Allows municipalities to relieve property owners of penalties due to lack of payment if such property owner was a victim of property tax fraud
Summary
A10641 amends the Real Property Tax Law to let municipalities, if they choose by resolution, waive all or part of the interest and penalties assessed on delinquent property taxes when the property owner can show they were the victim of property tax fraud. The bill defines property tax fraud broadly to include check fraud, mail theft, and any theft, interception, diversion, or unauthorized receipt of a payment intended to satisfy a real property tax bill.
To qualify for relief, a property owner must provide documentation acceptable to the enforcing officer, such as an affidavit, bank records showing the fraud or reimbursement, or a police report. Any waiver is limited to the period of delinquency caused by the fraud and cannot exceed one year from the date the taxes were due. The bill also requires consent from any municipal corporation that would otherwise receive the interest or penalties, and it authorizes the state commissioner to issue implementing rules.
Impact
The bill creates a new section 924-c of the Real Property Tax Law and also amends section 1182 to align existing local authority over tax interest and penalty abatements with the new fraud-related waiver process. In practical terms, it gives local tax districts a specific statutory basis to forgive penalties and interest for victims of payment fraud, while preserving local control and requiring consent where another municipal corporation has a financial stake in the charges. It affects property owners who were defrauded, local tax enforcing officers, municipalities, and any municipal corporations entitled to the collected charges.
Sentiment
The available legislative history suggests generally favorable sentiment. The Assembly Real Property Taxation Committee advanced the bill unanimously, 8-0, indicating broad support for the concept of relief for taxpayers harmed by fraud. The bill’s framing as a consumer-protection and fairness measure likely contributes to its positive reception, and there is no recorded committee opposition in the materials provided.
Contention
The main points of potential contention are administrative discretion and fiscal impact. Because relief is optional and may be granted on a general or case-by-case basis, municipalities may differ in how broadly they use the authority, and enforcing officers must determine whether the evidence is sufficient. Another possible issue is the requirement that any municipal corporation entitled to the interest or penalties must consent before a waiver is granted, which could limit implementation where local fiscal interests are affected. The bill’s cap of one year and its documentation requirements may also be debated as either necessary safeguards or barriers to relief.