Neighbor not paying her fair share of property tax?

Status
Not open for further replies.
If the law says statement of intent is sufficient and she has not claimed the exemption in another jurisdiction, that's the end of the discussion. I likely do not have the legal authority to ask for any of the things you suggest.
 
But she has to do more than just state it is her intent to return to the property to win the argument.

You wouldn't check to see where her home address is on her driver's license, where she is registered to vote, the address shown on her latest tax return, the home address on vehicle registrations, so on and so forth? Even if she states that she intends to return to the property, that is not sufficient if the preponderance of evidence indicates otherwise.

When Hillary Clinton ran for senator of New York and listed New York as her primary residence, where was she registered to vote and what was the home address on her vehicle registration? What address was on her last income tax return?

All she had to state was it was her INTENT to make New York her primary residence and she was eligible to run as senator, you think there is a higher standard for primary residence for property taxes than US senator of a state? She purchased a home AFTER she declared her candidacy.
 
See post 111 where the exemption requires that the home be the taxpayer's principal residence and post 112 wher principal residence is defined. Also see below.

Treasury regulations section 1.121-1(b)(2) requires an examination of all facts and circumstances to determine a taxpayer’s principal residence. The regulation says the property a taxpayer used the majority of time during a year will ordinarily be considered his or her principal residence. In addition to usage, other factors include the (1) taxpayer’s place of employment, (2) location of family members, (3) address listed on tax returns, voter registration, driver’s license and vehicle registration, (4) taxpayer’s mailing address, (5) location of the taxpayer’s banks and (6) location of religious organizations and recreation groups.

From the IRS reg:

(2) Principal residence. In the case of a
taxpayer using more than one property
as a residence, whether property is
used by the taxpayer as the taxpayer’s
principal residence depends upon all
the facts and circumstances. If a taxpayer
alternates between 2 properties,
using each as a residence for successive
periods of time, the property that the
taxpayer uses a majority of the time
during the year ordinarily will be considered
the taxpayer’s principal residence.
In addition to the taxpayer’s use
of the property, relevant factors in determining
a taxpayer’s principal residence,
include, but are not limited to—
(i) The taxpayer’s place of employment;
(ii) The principal place of abode of
the taxpayer’s family members;
(iii) The address listed on the taxpayer’s
federal and state tax returns,
driver’s license, automobile registration,
and voter registration card;
(iv) The taxpayer’s mailing address
for bills and correspondence;
(v) The location of the taxpayer’s
banks; and
(vi) The location of religious organizations
and recreational clubs with
which the taxpayer is affiliated.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure you know the history of why Prop. 13 was enacted. People were being forced to sell their lifelong homes because they couldn't afford the rapid rise in property taxes in the 1970's. During that time growth of the size of the state government was also an issue, and Prop. 13 was seen as a way to slow that down. People had just "had their fill" of the perceived greedy state government. But the rapid rise in property taxes was a real problem for huge numbers of people and Prop. 13 did accomplish that goal - Grandma could afford to keep her house.

I still remember the rancor over that and I lived in MD at the time so it wasn't a pressing issue for me. But many other people in other states were having similar issues and for a while it was a popular movement in those states as well although it didn't always pass.


The fix for that problem is to lower the tax rate.... IOW, limit the increase in spending to some % or have the issue come to a vote....

Limiting the increase in taxes paid does mean there are people who are not paying 'their fair share'.... I am for limiting gvmt, but I do not think that how long you have owned your house should come into the calculation of how much tax you should pay....


As an example... gvmt has to come up with a budget... then at some point in time they get the value base of the real estate... divide and get the rate... it should not just be the rate from the prior year on the higher value... so if property values doubled, the rate should be cut in half as a starting point...
 
See posts 111 and 112. Also see below.



