California 2013-2014 Regular Session Status: Passed Assembly

AB 2372 — Property taxation: change in ownership.

Last action — From Senate committee without further action.

Track this bill free

No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.

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

This bill died with 2013-2014 Regular Session. It reached “Passed Assembly” 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This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis.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 in a corporation, partnership, limited liability company, or other legal entity results in a change in ownership of the real property owned by that entity, and generally provides that a change in ownership as so described occurs if a legal entity or other person obtains a controlling or majority ownership interest in the legal entity. Existing law also specifies other circumstances in which certain transfers of ownership interests in legal entities result in a change in ownership of the real property owned by those legal entities. Existing law requires the Franchise Tax Board to include a question on corporation and income returns for partnerships, banks, and corporations to assist in the determination of whether a change in ownership as so described has occurred. This bill would specify that if, on or after January 1, 2015, 90% or more of the direct or indirect ownership interests in a legal entity are cumulatively transferred in one or more transactions, the transfer of the ownership interest is a change in ownership of the real property owned by the legal entity, whether or not any one legal entity or person acquires control of the ownership interests. This bill would require the Franchise Tax Board to include an additional question on corporation and income returns for partnerships, banks, and corporations to assist in the determination of whether a change in ownership as so described has occurred. This bill would require the State Board of Equalization to report to the Legislature, no later than January 1, 2020, regarding the implementation of these changes in ownership, including, but not limited to, the economic impact and frequency of reassessments of real property owned by legal entities. Existing law requires, upon a change in control or change in ownership of a legal entity that owns an interest in real property in this state, or when requested by the State Board of Equalization, that the person or legal entity acquiring ownership or control, or the legal entity that has undergone a change in ownership, file a change in ownership statement with the board, as specified. Existing law requires a penalty of 10% of the taxes applicable to the new base year value, as specified, or 10% of the current year's taxes on the property, as specified, to be added to the assessment made on the roll if a person or legal entity required to file a change in ownership statement fails to do so. This bill would also require, in the case of a change in ownership when 90% or more of the ownership interests in the legal entity are cumulatively transferred, as described above, the corporation, partnership, limited liability company, or other legal entity that underwent the change in ownership to file a change in ownership statement signed under penalty of perjury with the State Board of Equalization, as specified. This bill would increase the penalties for failure to file a change in ownership statement, as described above, from 10% to 15%. This bill would require the State Board of Equalization to notify assessors if a change in control or a change in ownership of a legal entity has occurred. By expanding the crime of perjury and by imposing new duties upon local county officials with respect to changes in ownership, this bill would 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 with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above. This bill would include a change in state statute that would result in a taxpayer paying a higher tax within the meaning of Section 3 of Article XIIIA of the California Constitution, and thus would require for passage the approval of 23 of the membership of each house of the Legislature. This bill would take effect immediately as a tax levy.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. From Senate committee without further action.

  2. In committee: Held under submission.

  3. In committee: Placed on APPR. suspense file.

  4. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  5. From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 5. Noes 2.) (June 25).

  6. In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.

  7. Referred to Com. on GOV. & F.

  8. In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment.

  9. Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 57. Noes 13. Page 5359.)

  10. Assembly Rule 69(d) suspended. (Page 5325.)

  11. Read third time and amended. Ordered to third reading. (Page 5221.)

  12. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  13. From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 12. Noes 3.) (May 23).

  14. Joint Rule 62(a), file notice suspended. (Page 5065.)

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

  16. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  17. (pending re-referral to the Com. on APPR.)

  18. Assembly Rule 56 suspended. (Page 4991.)

  19. Joint Rule 62(a), file notice suspended. (Page 4991.)

  20. Read second time and amended.

  21. From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 6. Noes 2.) (May 13).

  22. In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to REV. & TAX. suspense file.

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

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

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

  26. Read first time.

  27. From printer. May be heard in committee March 25.

  28. Introduced. To print.

Sponsors

  • Ammiano · Primary
  • Bocanegra · Cosponsor

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 1 co-sponsors · 120 not signed on · 6 voted No

Sponsors (1)

  • Ammiano

Co-sponsors (1)

  • Bocanegra

Not signed on (120)

