Homeowners And Renters Property Tax Assistance Appeal Form - State Of California - Board Of Equalization Page 3

ADVERTISEMENT

1
law remains relatively unchanged in these essential provisions.
2
R&TC section 20541 permits certain renters of residential dwellings to claim property tax
3
assistance from the State of California; under R&TC section 20544 the amount of assistance is a
4
specified percentage of $250, determined according to the claimant’s income. The maximum amount of
5
assistance that a claimant may receive for a 2006 claim is 139 percent of $250.00 (139% x $250.00),
6
which is $347.50. (Rev. & Tax. Code, § 20544, subd. (a)(2).) A renter-claimant must live in a
7
residence on which property taxes are paid, or on which “substantially equivalent” payments are made in
8
lieu of taxes. (Rev. & Tax. Code, § 20509.) Payments in lieu of taxes must be at least 80 percent of the
9
amount of taxes paid by a property of comparable assessed value to be “substantially equivalent.”
1
10
(Appeals of Helen Cantor, et al., 2002-SBE-008, Nov. 13, 2002.)
Property used exclusively for
11
scientific, religious, hospital, or charitable purposes, such as housing for the elderly, handicapped
12
families, or low income individuals, and owned or held in trust by nonprofit organizations operating for
13
those purposes is generally exempt from property tax. (Rev. & Tax. Code, § 214, subds. (a), (f) & (g).)
14
This Board presumes the FTB’s denial of assistance was correct, and appellant has the
15
burden of proving error. (Appeals of Jeremiah Xavier Spicer, et al., 2001-SBE-003, May 31, 2001.)
16
Further, we have held that each tax year must be examined individually and considered on its own
17
merits (see Appeal of Duane H. Laude, 76-SBE-096, Oct. 6, 1976); this rule applies to HRA appeals as
18
well (see Appeals of Helen Cantor, et al., supra, at fn. 4).
19
Appellant continues to contend that she is entitled to a HRA payment for 2005. In
20
support of her contention, appellant has provided a computer printout showing the payments that she
21
received during 2004 from California Social Services as well other documents that respondent did not
22
find persuasive. Respondent contends that her claim for 2005 should be denied because she has not
23
shown that she was disabled for HRA purposes for a consecutive 12-month period that included
24
December 31, 2004. Respondent points out that information that it sought and received from the
25
Department of Health Services does not verify that she was disabled for HRA purposes and argues that
26
the documentation that she has provided does not establish the contrary.
27
28
1
Board of Equalization cases are generally available for viewing on our website ( ).
Appeal of Gesele L. Bailey
NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT
- 3 -

ADVERTISEMENT

00 votes

Related Articles

Related forms

Related Categories

Parent category: Legal
Go
Page of 4