Laws, Regulations & Annotations
Property Taxes Law Guide – Revision 2016
Revenue and Taxation Code
Part 2. Assessment
Chapter 4. Assessment by State Board of Equalization Generally
Article 3. Reassessments and Allocation Corrections*
744. Notification of decision; findings and conclusions. (a) The board shall notify the petitioner of its decision on a petition for reassessment by mail and shall make written findings and conclusions if requested at or prior to the commencement of the hearing. The board shall send a periodic report of its decisions and any written findings and conclusions thereon to each county in which affected state-assessed property is situated. The findings shall fairly disclose the board's determination of material factual issues and shall contain a statement of the method or methods of valuation used by the board in valuing the property. Notwithstanding the requirement for a statement of method or methods, the board's approval of a settlement of a lawsuit contesting the value of state-assessed property shall be sufficient disclosure when value is determined in accordance with a board-approved settlement. Decisions of the board on petitions for reassessment of state-assessed property shall be completed on or before December 31.
(b) When the value of an assessee's state-assessed property is determined, after a hearing on a petition for reassessment, to be different from the value originally adopted by the board, the board shall determine the year in which the corrected value is to be entered on the roll. The correct value may be entered on the roll for the fiscal year in which the determination is made, or the difference between the original and the corrected value may be entered as an increase or decrease in the assessment for the succeeding fiscal year. If the corrected value is entered on the roll for the fiscal year in which it is determined, and the board roll has been transmitted to the county auditors, the board shall make the corresponding changes in allocations and transmit the roll corrections to the county auditor.
(c) If the amount of the correction is to be entered on the roll for the succeeding fiscal year, an amount is to be added in lieu of interest. If the correction results in a reduction in assessed value, there shall be added to the reduction, in lieu of interest, 9 percent of the difference between the original assessed value and the reduced assessed value. If the correction results in an increase in assessed value, there shall be added to the increase, in lieu of interest, 9 percent of the difference between the original assessed value and the increased assessed value.
History.—Stats. 1981, Ch. 1132, in effect January 1, 1982, added the subdivision letters; added "both" before and "and nonunitary" after "unitary", and substituted "December 31" for "June 30, and decisions on petitions for reassessment of nonunitary property shall be completed on or before August 19" in the third sentence of subdivision (a); and added subdivisions (b) and (c). Stats. 1987, Ch. 1262, in effect January 1, 1988, added the second sentence in subdivision (a), and substituted "state-assessed" for "both unitary and nonunitary" after "reassessment of" in the fourth sentence thereof; and substituted "state-assessed" for "unitary or nonunitary" after "assessee's" in the first sentence of subdivision (b). Stats. 1992, Ch. 603, in effect September 9, 1992, added the fourth sentence "Notwithstanding the requirement . . . board-approved settlement." to subdivision (a). Stats. 1995, Ch. 497, in effect January 1, 1996, substituted "periodic report of its decisions" for "copy of its decision" after "shall send a" and deleted "the" after "county in which" in the second sentence of subdivision (a).
Findings.—Findings merely affirming an assessment and informing the taxpayer that the Board had before it the same staff-calculated value indicators as those provided in the notice of assessment, which also failed to specify the method or methods of valuation used by the Board, and not revealing whether the Board relied on some or all of the value indicators did not comply with the explicit statutory right to findings in subdivision (a) of this section. Southern Pacific Transportation Co. v. State Board of Equalization, 191 Cal.App.3d 938.
Judicial Review.—Against a claim that a valid valuation method has been applied erroneously, the Board's decision is equivalent to a trial court determination, and the court may review only the record presented to the Board and may overturn the Board's decision only when no substantial evidence supports it. Where a taxpayer challenges the validity of a valuation method itself, the court must determine as a question of law whether the challenged method is arbitrary, in excess of discretion, or in violation of standards prescribed by law. ITT World Communications, Inc. v. Santa Clara County, 101 Cal.App.3d 246. Southern Pacific Transportation Co. v. State Board of Equalization, 191 Cal.App.3d 938; GTE Sprint Communications Corp. v. Alameda County, 26 Cal.App.4th 992.
* Article 3 was added by Stats. 1976, Ch. 877, p. 1992, in effect January 1, 1977.