CA Proposition 58 and Prop 193 Exclusions

Parent to Child Property Tax Transfer in California

Parent to Child Property Tax Transfer in California

Based on their recent efforts, how do the folks running the state of California, in the Legislature, think that adding property taxes will affect all these working families? Do they even consider how further unraveling property tax relief would affect the California economy as a whole? Does it ever occur to the politicos in the Legislature that going further in the direction of eliminating property tax breaks would literally be a social and financial disaster for the state as a whole?

Since Proposition 58 (as well as Proposition 193 concerning the “Grandparent to Grandchild Exclusion”) is such a critical element holding up property tax relief in the state of California, we might as well take a quick, very simple high-level look at how this all works. To take advantage of Prop 58, certain eligibility requirements must be met. For example, eligible children under this proposition include:

a) Children born of the parents in question
b) Stepchildren
c) Sons-in-law and daughters-in-law
d) Children adopted under the age of 18
e) Children of a child of grandparents (regarding Proposition 193)

Propositions 58 and 193 exclude three types of property transfers, avoiding property tax reassessment at current high market rates:

1. Transfer of a primary residence: The assessed value of a primary residence is eligible for reassessment exclusion, or exemption.

2. Transfer of property through gift, sale, or inheritance: Parent-to-child transfer through a trust will qualify for an exclusion of property tax reassessment.

3. The parent-child exclusion can only be used if the “transferee child” uses the home as the child’s primary residence, and files for the homeowner’s exemption for the property. The parent-child exclusion will not be available if the home is used as a vacation home or is rented out by the children. If the home is transferred to more than one child, they would all have to live together in the home as their primary.

4. A parent can only shelter $1 million of increased value from reassessment. Any appreciation above that will be added to the property tax assessed For instance, if the primary residence is currently assessed at $500,000 but is worth $1,500,000, the child receiving the home and using it as the child’s primary residence will keep the same property tax assessed value of $500,000. However, if the home is worth $3,000,000 and not $1,500,000, the $2,500,000 appreciation will result in an added $1,500,000 assessment; the child’s new property tax assessed value will be $2,000,000 ($500,000 current property tax assessed value + $1,500,000 of “excess appreciation”). This new limitation also applies to a family farm.

Proposition 19 eliminates the second current alternative completely. As of Feb 15, 2021, there will no longer be a Parent to Child exclusion for a transfer of any property other than the parent’s primary residence and a family farm. Although you can still get the benefit of Prop 58 and an irrevocable trust loan if you require that type of financing.

Proposition 58 does not automatically apply to each parent-to-child transfer. To receive the full benefit of Proposition 58, you are required to file within 3-years of the transfer of property ownership.

There are several forms you must file to take advantage of property tax reassessment exclusion. They are Proposition 58 Form BOE-58-AH: Claim for Reassessment Exclusion for Transfer Between Parent and Child; or Proposition 193. Form BOE-58-G: Claim for Reassessment Exclusion for Transfer Between Grandparent and Grandchild.

This completes a very simple, high-level view of what Proposition 58 is all about. Once you understand all that, the next step is to enlist the help of a trust lender to get approved to be able to take advantage of Prop 58 and an irrevocable trust loan for funding to equalize the finances between beneficiaries if some wish to hold on to inherited property while others are looking to sell out to outside buyers.

From that point onward, the next step is to make use of the trust fund loan process, if you wish to equalize financing between you and your siblings or co-beneficiaries, to retain inherited property from your parents and buyout property shares inherited by a sibling, or several co-beneficiaries. You can then own your inherited home without the encumbrances of co-beneficiaries to be concerned with.

PART TWO: Surviving CA Proposition 19 – Losing The Parent to Child Exemption

Surviving California Prop 19

California Prop 19


Let’s be clear.  Critics of property tax relief in California are typically well educated, bright, and articulate… and write awfully convincing Op-Ed’s in the San Francisco Chronicle and the Los Angeles Times. 

