California 2009-2010 Regular Session Status: In Committee

AB 103 — Property taxation: change in ownership: exclusion.

Last action — From committee: Filed with the Chief Clerk pursuant to Joint Rule 56.

  1. ✓
    Introduced
  2. 2
    In Committee
  3. 3
    Passed Assembly
  4. 4
    Passed Senate
  5. 5
    To Executive
  6. 6
    Enacted

This bill died with 2009-2010 Regular Session. It reached “In Committee” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.

This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis. It would have to be reintroduced in the current session to move again.

Summary

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 property tax law specifies those circumstances in which the transfer of ownership interests results in a change in ownership of the real property, and provides that certain transfers do not result in a change of ownership. This bill would provide that a transfer of a cotenancy interest, as defined, in real property from one cotenant to the other that takes effect upon the death of the transferor cotenant and before January 1, 2020, does not constitute a change of ownership, as provided. This bill would require the transferor cotenant to sign an affidavit, as specified, under penalty of perjury. The bill would repeal these provisions on January 1, 2020. By requiring the transferor cotenant to sign an affidavit under penalty of perjury, this bill would expand the scope of the existing crime of perjury, and thereby 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 no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. Section 2229 of the Revenue and Taxation Code requires the Legislature to reimburse local agencies annually for certain property tax revenues lost as a result of any exemption or classification of property for purposes of ad valorem property taxation. This bill would provide that, notwithstanding Section 2229 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, no appropriation is made and the state shall not reimburse local agencies for property tax revenues lost by them pursuant to the bill. This bill would take effect immediately as a tax levy.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. From committee: Filed with the Chief Clerk pursuant to Joint Rule 56.

  2. Died pursuant to Art. IV, Sec. 10(c) of the Constitution.

  3. Held under submission.

  4. In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file.

  5. From committee: Do pass, and re-refer to Com. on APPR. Re-referred. (Ayes 6. Noes 3.) (May 18).

  6. Re-referred to Com. on REV. & TAX.

  7. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on REV. & TAX. Read second time and amended.

  8. In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to . suspense file.

  9. Referred to Com. on REV. & TAX.

  10. From printer. May be heard in committee February 8.

  11. Read first time. To print.

Sponsors

  • Ammiano · Cosponsor
  • Block · Cosponsor
  • Brownley · Cosponsor
  • De Leon · Primary
  • John A. Perez · Cosponsor
  • DeSaulnier · Cosponsor
  • Evans · Cosponsor
  • Huffman · Cosponsor
  • Niello · Cosponsor
  • Price · Cosponsor
  • Yamada · Cosponsor

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 10 co-sponsors · 111 not signed on

Sponsors (1)

  • De Leon

Co-sponsors (10)

  • Ammiano
  • Block
  • Brownley
  • John A. Perez
  • DeSaulnier
  • Evans
  • Huffman
  • Niello
  • Price
  • Yamada

Not signed on (111)

111 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 111 →

"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.

Whip count is in markup. Polling the chamber and every recorded vote this session. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Calling the roll · Tallying · Engrossing

Votes

Subjects

taxation
Cross-referencing the record. Reading this bill against every other bill in the corpus by meaning, not keywords. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Matching · Ranking · Engrossing

Frequently asked questions

What does AB 103 do?
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 property tax law specifies those circumstances in which the transfer of ownership interests results in a change in ownership of the real property, and provides that certain transfers do not result in a change of ownership. This bill would provide that a transfer of a cotenancy interest, as defined, in real property from one cotenant to the other that takes effect upon the death of the transferor cotenant and before January 1, 2020, does not constitute a change of ownership, as provided. This bill would require the transferor cotenant to sign an affidavit, as specified, under penalty of perjury. The bill would repeal these provisions on January 1, 2020. By requiring the transferor cotenant to sign an affidavit under penalty of perjury, this bill would expand the scope of the existing crime of perjury, and thereby 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 no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. Section 2229 of the Revenue and Taxation Code requires the Legislature to reimburse local agencies annually for certain property tax revenues lost as a result of any exemption or classification of property for purposes of ad valorem property taxation. This bill would provide that, notwithstanding Section 2229 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, no appropriation is made and the state shall not reimburse local agencies for property tax revenues lost by them pursuant to the bill. This bill would take effect immediately as a tax levy.
Who sponsors AB 103?
AB 103 is sponsored by Ammiano, Block, Brownley, De Leon, John A. Perez, DeSaulnier, Evans, Huffman, Niello, Price, and Yamada.
What is the current status of AB 103?
This bill died with 2009-2010 Regular Session. It reached “In Committee” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
Where can I track AB 103?
Track AB 103 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on AB 103

Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.

Find my representatives → Run a campaign

Stay ahead of AB 103

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.

Track this bill →