions to continue gathering testimony.
