An act to amend Sections 167, 1603, and 1604 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, relating to taxation.
SB 1402 would revise California property tax appeal procedures for residential property. It expands an existing rebuttable presumption in favor of taxpayers in administrative hearings from owner-occupied single-family dwellings to a broader category of “residential real property,” including single-family homes, condominiums, cooperatives, duplexes, and multifamily properties with fewer than four units. The bill also bars assessors, tax collectors, and auditors from charging a fee for filing a reduction-in-assessment application for homes valued under $2.5 million.
The bill further shortens the deadline for county boards of equalization to hear evidence and issue a final decision on a property tax reduction application from two years to six months, while preserving the rule that the applicant’s opinion of value becomes the taxable value if the board misses that deadline. It also removes a prior COVID-era extension provision tied to applications pending during March 4, 2020 through December 31, 2021. The measure includes findings that these changes address a matter of statewide concern and therefore apply to all counties, including charter counties.
SB 1402 would amend Revenue and Taxation Code Sections 167, 1603, and 1604, changing who benefits from the taxpayer-favorable burden-of-proof presumption, eliminating certain application fees for lower-value homes, and imposing a much shorter timeline for county assessment appeals. In practice, it would affect county assessors, tax collectors, county boards of equalization, and property owners seeking assessment reductions, especially residential homeowners and owners of smaller multifamily properties. The bill also declares the changes a state-mandated local program, but states that no reimbursement is required.
The bill’s findings and structure suggest a generally pro-homeowner, pro-taxpayer intent, emphasizing affordability, senior housing stability, and reducing backlogs in the appeals process. The context provided shows no recorded committee testimony or votes, so there is no documented opposition or support beyond the bill’s introduction and referral. Overall, the measure appears framed as a consumer-relief and administrative-efficiency proposal.
The main policy tensions are likely to be between homeowners seeking easier, faster, and cheaper assessment appeals and local tax officials who would face added administrative duties and tighter deadlines. The expansion of the rebuttable presumption to a broader set of residential properties may also be contentious because it shifts the burden of proof more often in favor of taxpayers. Another possible point of debate is the six-month decision deadline, which could be viewed as improving responsiveness but also as difficult for counties to meet, especially in high-volume jurisdictions.