Loans for Irrevocable Trusts

Loans for homes in an irrevocable trust

Loans for homes in an irrevocable trust

According to financial leaders who own firms that provide loans for irrevocable trusts and property tax relief programs, in concert with Proposition 58, Prop 193, and Proposition 13 – typically saving  homeowners over $8,500 in extra taxes every year – the news is that property owners in California should consider accomplishing any property transfers to heirs, that may be planned either as a sale, a gift or an inheritance, or a hybrid – prior to or by Feb. 15, 2021…

Feb. 15th being the final day one can access original Proposition 58 or Prop 193 property tax break benefits – to save money on the initial transfer, plus thousands of dollars on yearly property taxes, as the tax assessor comes around to collect, so to speak.  

To reiterate, as you probably already know, Proposition 58 allows parents in California to transfer property to their children without triggering a property tax reassessment. And as you most likely are aware, you must be the son or daughter of a parent that resides, and owns property, in California – in order to qualify for a “parent to child exclusion” (also referred to as a parent to child exemption) – from reassessment, in terms of the current market value of family owned real property.

Conversely, Proposition 193 allows grandparents to transfer property to their grandchildren, with a “grandparent to grandchild exemption” – without having to worry about current market property tax reassessment.  It’s worth noting that the Proposition 193 exclusion is workable only if the Proposition 58 exemption cannot be used.  In other words, to put it bluntly, parents of the grandchildren in question must be deceased.  That may sound harsh, however it is important to know the facts.

To be safe and secure, experts are telling us right now to be aware of certain changes to the Proposition 58 “parent to child exclusion” tax break – and to remain aware of time as a serious factor. We are told that we should view Feb. 15, 2021 as a formal deadline for completing a family property transfer or intra-family trust for a trust loan – not for paperwork signatures, or a postmark date. With potential county closures mounting up, the completion of this sort of transaction in person could very well continue to be a challenge, and backlogs affecting paperwork sent through the mail could be an issue at some point.  

As of February 16, 2021, family property transfers must be used as a primary residence, to avoid property tax reassessment at current market value; maintaining the invaluable right to avoid property tax reassessment.  Fortunately, Californians will still be able to take advantage of a property tax break as long as they are using inherited property as a primary residence, within a year of the passing of the decedent who is leaving the property to his or her children; typically as an inheritance.    

However, we do need to be aware that it is the next generation of property owners, in the future, that may incur higher property taxes due to new tax laws, or shall we say a revised version of the same   property tax break protected by CA Proposition 58.  The point being, with new changes to property tax law in California, with the right to avoid property tax reassessment being challenged and even partially unraveled, it has  become more important than ever to consult or work with Prop 58 and property tax relief experts that are knowledgeable in all trust loan, Proposition 58 and Proposition 13 matters… who maintain a grasp of property tax law changes, and how those shifts impact beneficiaries and property owners in the state of California.    

Home ownership for middle class Americans has mushroomed and developed at a breakneck pace, as the gold centerpiece that represents The American Dream…. Yet it is property tax breaks, and property tax relief for the middle class in the state of California – that has kept that dream alive.

Part One: Why is Proposition 13 so Attractive to so Many Californians?

In examining and analyzing tax relief from Proposition 13 property tax transfer, as well as the financial and political drama surrounding the initiative – with all the on-going conflict between detractors and supporters; between critics and advocates – it is important to note that prior to Proposition 13 in California, from one end of the state to the other, property taxes were pretty much out of control, and tended to increase arbitrarily, whenever it was deemed appropriate to do so, for the benefit of one local city or town government or another.

Anytime local townships and city governments needed extra money to fund this or that, they felt free to increase property taxes, and take large amounts out of “redevelopment agencies”, or RDA – particularly when it involved commercial land development, questionable funding for certain school programs, and possibly tax rebates for certain business verticals aligned politically with local government. Frequently spearheaded by special interests.

Specifically, property tax revenues were, and still are, distributed to K-12 schools and community colleges; various counties, cities & “special districts”, generally with redevelopment agencies at the bottom of the list.

The irony was that redevelopment agencies that were the most critical for local residents received the least amount of money from property tax revenues… And this trend still continues, to this day. We’re talking about redevelopment agencies that purchase property for local government; that raze and build non-residential structures; that provide municipal infrastructure like bridges, city or town streets, rural roads, and lighting, for public safety; that develop affordable housing (at the very bottom of their list) as well as renovating local commercial areas.

Before Proposition 13 property tax transfer tax relief was in effect it was particularly obvious how paltry funding was from property taxes that were supposedly going, in equal parts, to support local infrastructure needs – generally to help middle and lower middle income residents with public safety, health and welfare.

Finally, years later, the excellent organization provides in a recent study – four recommendations to local California law-makers that should help resolve the controversy surrounding redevelopment agencies:

a) The legislature should formally clarify the goals of re-development.
b) The definition of blight should be aligned with the goals of redevelopment and should be made more precise.
c) Some form of oversight authority should be established to monitor RDA behavior.
d) If the legislature intends redevelopment to be self-financing rather than heavily subsidized, the pass-through rate should be increased significantly.

At any rate, these issues obviously continued to breed resentment prior to 1978, from residential property and small business owners… and eventually that collective resentment morphed into a rush of significant public support for a solution – and that solution turned out to be Proposition 13, promoted and driven forward mainly by Howard Jarvis’ Taxpayers Association.