California 2015-2016 Regular Session Status: Passed Assembly

AB 1040 — Property taxation: change in ownership.

Last action — In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.

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 2015-2016 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This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis.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 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 requires the Franchise Tax Board to include a question on returns for partnerships, banks, and corporations to assist in the determination of whether a change in ownership under the circumstances described above has occurred. This bill would additionally specify that if more than ___% of the direct or indirect ownership interests in a legal entity are sold or transferred in a single transaction, as defined, the real property owned by that legal entity has changed ownership whether or not any one legal entity or person that is a party to the transaction obtains control, as defined. This bill would require the Franchise Tax Board to include an additional question on 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 prescribe regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this act. This bill would also require the State Board of Equalization to report to the Legislature, no later than January 1, 2021, 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 require a person or legal entity acquiring ownership interests in a legal entity, if more than ___% of the ownership interests in the legal entity are sold or transferred, as described above, to file a change in ownership statement signed under penalty of perjury with the State Board of Equalization. This bill would increase the penalties for failure to file a change in ownership statement, as described above, from 10% to 15%, and would provide that the penalty shall apply for failure to file a complete statement with the State Board of Equalization following a transfer of legal entity ownership interests. 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. In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.

  2. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on GOV. & F.

  3. In committee: Hearing postponed by committee.

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

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

  6. Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 79. Noes 0. Page 1389.)

  7. Read second time. Ordered to Consent Calendar.

  8. From committee: Do pass. To Consent Calendar. (Ayes 9. Noes 0.) (May 4).

  9. In committee: Hearing postponed by committee.

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

  11. From printer. May be heard in committee March 29.

  12. Read first time. To print.

Sponsors

  • Ting · Primary

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 121 not signed on

Sponsors (1)

  • Ting

Co-sponsors (0)

None.

Not signed on (121)

121 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 121 →

"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

Passed 79 Yea · 0 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 69001
Democratic 4000
Republican 6000
Total 79001
% of votes cast 99%0%0%1%
How each member voted (80)
Member Party Vote
Achadjian — Yea
Alejo — Yea
Bigelow — Yea
Bloom — Yea
Brough — Yea
Brown — Yea
Low — Yea
Maienschein — Yea
Mathis — Yea
Mullin — Yea
O'Donnell — Yea
Rendon — Yea
Williams — Yea
Eggman — Yea
Frazier — Yea
Gordon — Yea
Burke — Yea
Harper — Yea
Salas — Yea
Linder — Yea
Mayes — Yea
McCarty — Yea
Nazarian — Yea
Obernolte — Yea
Chang — Yea
Chau — Yea
Chiu — Yea
Chu — Yea
Cooley — Yea
Cooper — Yea
Olsen — Yea
Perea — Yea
Ridley-Thomas — Yea
Rodriguez — Yea
Thurmond — Yea
Waldron — Yea
Weber — Yea
Wilk — Yea
Campos — Yea
Gatto — Yea
Gray — Yea
Bonilla — Yea
Lopez — Yea
Atkins — Not Voting
Chávez — Yea
Holden — Yea
Dababneh — Yea
Baker — Yea
Daly — Yea
Dodd — Yea
Jones-Sawyer — Yea
Kim — Yea
Levine — Yea
Medina — Yea
Melendez — Yea
Quirk — Yea
Santiago — Yea
Steinorth — Yea
Ting — Yea
Wagner — Yea
Wood — Yea
Gomez — Yea
Gonzalez — Yea
Hadley — Yea
Beth Gaines — Yea
Cristina Garcia — Yea
Eduardo Garcia — Yea
Mark Stone — Yea
Roger Hernández — Yea
Travis Allen — Yea
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Gipson, Mike A. Democratic Yea
Irwin, Jacqui Democratic Yea
Dahle, Megan Republican Yea
Gallagher, James Republican Yea
Grove, Shannon Republican Yea
Jones, Brian W. Republican Yea
Lackey, Tom Republican Yea
Patterson, Joe Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Subjects

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 1040 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 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 requires the Franchise Tax Board to include a question on returns for partnerships, banks, and corporations to assist in the determination of whether a change in ownership under the circumstances described above has occurred. This bill would additionally specify that if more than ___% of the direct or indirect ownership interests in a legal entity are sold or transferred in a single transaction, as defined, the real property owned by that legal entity has changed ownership whether or not any one legal entity or person that is a party to the transaction obtains control, as defined. This bill would require the Franchise Tax Board to include an additional question on 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 prescribe regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this act. This bill would also require the State Board of Equalization to report to the Legislature, no later than January 1, 2021, 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 require a person or legal entity acquiring ownership interests in a legal entity, if more than ___% of the ownership interests in the legal entity are sold or transferred, as described above, to file a change in ownership statement signed under penalty of perjury with the State Board of Equalization. This bill would increase the penalties for failure to file a change in ownership statement, as described above, from 10% to 15%, and would provide that the penalty shall apply for failure to file a complete statement with the State Board of Equalization following a transfer of legal entity ownership interests. 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 1040?
AB 1040 is sponsored by Ting.
What is the current status of AB 1040?
This bill died with 2015-2016 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 1040?
Track AB 1040 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on AB 1040

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.

Stay ahead of AB 1040

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

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

Track this bill →