Assessor gone mad?

[Chance the Gardener]

I definitely have been assessed $100K more than the purchase price. I received a supplemental assessment and talked to the appraiser to confirm that the assessment was not a clerical error. For purposes here, lets assume I paid $500,000 and the assessment was for $600,000. The previous owner’s assessment was $650,000.

You are right, however, that my current tax bill is based on the prior owner’s assessed value. That is not what I am worried about, as I know that if I pay based on the $650K assessment that I will get a refund on the next supplemental roll.

When I spoke with the assessor’s appraiser, he told me that he looked into comparable sales in my building because I had gotten such a good deal and because I purchased the property out of foreclosure. I did not purchase the property out of foreclosure, I purchased the property from a bank who purchased the property from another bank who bought the property at auction. The property was listed on the MLS in excess of 30 days when I made my offer at asking. I was represented by an agent, and so was the bank.

[Chance the Gardener]

Assessor’s burden:

Bugs, I agree, but isn’t it the assessor’s burden to show that the purchase price is not the full cash value? I rely on section 110 of the California Revenue and Taxation code:

“(b) For purposes of determining the “full cash value” or “fair market value” of real property… being appraised upon a purchase, “full cash value” or “fair market value” is the purchase price paid in the transaction unless it is established by a preponderance of the evidence that the real property would not have transferred for that purchase price in an open market transaction. The purchase price shall, however, be rebuttably presumed to be the “full cash value” or “fair market value” if the terms of the transaction were negotiated at arms length between a knowledgeable transferor and transferee neither of which could take advantage of the exigencies of the other…“

[Chance the Gardener]

Assessor’s burden:

Bugs, I agree, but isn’t it the assessor’s burden to show that the purchase price is not the full cash value? I rely on section 110 of the California Revenue and Taxation code:

“(b) For purposes of determining the “full cash value” or “fair market value” of real property… being appraised upon a purchase, “full cash value” or “fair market value” is the purchase price paid in the transaction unless it is established by a preponderance of the evidence that the real property would not have transferred for that purchase price in an open market transaction. The purchase price shall, however, be rebuttably presumed to be the “full cash value” or “fair market value” if the terms of the transaction were negotiated at arms length between a knowledgeable transferor and transferee neither of which could take advantage of the exigencies of the other…“

[Chance the Gardener]

Assessor’s burden:

Bugs, I agree, but isn’t it the assessor’s burden to show that the purchase price is not the full cash value? I rely on section 110 of the California Revenue and Taxation code:

“(b) For purposes of determining the “full cash value” or “fair market value” of real property… being appraised upon a purchase, “full cash value” or “fair market value” is the purchase price paid in the transaction unless it is established by a preponderance of the evidence that the real property would not have transferred for that purchase price in an open market transaction. The purchase price shall, however, be rebuttably presumed to be the “full cash value” or “fair market value” if the terms of the transaction were negotiated at arms length between a knowledgeable transferor and transferee neither of which could take advantage of the exigencies of the other…“

[Author]

Posts