Property taxation: change in ownership.

The California Constitution generally limits ad valorem taxes on real property to 1% of the full cash value of that property. For purposes of this limitation, "full cash value" is defined as the assessor's valuation of real property as shown on the 1975–76 tax bill under "full cash value" or, thereafter, the appraised value of that real property when purchased, newly constructed, or a change in ownership has occurred. Existing law specifies those circumstances in which the transfer of ownership interests in a corporation, partnership, limited liability company, or other legal entity results in a change in ownership of the real property owned by that entity, and generally provides that a change in ownership as so described occurs if a legal entity or other person obtains a controlling or majority ownership interest in the legal entity. Existing law requires the Franchise Tax Board to include a question on returns for partnerships, banks, and corporations to assist in the determination of whether a change in ownership under the circumstances described above has occurred. This bill would additionally specify that if more than ___% of the direct or indirect ownership interests in a legal entity are sold or transferred in a single transaction, as defined, the real property owned by that legal entity has changed ownership whether or not any one legal entity or person that is a party to the transaction obtains control, as defined. This bill would require the Franchise Tax Board to include an additional question on returns for partnerships, banks, and corporations to assist in the determination of whether a change in ownership as so described has occurred. This bill would require the State Board of Equalization to prescribe regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this act. This bill would also require the State Board of Equalization to report to the Legislature, no later than January 1, 2021, regarding the implementation of these changes in ownership, including, but not limited to, the economic impact and frequency of reassessments of real property owned by legal entities. Existing law requires, upon a change in control or change in ownership of a legal entity that owns an interest in real property in this state, or when requested by the State Board of Equalization, that the person or legal entity acquiring ownership or control, or the legal entity that has undergone a change in ownership, file a change in ownership statement with the board, as specified. Existing law requires a penalty of 10% of the taxes applicable to the new base year value, as specified, or 10% of the current year's taxes on the property, as specified, to be added to the assessment made on the roll if a person or legal entity required to file a change in ownership statement fails to do so. This bill would require a person or legal entity acquiring ownership interests in a legal entity, if more than ___% of the ownership interests in the legal entity are sold or transferred, as described above, to file a change in ownership statement signed under penalty of perjury with the State Board of Equalization. This bill would increase the penalties for failure to file a change in ownership statement, as described above, from 10% to 15%, and would provide that the penalty shall apply for failure to file a complete statement with the State Board of Equalization following a transfer of legal entity ownership interests. This bill would require the State Board of Equalization to notify assessors if a change in control or a change in ownership of a legal entity has occurred. By expanding the crime of perjury and by imposing new duties upon local county officials with respect to changes in ownership, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above. This bill would include a change in state statute that would result in a taxpayer paying a higher tax within the meaning of Section 3 of Article XIIIA of the California Constitution, and thus would require for passage the approval of 23 of the membership of each house of the Legislature. This bill would take effect immediately as a tax levy.