120 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 120 →

"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

AB 2372 AMMIANO Assembly Third Reading

Passed 57 Yea · 13 Nay · 9 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 55908
Democratic 2200
Republican 0201
Total 571309
% of votes cast 72%16%0%11%
How each member voted (79)
Member Party Vote
Achadjian — Yea
Ammiano — Yea
Bigelow — Not Voting
Bloom — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Brown — Yea
Buchanan — Yea
Jones-Sawyer — Yea
Linder — Not Voting
Logue — Not Voting
Maienschein — Yea
Mansoor — Nay
Perea — Yea
Rendon — Yea
Rodriguez — Yea
Wagner — Nay
Waldron — Not Voting
Williams — Yea
Dababneh — Yea
Daly — Yea
Gorell — Yea
Lowenthal — Yea
Garcia — Yea
Gray — Yea
Atkins — Yea
Fong — Yea
Holden — Yea
Nazarian — Yea
Ridley-Thomas — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Campos — Yea
Chau — Yea
Bonilla — Yea
Frazier — Yea
Gatto — Yea
Gordon — Yea
Bocanegra — Yea
Hagman — Not Voting
John A. Pérez — Yea
Hall — Yea
Harkey — Not Voting
Chesbro — Yea
Levine — Yea
Medina — Yea
Allen — Nay
Salas — Nay
Melendez — Not Voting
Mullin — Yea
Alejo — Yea
Chávez — Yea
Conway — Not Voting
Cooley — Nay
Dickinson — Yea
Donnelly — Nay
Eggman — Yea
Nestande — Yea
Olsen — Yea
Pan — Yea
Quirk — Yea
Ting — Yea
Weber — Yea
Wieckowski — Yea
Wilk — Yea
Fox — Nay
Yamada — Yea
Gomez — Yea
Beth Gaines — Nay
Jim Patterson — Nay
Lorena Gonzalez — Yea
Mark Stone — Yea
Roger Hernández — Yea
V. Manuel Pérez — Yea
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Muratsuchi, Al Democratic Nay
Quirk-Silva, Sharon Democratic Nay
Dahle, Megan Republican Not Voting
Grove, Shannon Republican Nay
Jones, Brian W. Republican Nay

Official roll call →

Do pass.

Passed 12 Yea · 3 Nay · 2 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 11202
Democratic 1000
Republican 0100
Total 12302
% of votes cast 71%18%0%12%
How each member voted (17)
Member Party Vote
Bradford — Yea
Linder — Not Voting
Ridley-Thomas — Yea
Weber — Yea
Campos — Yea
Gomez — Yea
Bocanegra — Yea
Holden — Yea
Bigelow — Not Voting
Donnelly — Nay
Eggman — Yea
Pan — Yea
Quirk — Yea
Wagner — Nay
Gatto — Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Jones, Brian W. Republican Nay

Official roll call →

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 2372 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 in a corporation, partnership, limited liability company, or other legal entity results in a change in ownership of the real property owned by that entity, and generally provides that a change in ownership as so described occurs if a legal entity or other person obtains a controlling or majority ownership interest in the legal entity. Existing law also specifies other circumstances in which certain transfers of ownership interests in legal entities result in a change in ownership of the real property owned by those legal entities. Existing law requires the Franchise Tax Board to include a question on corporation and income returns for partnerships, banks, and corporations to assist in the determination of whether a change in ownership as so described has occurred. This bill would specify that if, on or after January 1, 2015, 90% or more of the direct or indirect ownership interests in a legal entity are cumulatively transferred in one or more transactions, the transfer of the ownership interest is a change in ownership of the real property owned by the legal entity, whether or not any one legal entity or person acquires control of the ownership interests. This bill would require the Franchise Tax Board to include an additional question on corporation and income returns for partnerships, banks, and corporations to assist in the determination of whether a change in ownership as so described has occurred. This bill would require the State Board of Equalization to report to the Legislature, no later than January 1, 2020, regarding the implementation of these changes in ownership, including, but not limited to, the economic impact and frequency of reassessments of real property owned by legal entities. Existing law requires, upon a change in control or change in ownership of a legal entity that owns an interest in real property in this state, or when requested by the State Board of Equalization, that the person or legal entity acquiring ownership or control, or the legal entity that has undergone a change in ownership, file a change in ownership statement with the board, as specified. Existing law requires a penalty of 10% of the taxes applicable to the new base year value, as specified, or 10% of the current year's taxes on the property, as specified, to be added to the assessment made on the roll if a person or legal entity required to file a change in ownership statement fails to do so. This bill would also require, in the case of a change in ownership when 90% or more of the ownership interests in the legal entity are cumulatively transferred, as described above, the corporation, partnership, limited liability company, or other legal entity that underwent the change in ownership to file a change in ownership statement signed under penalty of perjury with the State Board of Equalization, as specified. This bill would increase the penalties for failure to file a change in ownership statement, as described above, from 10% to 15%. This bill would require the State Board of Equalization to notify assessors if a change in control or a change in ownership of a legal entity has occurred. By expanding the crime of perjury and by imposing new duties upon local county officials with respect to changes in ownership, this bill would 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 with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above. This bill would include a change in state statute that would result in a taxpayer paying a higher tax within the meaning of Section 3 of Article XIIIA of the California Constitution, and thus would require for passage the approval of 23 of the membership of each house of the Legislature. This bill would take effect immediately as a tax levy.
Who sponsors AB 2372?
AB 2372 is sponsored by Ammiano and Bocanegra.
What is the current status of AB 2372?
This bill died with 2013-2014 Regular Session. It reached “Passed Assembly” 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 2372?
Track AB 2372 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on AB 2372

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 2372

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

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

Track this bill →