Senate Bill 816, effective January 1, 2010, could result in the imposition of significant penalties on unwary taxpayers for failing to report changes in control or ownership of legal entities in California. It imposes a new, automatic 10% penalty for failure to file a change-in-ownership statement to the State Board of Equalization (SBE) within 45 days. The penalty will be 10% of the taxes applicable to the new base year reflecting the change in ownership. Previously, the acquiring entity was required to file a change-in-ownership statement with the SBE. However, no penalty was imposed for not filing, unless the SBE specifically requested such a statement. SB816 changes all that. Now taxpayers will incur the penalty if they do not file within 45 days, regardless if the SBE requests the statement or not. If the SBE requests the statement, taxpayers must respond within 45 days, even if no change took place, to avoid incurring the penalty.

The Kansas Court of Appeals recently reversed a decision by the District Court that set aside the opinion of the Kansas Board of Tax Appeals. At the center of the case was the valuation methodology employed by the taxing jurisdiction’s appraiser. The Court of Appeals found that the jurisdiction’s expert witness not only erred, but also violated USPAP by valuing the various segments of the property and summing the individual values to arrive at an overall valuation conclusion. The court relied upon USPAP Standard Rule 1-4(e):

“Pursuant to USPAP Standard Rule 1-4(e) (2001), an appraiser must analyze the effect on value, if any, of the assemblage of the various estates or component parts of a property and refrain from valuing the whole solely by adding together the individual values of the various estates or component parts. Although the value of the whole may be equal to the sum of the separate estates or parts, it also may be greater or less than the sum of such estates or parts. Therefore, the value of the whole must be tested by reference to appropriate data and supported by an appropriate analysis of such data.”

The Court goes on to state:

“There is no question that Kubert violated USPAP Rule 1-4(e). In executing each of his approaches to value, Kubert segmented the property, valued each segment individually, and then added the values to get his final valuation.”

The case can be found here.