CA: Prop. 13 Ruling Means No Tax Refund
Judges reverse a decision that could have made counties return $10 billion collected under their reading of the law
...
The 4th District Court of Appeal said the technique used by Orange County in assessing taxes, called recapturing... is constitutional under Proposition 13, the landmark property tax limit approved by voters in 1978.
...
"The temporary nature of any reassessment for a decline in value cannot be overstressed," Presiding Justice David G. Sills wrote for the court.
The ruling overturns an earlier decision by Orange County Superior Court Judge John M. Watson that invalidated the commonly accepted practice.
...
... Seal Beach homeowner Rob Pool ... vowed to ask the state Supreme Court to review the unanimous decision released Friday.
The appellate justices were intimidated by the possibility of a flood of refund requests, he said, which representatives for state [$5.3 billion] and local [$4.7 billion] government argued in court briefs that they could not afford.
"I still think it's all about the money," Pool said. "They're not dealing with the pure language of the [law]."
...
The appellate court's 17-page decision sided with [Orange County Assessor Webster J.] Guillory's argument. The 2% annual limit on property assessment increases, they said, was tied to the original purchase price, not to the previous year's assessment.
For anyone unfamiliar with this case, Robert Pool's home was reassessed in 1998 at a value 4% higher than the 1997 assessed value.
His home's assessed value had not increased in the mid-90's because of the depressed real estate market (and could have even declined due to Proposition 8, which allows for temporary lower assessments when properties are damaged in disasters or if they decline in value).
The Orange County Assessor's logic, used by all counties across the state, was that Proposition 13 allowed a 2% increase every year from the purchase price even if the value had not actually increased every year.
So, by this "recapture" method, the assessed value of a property that did not increase in value in nine years but whose value doubled in the tenth year would increase 22% that tenth year.
In Mr. Pool's case, the assessor said the property increased 4% in the third year.
Hahaha.... Surprise, surprise!
Like these corrupt scumbags were going to side with tax-paying citizens and rule against the government whose trough they have their snouts in? I don't think so....