From the IRS reg:

(2) Principal residence. In the case of a
taxpayer using more than one property
as a residence, whether property is
used by the taxpayer as the taxpayer’s
principal residence depends upon all
the facts and circumstances. If a taxpayer
alternates between 2 properties,
using each as a residence for successive
periods of time, the property that the
taxpayer uses a majority of the time
during the year ordinarily will be considered
the taxpayer’s principal residence.
In addition to the taxpayer’s use
of the property, relevant factors in determining
a taxpayer’s principal residence,
include, but are not limited to—
(i) The taxpayer’s place of employment;
(ii) The principal place of abode of
the taxpayer’s family members;
(iii) The address listed on the taxpayer’s
federal and state tax returns,
driver’s license, automobile registration,
and voter registration card;
(iv) The taxpayer’s mailing address
for bills and correspondence;
(v) The location of the taxpayer’s
banks; and
(vi) The location of religious organizations
and recreational clubs with
which the taxpayer is affiliated.

Treasury regulations apply to the IRS, not the local tax assessor. Most states have a legislative framework, modified by case law, that the local assessors must follow.

In California, the entity that issues property tax rules, writes the manuals for the Assessors and issues interpretive letters is the State Board of Equalization. There is also an Assessors Association. Those folks and their high level managers meet regularly to discuss the changes in the laws and the rules issued by the SBE. The third parties to the discussion are the County Counsels that advise the Assessors. Not everyone does everything the same way, but the basic rules are followed by everyone.

There are rules for exemptions and the process by which eligibility is confirmed. I'm sure other states have rules and processes for their exemptions as well.

In general, the wording of the law or rule will govern the rules and processes. If the law or rule sets a standard, then you must follow that standard. You cannot require that a higher standard be met.

If the rule or law says the standard for granting an exemption is a statement of intent by the titled owner or surviving spouse to occupy the property, then that's all you can ask for. If they give you the statement, you have to accept it at face value. However, if stated or implicit in the law or rule is the uniqueness of the exemption, then you can require the owner to have only one exemption.
 
First, if everyone was paying the full share, the current rates for new owners would be less. So maybe less sticker shock than you think?

Second, if someone can no longer afford to live in an area, is it really the rest of the communities responsibility to chip in and help? I don't think so, I think the retiree needs to plan and adapt. That includes me. I'm not going to 'ship' anyone anywhere, but if they can't afford the area, they ought to move to a lower COL place voluntarily. Or their children can chip in if they want them near.

BTW, this conversation got me looking into the local tax exemption for seniors, since I'm getting close. It's pretty modest, a $5,000 reduction in assessed value (which is oddly ~ 1/3 of market value for tax purposes - I guess commercial is at full rate?). So a $300K home, assessed at $100K, would get a $5,000 reduction in assessed value, so a 5% discount on their tax bill, no caps otherwise. I know there is a means for seniors to defer taxes and have it charged to their equity plus interest. IIRC, not very attractive rates, but something for an elderly person who wants to live their last remaining years at home.

-ERD50

Prop 13 passed with nearly 2/3 of the vote. Many older residents can afford the area if they have a mortgage free home. Property taxes alone were driving people out of their life long homes. From Wikipedia:

"A large contributor to Proposition 13 was the sentiment that older Californians should not be priced out of their homes through high taxes.[4] The proposition has been called the "third rail" (meaning "untouchable subject") of California politics, and it is not popular politically for lawmakers to attempt to change it."

Voters here do seem to think it is fair that a homeowner should not have to relocate to a new city without friends or family for support at age 80 solely because of high property taxes. Prop 13 certainly hasn't stopped people from moving here anyway. An influx of new residents is causing a housing shortage, and pushing up housing prices further, at least here in here in Nor Cal:

Plenty of Work but Nowhere to Live - The Atlantic.com
 
Last edited:
Talk of the bad idea of basing RE taxes on market values and having it fluctuate with housing bubbles and busts ....