Yet, for whatever reason, these critics of property tax relief never produce  examples of how or why Proposition 13 is “so unfair” – with the exception of shifting sand anecdotal evidence, without genuine case study data or specific historical events to point to.  Other than the rather deceptive Lloyd and Jeff Bridges family tale of their one beach- front property used as a secondary property to rent out to wealthy tenants.

In fact it’s almost laughable that the Bridges family story is approved by supposedly responsible editors repeatedly, in numerous high-profile California newspapers. Always without backup evidence or case study data pointing to other examples of this type of usage of Proposition 13 and Proposition 58, by other wealthy or middle class Californians.  They can’t seem to come up with a credible follow up example, or any example, of this  sort of rental activity. 

Yet critics of property tax relief did manage to come up with Proposition 19, to take down the parent to child exclusion, associated with the parent to child transfer, that is the foundation of property tax relief for home owners in this state.  Those same home owners, and  beneficiaries inheriting property from parents are wondering how this Proposition 19 measure will affect Proposition 58, in terms of establishing a low property tax base, as well as getting a trust loan to buyout siblings inheriting the same property. 

There is a great deal of anxiety in California in terms of how Proposition 58 will stand if Proposition 19  is voted into law, with respect to locking down a long-term, even lifetime, low property tax base when receiving an intra-family trust loan associated with the transfer of property between siblings or  sibling to sibling property transfer.  If Proposition 19 does pass, most current beneficiaries want to know if getting a trust loan to buyout siblings will be the same, in terms of process; or will the process be different, more difficult, or perhaps even easier.  Buying out a siblings’ share of a house, getting a trust loan to buyout siblings post Proposition 19, is an important issue for most residents of  California.

Meanwhile, despite these nuts and bolts details, we’re still forced to listen to these relentless critics of Proposition 13 and Proposition 58, dispensing non fact-based anecdotal narratives to convince the public how “one-sided” and “massively abused” property tax relief is in California. How it’s only for rich, mainly elderly, home owners.  Or for the rich and famous… like the Bridges. 

Yet we still don’t hear any actual names attached to this supposed “long list of abusers of Proposition 13” to back up these claims behind the push to pass Proposition 19.     Obviously, this is a false representation of a proven property tax relief system that benefits more middle class home owners than anyone else in California.  Which makes perfect sense, if you think about it, as there are so many more middle class people in California, and elsewhere, than rich people! 

Although lately, to backup Proposition 15, to take away property tax breaks from business and commercial property owners, we are occasionally hearing about corporations, not people, always trotted out as, “…companies like Chevron and Disneyland…” (never mentioning any other company) “…that sit on valuable property, generating a huge profit every year – yet never paying taxes on their land in terms of present day reassessment”.  OK, we’re willing to listen.  But never with any actual figures or data to backup the claims. 

So even if a few corporations take advantage of Prop 13 tax relief measures that have  been in place in all 58 counties in  California since 1978, millions of middle class home owners will see their rents sky-rocket if Prop 15 passes… and commercial property owners, and apt. landlords just getting by, as well as family-run industrial businesses that own modest income bearing facilities – all use Proposition 13 fairly and properly, and benefit greatly from it.  Just as it should be.  So we’re going to punish these few perhaps greedy companies by crippling all business property owners in California? 

Without these tax breaks from Proposition 13 and Prop 58, without people like Howard Jarvis and Jon Coupal; Kerry Smith who have fought for these tax breaks for California residential and business property owners…  very few middle class Californians, which is most of the state, would have been able to keep inherited property.  Landlords have been able to keep rents at moderately reasonable rates due to low commercial property taxes. So on and so forth. And this business about schools desperately needing funding – is yet again another half-truth.

Sure, some of the revenue from new, accelerated property taxes will go to schools… but nowhere near what is being promised, or rather vaguely indicated. The lion’s share we are told would go to pay for unfunded state-govt. pensions. And probably other state government purposes such as pay raises, generous benefits and vacations, and so on… plus special interest public works and building projects, no doubt.  And schools will pick up what’s left on the table after all that. 

Intended… and unintended… consequences.

>> Click Here to go to Part Three…