El Dorado Palm Springs, Ltd. v. Riverside County Board of Supervisors

I concur in the majority’s resolution of the issues concerning the assessments for the 1994 through 1997 tax years. However, I disagree with the majority’s analysis regarding the assessment for the 1998 tax year.

Each year, the assessor must assess all taxable property in the county on the lien date to the person who owns that property on that date. (Rev. & Tax. Code, §§ 401.3 & 405, subd. (a).) 1 The lien date is the date on which the taxes for a fiscal year attach to and become a lien against the property (§ 117), i.e., “the first day of January preceding the fiscal year for which the taxes are levied” (§ 2192). For example, for the fiscal year of July 1, 1997, through June 30, 1998 (to which the majority opinion refers as tax year 1997 (maj. opn., ante, at p. 1265, fn. 3)), the lien date is January 1, 1997.

In general, real property is assessed on the basis of the lesser of two possible taxable values. (§51, subd. (a).) One alternative is the base year value (i.e., the value of the property at time of acquisition), as adjusted for inflation since the base year, not to exceed two percent each year, to produce the “factored” base year value. (Id., subd. (a)(1).) The other…

*1265 Opinion

1. Introduction

Revenue and Taxation Code section 51, 1 enacted in 1978 as Proposition 8, allows the taxable value of real property to be reduced due to a decline in value.

In 1997, plaintiff El Dorado Palm Springs, Ltd., a partnership (El Dorado), prevailed on an assessment appeal and obtained a reduction in a real property tax assessment for the tax year 1993. 3 El Dorado failed to obtain a similar reduction for the five tax years 1994 through 1998. In 1999, El Dorado then filed suit seeking tax refunds for all five years. On appeal, El Dorado challenges the trial court’s judgment in favor of the County of Riverside (County).

We agree section 51, subdivision (e), as it currently exists, requires the tax assessor to reappraise property after there has been a reduction in a tax assessment due to a decline in value. Therefore, the tax assessor must now reappraise the value of the property for 1994 and 1995 and determine the property’s assessable value. But El Dorado is not entitled to a refund for 1996, 1997, and 1998 because the reappraisals, as ultimately performed for those years, supported the assessments imposed by the County. We reverse the judgment as to…

Revenue and Taxation Code section 51, [1] enacted in 1978 as Proposition 8, allows the taxable value of real property to be reduced due to a decline in value. [2]

In 1997, plaintiff El Dorado Palm Springs Ltd., a partnership (El Dorado), prevailed on an assessment appeal and obtained a reduction in a real property tax assessment for the tax year 1993. [3] El Dorado failed to obtain a similar reduction for the five tax years 1994 through 1998. In 1999, El Dorado then filed suit seeking tax refunds for all five years. On appeal, El Dorado challenges the trial court's judgment in favor of the County of Riverside (County).

We agree section 51, subdivision (e), as it currently exists, requires the tax assessor to reappraise property after there has been a reduction in a tax assessment due to a decline in value. Therefore, the tax assessor must now reappraise the value of the property for 1994 and 1995 and determine the property's assessable value. But El Dorado is not entitled to a refund for 1996, 1997, and 1998 because the reappraisals, as ultimately performed for those years, supported the assessments imposed by the County. We reverse the judgment as to the years 1994…