But you have it wrong, if the municipal budget is stable then property taxes will be stable even if market values rise (or fall) dramatically. The tax rate is the budget divided by the grand list, which is the fair value of all properties in the municipality.

So if the budget is $10 million and the grand list is $500 million then the tax rate will be $2 per hundred... if your home is valued at $250k then your property tax will be $5,000.

If the budget is $10 million and property valued increase 40% then the grand list is now $700 million and the tax rate drops to $1.4285 per hundred and the tax on your now $350k home is still $5,000.

No, I do not have it wrong. What you just described is how the tax in your state, where ERD50 lives, and in my state works, as I described in my several posts above. The key is to control the public budget, then divide it out using the assessed home values as weighing factors. I described the same thing you just did.

What I said was wrong was the way RE tax worked in CA, prior to their Prop 13. Their old system resulted in the gummint raking in 2x the amount, if a housing bubble caused your home price to be doubly inflated. Again, this would not have happened in your state, where ERD50 lives, or in my state. Of course, CA residents were mad when their gummint got a windfall profit, and I do not blame them.

But then, CA residents tried to fix it the wrong way (as some of us think), and now with two identical tract homes, one can have 1/5 the tax levied on the other. Of course, people who are paying 1/5 the tax of new home owners are not going to have it changed. Note that the new home owners are not always from out-of-state. It could be your children.

But I guess it is the same elsewhere in our system. Young people will have to work longer and pay more SS than geezers, and get less when they retire. Tough luck!
 
Last edited:
Prop 13 passed with nearly 2/3 of the vote. Many older residents can afford the area if they have a mortgage free home. Property taxes alone were driving people out of their life long homes. From Wikipedia:

"A large contributor to Proposition 13 was the sentiment that older Californians should not be priced out of their homes through high taxes.[4] The proposition has been called the "third rail" (meaning "untouchable subject") of California politics, and it is not popular politically for lawmakers to attempt to change it." ...

The same Wikipedia article also has a long list of negative effects of Prop. 13. See:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_13_(1978). Following is the index.

4.3 Negative effects
4.3.1 On the housing market
4.3.1.1 Sales disincentives, less individual mobility, higher housing costs
4.3.1.2 Effects on commercial property owners
4.3.2 On the state tax structure
4.3.2.1 Unequal assessments based on purchase date result in regressive taxation
4.3.3 On sales and other taxes
4.3.3.1 Other taxes created or increased
4.3.4 On cities and localities
4.3.4.1 Greater effect on coastal metropolitan areas than on rest of California
4.3.4.2 Loss of local government power to state government
4.3.4.3 Resultant planning changes, loss or degradation of services, new fees
4.3.5 On education and public services
4.3.5.1 Effect on public schools
4.3.5.2 Loss of funding for libraries, city services

About the 3rd rail, it is no different than trying to change SS, even when it is projected that the funding is running out. Once people get some benefits, it's impossible to take it away. We have just seen Greece's problem.
 
Last edited:
By the way, here's another interesting thing. Prop. 13 turns out to be so lucrative for long-time home owners (new home owners pay more even if they have been life-long residents), that they want to preserve this special tax privilege when they sell and move.

There are several subsequent propositions that allow home owners to transfer this low-tax privilege if they move to another part of the state. So, what is this argument about being allowed to live in the same home as you age?

See how that works? It's all about some people being more equal than others. :)
 
Last edited:
The same Wikipedia article also has a long list of negative effects of Prop. 13. See:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_13_(1978). Following is the index.
4.3 Negative effects
4.3.1 On the housing market
4.3.1.1 Sales disincentives, less individual mobility, higher housing costs
4.3.1.2 Effects on commercial property owners
4.3.2 On the state tax structure
4.3.2.1 Unequal assessments based on purchase date result in regressive taxation
4.3.3 On sales and other taxes
4.3.3.1 Other taxes created or increased
4.3.4 On cities and localities
4.3.4.1 Greater effect on coastal metropolitan areas than on rest of California
4.3.4.2 Loss of local government power to state government
4.3.4.3 Resultant planning changes, loss or degradation of services, new fees
4.3.5 On education and public services
4.3.5.1 Effect on public schools
4.3.5.2 Loss of funding for libraries, city services
About the 3rd rail, it is no different than trying to change SS, even when it is projected that the funding is running out. Once people get some benefits, it's impossible to take it away. We have just seen Greece's problem.

