|
|
|
|
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
Inter-Departmental Correspondence
|
County Counsel
|
|
|
DATE:
|
August 23, 2005
|
BOARD MEETING DATE:
|
September 13, 2005
|
SPECIAL NOTICE/HEARING:
|
None
|
VOTE REQUIRED:
|
Majority
|
|
|
TO:
|
Honorable Board of Supervisors
|
FROM:
|
County Counsel
|
SUBJECT:
|
Claim for Refund by Margaret Ho Huey, APN Nos. 006-206-080 and 006-206-090
|
|
|
RECOMMENDATION:
|
Grant the claim for refund in the amount of $3,659.73, plus interest.
|
|
|
VISION ALIGNMENT:
The recommended action furthers the following commitment and goal:
Commitment Nine: Responsive, Effective, and Collaborative Government.
Goal 20: Government decisions on based on careful consideration of future impact, rather than temporary relief or immediate gain.
|
|
|
BACKGROUND:
|
On September 23, 1999 claimant Margaret Ho Huey bought two parcels of vacant land on 90th Street in Daly City from Patrick and Anne Molloy for a total of $196,000. The parcels bear Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 006-206-080 (Parcel No. 080) and 006-206-090 (Parcel No. 090). The sale of the two parcels was reflected in one grant deed. The Assessor’s Office processed the change of ownership as though Parcel No. 080 had been sold to Ms. Huey for $196,000, and Parcel No. 090 had not been sold at all.
|
|
|
Despite the sale, Patrick and Anne Molloy continued to appear on the assessment roll as the owners of Parcel No. 090 and the property tax bills were mailed to them. Beginning with the 1999 tax year, the Molloys stopped paying the property taxes for Parcel No. 090 (which they no longer owned).
|
|
|
Beginning with the 1999 tax year, Ms. Huey received property tax bills only for Parcel No. 080, which she paid on time. Because the base year value on the tax bill was $196,000—the price she had paid for both parcels—Ms. Huey assumed that the bill was for both parcels. She did not learn of the mistake until 2004, at which time she brought it to the Assessor’s attention.
|
|
|
In early 2005, Ms. Huey received a “Notice of Power to Sell Tax Defaulted Property” on Parcel No. 090 from the Tax Collector. Ms. Huey promptly paid the taxes due on Parcel No. 090, with penalties, fees and interest. The amount of penalties, fees and interest was $1892.93.
|
|
|
The Assessor corrected the valuation on both parcels (beginning with the 2004 tax year), and Ms. Huey received refunds for overpayments on Parcel No. 080 for tax years 2001, 2002 and 2003. Legally, the Assessor does not have the authority to grant relief to Ms. Huey for tax years 1999 and 2000, due to the four year statute of limitations. As such, Ms. Huey was advised to file this claim for refund.
|
|
|
DISCUSSION:
|
Ms. Huey essentially paid twice the amount of taxes due on Parcel No. 080 from 1999 through 2003, and in March 2005 also paid the full amount due on Parcel No. 090, plus penalties, fees and interest. Because the overcharges were due to an error in processing, and not to any fault of Ms. Huey’s, it is our recommendation that you grant the claim for refund in the amount of $3,659.73, plus interest.
|
|
|
The amount of the recommended refund includes: 1) the overpayment on Parcel No. 080 for tax year 1999 ($750.54); 2) the overpayment on Parcel No. 080 for tax year 2000 ($1016.26); and 3) penalties, fees and interest paid on Parcel No. 090 ($1892.93).
|
|
|
FISCAL IMPACT:
|
The refund is for an overpayment of taxes that should not have been collected.
|