228 Cal. App. 4th 1
Cal. Ct. App.2014Background
- Jefferson & Co. owned a Irvine home; the assesso r valued the property at $305,000 in 1992 after a transfer to Gopal Productions, Inc.; Gopal failed timely to file a change of ownership statement, but later did file; the transfer to Jefferson was between related entities and not a change of ownership affecting the base year; Jefferson filed an application with the Appeals Board in 2008 to change the base year value; the Appeals Board denied, ruling it lacked jurisdiction due to the nearly 15-year gap and applying §80(a)(3) and §51.5; Jefferson sued the Appeals Board seeking a tax refund and an order directing the Assessor to set the base year value at $271,000.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper defendant for a base year value challenge | Jefferson seeks to correct the base year or obtain a refund | Actions to challenge base year must be against the county | Jefferson must sue the county, not the Appeals Board |
| Sunrise control on mandamus vs. refund action | Sunrise allows mandamus to compel hearing | Sunrise does not apply to seek a refund of taxes | Sunrise does not authorize mandamus against the Board where a refund action is appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Sunrise Retirement Villa v. Dear, 58 Cal.App.4th 948 (Cal. App. 1997) (base year value procedures and correction timing)
- Sea World, Inc. v. County of San Diego, 27 Cal.App.4th 1390 (Cal. App. 1994) (base year value corrections and change of ownership)
- Kuperman v. San Diego County Assessment Appeals Bd. No. 1, 137 Cal.App.4th 918 (Cal. App. 2006) (time limits for judgmental vs nonjudgmental errors under §51.5)
- Little v. Los Angeles County Assessment Appeals Bd., 155 Cal.App.4th 915 (Cal. App. 2007) (refund action as exclusive remedy; challenge to merits of base year value)
- Merced County Taxpayers’ Assn. v. Cardella, 218 Cal.App.3d 396 (Cal. App. 1990) (mandamus not to correct base year value; refund action appropriate)
- Schoenberg v. County of Los Angeles Assessment Appeals Bd., 179 Cal.App.4th 1347 (Cal. App. 2009) (tax refund action is exclusive remedy to challenge AAB decision)
- County of Sacramento v. Assessment Appeals Bd. No. 2, 32 Cal.App.3d 654 (Cal. App. 1973) (refund as exclusive remedy for overpayments; public policy to continue tax collection)
- Sunrise Retirement Villa v. Dear, 58 Cal.App.4th 956 (Cal. App. 1997) (discussion of 4-year vs other time limits and corrections under §51.5)