Agenda

Return

C. 8

To:	Board of Supervisors
From:	David Twa, County Administrator
Date:	March 26, 2019

Contra

Costa

County

Subject:

Claim for Refund for Veterans Exemption

APPROVE	OTHER
RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR	RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE

Action of Board On: 03/26/2019

APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED

OTHER

Clerks Notes:

VOTE OF SUPERVISORS

AYE:

John Gioia, District I Supervisor
Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor
Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor
Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor

ABSENT:

Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor

Contact:	Tni Jackson, Assessor's Office (925) 313-7475
cc:	Robert Campbell, Auditor-Controller Laura Strobel, County Administrator's Office Kathleen Kizer, County Counsel

I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown.
ATTESTED: March 26, 2019
David Twa,

BY:	, Deputy

RECOMMENDATION(S):

GRANT eighty-five percent (85%) of the portion of the claim for refund filed by Alice M. Baxter that relates to the payment of the second installment of 2010 property taxes;

DENY remainder of the claim for refund filed by Alice M. Baxter; and

AUTHORIZE and DIRECT the Auditor-Controller to refund monies paid for property taxes for 2010 in the approximate amount of $555.66, plus interest at the statutory rate if applicable.

RECOMMENDATION(S): (CONT'D)

FISCAL IMPACT:

The cost of ad valorem property tax refunds is shared among the County’s jurisdictions pursuant to a statutory formula. The County’s portion of the refund in the amount of approximately $80 will be paid from the County General Fund.

BACKGROUND:

On October 5, 2018, the Assessor’s Office received a claim for exemption of property taxes relating to a residential property located at 125 Picasso Drive, Oakley, California, APN 037-510-031-0 (the “Property”). The claimant, Alice M. Baxter, sought exemption of the Property from ad valorem property taxes for each tax year from 2007 through 2018 based on Ms. Baxter’s entitlement to the exemption as the unmarried surviving spouse of a deceased disabled veteran. [Cal. Const., art. XIII, sec. 3(o); see also Rev. & Tax. Code, §§ 205, 205.5.]

Based on the exemption claim and the information provided, the Assessor’s Office granted the claim for tax years 2011 through 2018, which resulted in a refund for these years. [Rev. & Tax. Code, § 4831.1.] However, the Assessor’s Office was unable to apply the exemption for tax year 2010 because the law does not permit the Assessor’s Office to make corrections to the roll that relate to the disabled veteran’s exemption more than eight years after the date of the assessment being corrected. [Rev. & Tax. Code, § 4831.1.]

On January 28, 2019, the claimant submitted a claim for a refund for tax year 2010 with the Board of Supervisors. An eight-year statute of limitations for claims for refunds runs from the date that the claimant paid the taxes that are sought to be refunded. Here, the claimant paid the property taxes for tax year 2010 in two installments. Because the first installment of 2010 property taxes was paid more than 8 years before the claim was made on January 28, 2019, the claim as it relates to that payment is untimely. [Rev. & Tax. Code, §§ 276, 5097(a)(4).] However, the claimant paid the second installment of 2010 property taxes less than 8 years before making her refund claim on January 28, 2019. For this reason, the Board of Supervisors may order a refund of the second installment of property taxes for tax year 2010.

Property tax refunds ordered by the Board are paid by the Auditor-Controller. [Rev. & Tax. Code, § 5101.] The refunded amount will accrue interest until paid. [Rev. & Tax. Code, § 5151.] Claimant is only eligible for an 85 percent refund of the second installment of 2010 property taxes because the claim for exemption was not timely filed. [Rev. & Tax. Code, § 276, subd. (a)(2).]

The claim was also processed as a claim under the Government Claims Act. On February 4, 2019, the claim was denied as untimely under that Act.

CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION:

Failure to take the recommended action may prevent the claimant from realizing savings due to her entitlement to a partial property tax refund 2010 and might increase the County’s exposure to litigation.