Delinquent tax lands; extends maximum duration of an installment agrmt. between locality/landlord.
The key impact of this bill is on property owners in Virginia, especially those with delinquent taxes. By allowing extended installment payment plans, HB2110 aims to prevent the immediate loss of property due to tax defaults, which can disproportionately affect lower-income homeowners. It simplifies the process of entering into agreements to make payments more manageable, thereby potentially fostering better compliance with tax obligations. Additionally, the bill addresses the legal nuance associated with properties that span multiple jurisdictions regarding tax delinquency, allowing for coordinated legal action across different localities.
House Bill 2110 addresses the issue of delinquent taxes on real estate and modifies the provisions within the Code of Virginia that govern the sale of land for unpaid taxes. The bill expands the circumstances under which a locality can sell real estate to include situations where abatement costs remain unpaid, along with providing a mechanism for property owners to enter into installment agreements for the payment of delinquent taxes. This installment plan can extend for a period not to exceed 72 months, allowing more flexibility for property owners facing financial hardships due to unpaid taxes.
The sentiment surrounding HB2110 appears to be generally supportive, as it seeks to offer relief and practical solutions to property owners dealing with tax liabilities. Legislators have expressed that the bill is a step towards improving financial stability for individuals at risk of losing their homes due to unpaid taxes. However, there are concerns regarding the potential for local governments to lose out on immediate tax revenue, which might impact their ability to fund essential services.
There were discussions highlighting contention particularly around the thresholds for property deemed 'blighted', as defined in the bill. Some legislators argued that the definitions included could lead to properties being sold that hold significant value to the community or are in the process of being rehabilitated. Furthermore, the inclusion of abatement costs raised questions about what constitutes a justifiable cost and if this could be abused, leading to unjust sales of properties. Nevertheless, the bill passed unanimously in the Senate, indicating a considerable level of consensus on the need for reform.