Property taxation: change in ownership: exclusion: local registered domestic partners.
The legislation reinforces the existing legal framework recognizing registered domestic partnerships and enhances the rights of these couples in the context of property ownership. It eliminates the potential for reassessment due to ownership changes between partners, providing better financial predictability for registered domestic partners. The bill mandates that local assessors offer a process for transferring owners to claim an exclusion, thus establishing a uniform application of tax laws that impact domestic partners in California.
Assembly Bill No. 2663, introduced by Assemblymember Friedman, amends Section 62 of the Revenue and Taxation Code concerning property taxation in California, specifically addressing the treatment of property transfers between local registered domestic partners. The bill aims to provide clarity in tax policy by excluding certain transfers from being classified as 'change in ownership,' thereby avoiding a reassessment in property taxes for these transactions. It applies to transfers occurring between January 1, 2000, and June 26, 2015, ensuring that registered domestic partners can more easily transition ownership of property without incurring financial penalties associated with property tax increases.
Overall, the sentiment surrounding AB 2663 appears to be supportive, particularly from advocates for LGBTQ+ rights and property owners within domestic partnerships. Supporters argue that the bill acknowledges the unique financial dynamics faced by domestic partners and promotes equality in property taxation. However, there may be some contention regarding the lack of reimbursement for local agencies experiencing revenue losses due to this exclusion, which could create disagreements among policymakers.
A notable point of contention in the bill is the stipulation that no state reimbursement is provided for any property tax revenues lost as a result of this legislation. This has raised concerns among local agencies regarding budget impacts, as they are required to manage their finances in light of the tax exemptions established. Advocates for local agencies may argue this runs counter to obligations to maintain adequate funding for local services, which could lead to legislative pushback or calls for amendments in the future.