Did you even read that list? Most of the supposed effects are not very significant and many of the items state there is correlation, but the cause is unsure.

Do you live in California? Were you around in the 1970's to witness what was happening? Did you read all the articles in the newspaper about local governments turning a deaf ear to all the complaints and protests of these confiscatory taxes? Were you one of the 62.9 percent of those that voted that voted in favor of the initiative?

I was here, I voted in favor of Prop 13, and I didn't even own any property at the time. The message was sent, and for awhile the tax and spend crowd sobered up.

The problems in California today have nothing to do with revenue. They have to do with where the money is going. The public drunkenness is back, and the people that wrote and campaigned for Prop 13 are long dead.
 
No, I do not have it wrong. What you just described is how the tax in your state, where ERD50 lives, and in my state works, as I described in my several posts above. The key is to control the public budget, then divide it out using the assessed home values as weighing factors. I described the same thing you just did.

What I said was wrong was the way RE tax worked in CA, prior to their Prop 13. Their old system resulted in the gummint raking in 2x the amount, if a housing bubble caused your home price to be doubly inflated. Again, this would not have happened in your state, where ERD50 lives, or in my state. .....

My bad. I misinterpreted your post
Talk of the bad idea of basing RE taxes on market values and having it fluctuate with housing bubbles and busts ....
as saying that one's real estate taxes would go up or down as property values go up or down. That would be crazy.
 
Treasury regulations apply to the IRS, not the local tax assessor. Most states have a legislative framework, modified by case law, that the local assessors must follow.

In California, the entity that issues property tax rules, writes the manuals for the Assessors and issues interpretive letters is the State Board of Equalization. There is also an Assessors Association. Those folks and their high level managers meet regularly to discuss the changes in the laws and the rules issued by the SBE. The third parties to the discussion are the County Counsels that advise the Assessors. Not everyone does everything the same way, but the basic rules are followed by everyone.

There are rules for exemptions and the process by which eligibility is confirmed. I'm sure other states have rules and processes for their exemptions as well.

In general, the wording of the law or rule will govern the rules and processes. If the law or rule sets a standard, then you must follow that standard. You cannot require that a higher standard be met.

If the rule or law says the standard for granting an exemption is a statement of intent by the titled owner or surviving spouse to occupy the property, then that's all you can ask for. If they give you the statement, you have to accept it at face value. However, if stated or implicit in the law or rule is the uniqueness of the exemption, then you can require the owner to have only one exemption.

I concede that if the law or regulation indicates that the a statement of intent is sufficient then that would prevail, however I find it hard to believe that a law would be written that way as it would effectively make it unenforceable so there isn't much purpose to having a principal residency requirement to begin with if you can just say that you intend to return to the property you own that has the highest property tax and all other factors are ignored. But then again, you are in California and they do do some strange things out on the left coast.

The OP is in Texas and he provided the definition in post #112, as follows:

Then you get into what does it mean to "occupy" a house.

definitions for terms used in Tax Code Section 11.13 are: "principal residence" is the owner's primary or chief residence that the owner actually occupies on a regular basis; "temporary" refers to a limited or short absence of the owner from the residence homestead. What constitutes a 'temporary' period of absence from the residence homestead necessarily depends on the particular circumstances: the length of the home owner's absence and whether the home owner has established another principal residence and whether the owner intends to return and occupy the residence as his or her principal residence. The length of the period probably is less important than the establishment of a different principal residence and the owner's intent to return and occupy the residence as a principal residence. Op. Tex. Att'y Gen. No. JC-415

If the owner is registered to vote at a different address, driver's license, vehicle registrations, insurance, etc are at a different address and other factors that the IRS and states use in assessing residence, that those factors would likely be used in assessing "whether the home owner has established another principal residence" as stated above.
 
