Newport Coast property tax

[Xpat]

if you're an owner at Newport Coast villas, what is your property tax amount?

I own in gold season and my 2015-16 bill is for $97, based on a net taxable value of $8,669 - does this seem about right?

I called the Treasurer/Tax Collector office and they said that property values for timeshare properties such as Newport Coast are re-evaluated perhaps once a year, and the same value would be applied to all owners, with different values for platinum and gold season. I remember seeing different tax values on this forum, so I'm not sure this is true?

 

[Fasttr]

Appears to be close to the number shown in THIS post in the 2016 MF Sticky.

 

[dioxide45]

if you're an owner at Newport Coast villas, what is your property tax amount?

I own in gold season and my 2015-16 bill is for $97, based on a net taxable value of $8,669 - does this seem about right?

I called the Treasurer/Tax Collector office and they said that property values for timeshare properties such as Newport Coast are re-evaluated perhaps once a year, and the same value would be applied to all owners, with different values for platinum and gold season. I remember seeing different tax values on this forum, so I'm not sure this is true?

Different tax values based on season is common in Florida, not in California. Counties in California send a separate tax bill. You are taxed based on what you are assessed at. How they get to that assessment, I don't know.

 

[Bill4728]

California taxes makes no sense to me. I owe two gold NCV weeks and they are assessed at different values. therefore different taxes even though they are exactly the same. WHY??? who knows.

 

[Werner Weiss]

California taxes makes no sense to me. I owe two gold NCV weeks and they are assessed at different values. therefore different taxes even though they are exactly the same. WHY??? who knows.

The explanation is here: http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=97694

 

[Xpat]

The explanation is here: http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=97694

Thanks for the link. Sounds like there really isn't any option but to wait and hope they adjust the values to something more in like with market prices.

The tax office position doesn't make sense - I don't disagree with them not using the purchase price (as it may not reflect market value), but if they're going to use market value, then each timeshare unit in the same floating season should have the same property tax.

 

[GaryDouglas]

When buying a home (house, townhouse, etc.) in CA, market value is the price paid for that home. I would like to think, but have been curious, if the same process is followed for timeshare properties. If we ever bought a Timber Lodge unit, I would like to think it would be based upon the price paid. If we ever get close to doing that, I'll call up El Dorado County assessors office and find out directly from the source.

 

[klpca]

When buying a home (house, townhouse, etc.) in CA, market value is the price paid for that home. I would like to think, but have been curious, if the same process is followed for timeshare properties. If we ever bought a Timber Lodge unit, I would like to think it would be based upon the price paid. If we ever get close to doing that, I'll call up El Dorado County assessors office and find out directly from the source.

I'm pretty sure that they can use market value vs. purchase price where the purchase price is lower than the actual value. I bought my DSVII unit for $5 during the recession and they use $3,000 as the assessed value. I'm sure that they are looking at the underlying value of the property and applying an ownership percentage (but conveniently omitting a minority interest discount) but for the amount of $$ that I pay, I'm not going to fight it.

Here's a link to a previous thread on CA property taxes: http://tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=229446

 

[sjsharkie]

Thanks for the link. Sounds like there really isn't any option but to wait and hope they adjust the values to something more in like with market prices.

The tax office position doesn't make sense - I don't disagree with them not using the purchase price (as it may not reflect market value), but if they're going to use market value, then each timeshare unit in the same floating season should have the same property tax.

Prop 13 doesn't make logical sense in terms of fairness .. but that is why one of my neighbors pays about 20% of the property tax that I do, and another pays 20% more than I do. The increase in valuation is capped under the law, and the assessed value can never exceed that cap.

You can always request a review of your assessed value in California -- different counties have slightly different processes but they are similar. Basically, after you've made a request, the assessor will review the assessed value. If you are still unhappy with the valuation, you can submit to a formal process to challenge the value -- you would generally provide evidence that the valuation is lower than what the assessed value is.

In short, a timeshare like NCV will likely never have the same valuation per fractional ownership given Prop 13.

-ryan

 

[GaryDouglas]

Fairness?

Prop 13 doesn't make logical sense in terms of fairness ...

That wasn't the purpose. Back in the '70s, property taxes were increasing at a rate where some people, particularly retirees, were being forced to sell their houses just to be pay their taxes. To remedy this and in an attempt to reign in the growth of government, proposition 13 was passed. It sets the initial rate of taxation at 1% of purchase price and not increase more than 2% each year afterward.

Too bad it didn't slow down the growth in government, they eventually found ways to work around it...

 

[sjsharkie]

That wasn't the purpose. Back in the '70s, property taxes were increasing at a rate where some people, particularly retirees, were being forced to sell their houses just to be pay their taxes. To remedy this and in an attempt to reign in the growth of government, proposition 13 was passed. It sets the initial rate of taxation at 1% of purchase price and not increase more than 2% each year afterward.

Too bad it didn't slow down the growth in government, they eventually found ways to work around it...

I know what the intended purpose was. Lawmakers and voters don't necessarily consider the ripple effects with trying to make it "fairer" to one side.

Of course we don't want people forced out of their homes. But we also all need to pay our fair share for city and county services.

Ryan

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk