Winning At The Tax Assessment Game
I've been noticing on the tax maps that there are parcels assessed at FAR below their neighbor's parcels. This is not because of a different use code, orange trees for AG, etc. Generally, the common denominator seems to be that these preferential treatments are given to people who have been there a long time.
Is this likely because the assessment can only go up so much a year? Would they lose this treatment if they upgraded, pulled more permits, etc?
Also, it seems fairly clear to me that some people are simply getting preferential treatment when it comes to the codes. For example, two identical sfr lots side by side with lots of lake frontage. One is taxed with a code reflecting the amount of frontage, and the one next to it with simply a sfr waterfront lot code (one lot, one fee)... the same code that might be used for a lot with 1/5 the frontage.
The difference is huge in taxes. Is there something deeper I should be looking for, or were the changes likely made due to new rules implemented upon xfer, or something else?
This is a very important subject down here as there are many lakes, and the tax assessment often varys by 10,000% depending on the codes employed, etc.
IT CA the taxes are based on the transfer value and can only go up approx. ~1%/yr.
So you have a elder person, that has owned her '42 california bungalow since '42 and is taxed at 50K. The house next door is the same house, but bought in 2001, the they pay tax on 500K. CA voters that this was a better formula than sa in MI, where every house is assigned a state equalize velue (SEV) which is the value of the property ind. of location.
upgrades (technically pulling permits, unless you're cought in the act) can
raise the basis.
wrt water frontage v. flat, did the tax rules change at some point? and the flat fee was granfathered until the next sale.