Establishing another primary residence is often determined by whether an exemption is filed for that residence. My guess is that in the absence of another exemption, nobody will question the exemption because of the intent standard.


Lots of laws are written that have easy outs. Pressuring widows and orphans is not something most legislative bodies want to do. So they stand up for "justice," but make the law unenforceable.


If you really want to know how things are done in the appraisal districts there, why don't you call a couple and ask some questions about what they do when a neighbor complains and how and when they verify principal residence.


My guess is you have never worked for a local government agency. If you know some people that do well enough to have candid conversations, ask them about how things are really done in their agencies.
 
Do you live in California? Were you around in the 1970's to witness what was happening? Did you read all the articles in the newspaper about local governments turning a deaf ear to all the complaints and protests of these confiscatory taxes? Were you one of the 62.9 percent of those that voted that voted in favor of the initiative?
...
The problems in California today have nothing to do with revenue. They have to do with where the money is going. The public drunkenness is back, and the people that wrote and campaigned for Prop 13 are long dead.

No, I have never lived in California, though I have friends and family in the state and visited it often.

In the 70s, I was still in college and did not have much time to follow politics. As mentioned earlier, I understood how CA residents were outraged. But, but, but now that their low taxes are locked in, they vote for it to be transferable to wherever they move.

The way to fix gummint overspending is to control the problem at the source. It should not be about protecting yourself, while allowing them to gouge the "other" people. As you said it yourself, they keep finding other ways. Vote the bums out.
 
bold mine....
Prop 13 passed with nearly 2/3 of the vote. Many older residents can afford the area if they have a mortgage free home. Property taxes alone were driving people out of their life long homes. From Wikipedia:

"A large contributor to Proposition 13 was the sentiment that older Californians should not be priced out of their homes through high taxes. ....

Voters here do seem to think it is fair that a homeowner should not have to relocate to a new city without friends or family for support at age 80 solely because of high property taxes. ...

I like to look at root causes, that's how you fix things. The clear issue and common element here is high taxes. As a retiree, I shouldn't have any issue with my property tax increasing at the same rate as inflation, I should be prepared for that just like my other expenses. So it shouldn't drive me out of my home.

Prop 13 sounds like it does nothing to control taxes, it just changes who pays them. Not a solid solution IMO, and it seems the chickens are coming home to roost.

It also creates a group of voters (and don't seniors vote more than most other groups?) who have little incentive to push their representatives to control spending, since they can push the expense on the proverbial 'guy behind the tree'. In fact, it motivates those protected by Prop 13 to ask for more, more, more, and more.

edit/add: I see I'm pretty much echoing NW-B's response in the post before mine

-ERD50
 
The way to fix gummint overspending is to control the problem at the source. It should not be about protecting yourself, while allowing them to gouge the "other" people. As you said it yourself, they keep finding other ways. Vote the bums out.
As a practical matter, it is very hard to galvanize political support to oppose government spending. The actual spending benefits somebody (who is likely to vote for it), and doesn't directly hurt anyone (usually). It's the increased taxes needed to support the spending that can galvanize political opposition--unless the taxes are directed against a minority of the voters. At that point, things spin off into a new realm as few people oppose the actual spending and there aren't enough affected voters to vote down the taxes. A broader tax base with fewer deductions and less special treatment helps prevent this.
Yes, to the degree that special policies reduce the tax burden on the over 65 set, they'll probably not oppose government spending. Hey, who wouldn't vote for the school bond or road levy if they don't have to pay for it and it might increase their property value.
 
Thanks folks, this thread has run its course.


 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom