Changes the liability for the payment of taxes during the redemptive period after a tax sale (OR NO IMPACT LF EX See Note)
This change is significant as it reduces the financial burden on tax sale purchasers during the potentially lengthy redemptive period, allowing them to avoid the obligation of continuous tax payments on properties they may not legally control until the redemption is finalized. Additionally, the bill sets limits on the amount that the person redeeming the property must reimburse the purchaser for any improvements made to abandoned or blighted properties, ensuring that reimbursements are capped at $1,500 for abandoned properties and $3,000 for blighted properties.
House Bill 427 aims to amend the liability rules surrounding the payment of ad valorem taxes during the redemptive period following a tax sale. Under current law, the tax sale purchaser is responsible for paying taxes on the property until it is redeemed by the tax debtor. HB427 shifts this responsibility back to the tax debtor, meaning that the property will remain assessed in the name of and taxed to the original owner or the new owner in the case of a transfer until the expiration of the redemption period. After this period, the liability will then fall on the tax sale purchaser.
The sentiment surrounding HB427 appears to be mixed but leans towards supporting property owners' rights. Proponents argue that by shifting the tax liability back to the tax debtor, the legislation protects buyers and promotes the renovation of blighted properties in New Orleans, thus contributing to urban renewal efforts. Critics may raise concerns over whether this change could encourage neglect of properties by former owners, as they would not be liable for taxes during the redemption period.
Notable points of contention likely revolve around the balance of responsibilities between tax sale buyers and former owners. The reimbursement caps for improvements might also spark debate on how they reflect the true costs of revitalizing neglected properties. Supporters may emphasize that the bill encourages investment, while opponents might express concern that it does not go far enough to protect communities from a lack of accountability for property maintenance.