Heavenly Valley v. El Dorado County Bd. of Equalization (2000)

HEAVENLY VALLEY et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. EL DORADO COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION, Defendant and Appellant; EL DORADO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, Real Party in Interest and Appellant.

[Modification of Opinion (84 Cal. App. 4th 1323 ) on denial of petition for rehearing.]

SIMS, Acting P.J.-

It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on November 27, 2000, be modified in the following respects:

I

On page 30 [84 Cal. App. 4th 1343 , advance report, last par., and p. 1344, lines 1-8], delete the paragraph commencing "In construing section 1604 . . . ." Substitute the following:

In construing section 1604, we look first to the words of the statute. (Burden v. Snowden, supra, 2 Cal.4th at p. 562.) Adoption of the taxpayer's opinion of market value under section 1604 is triggered where the county assessment appeals board "fails to hear evidence and fails to make a final determination on the application . . ." within two years of the timely filing of the application. Heavenly Valley argues that because the statute refers to hearing "evidence," the board must hear evidence on the underlying tax dispute and make a final determination on those merits in order to avoid having to adopt the taxpayer's opinion of property value. Thus, according to Heavenly Valley, the hearing and final determination on jurisdictional grounds which occurred in this case did not satisfy the statute, and the board must pay the penalty for its erroneous decision that it lacked jurisdiction.

We disagree with Heavenly Valley. The statute does not require that the hearing of evidence and final determination must be on the merits of the [86 Cal. App. 4th 25e] underlying tax dispute. We see no reason why the statute should not apply to a hearing on jurisdictional grounds, at which the parties would presumably be able to introduce evidence relevant to the question of jurisdiction if appropriate.

Thus, the legislative history, of which we take judicial notice at Heavenly Valley's request (see fn. 18, ante), supports our construction. In 1982, subdivision (c) was added to section 1604, to provide the board must accept the taxpayer's opinion of value if the board "fails to hear evidence" on the taxpayer's application. (Stats. 1982, ch. 7, § 3, p. 7; Stats. 1982, ch. 1465, § 11.5, p. 5645.) (The reference to a failure to make a final determination was added later.) The 1982 legislative history reflects the bill would "require that if the county assessment appeals board fails to hear a petition for reduction within two years of filing, the taxpayer's opinion of the property's market value shall prevail . . ." and "[t]he purpose of this provision is to prevent appeals from being tied up for extended periods without a hearing." (Assem. Rev. & Taxation Com., Analysis of Assem. Bill No. 1603, April 29, 1981, p. 4.) Thus, the purpose was to prevent appeals from being tied up, not to assure taxpayers a hearing on the underlying merits despite lack of jurisdiction. We conclude section 1604 does not require adoption of the taxpayer's opinion of value where the board has held a hearing and made a final determination on jurisdictional grounds.

II

On page 37, at the end of the first full paragraph [84 Cal. App. 4th 1347 , advance report, 5th par., lines 2-3] (ending with "remand for an administrative hearing"), insert as footnote 18:

Along with its petition for rehearing, Heavenly Valley submits legislative history of section 1604 from 1982 and 1986, and requests that we take judicial notice of this legislative history. Heavenly Valley suggests the legislative history supports its position that in order to avoid the section 1604 penalty, the hearing must be on the merits of the underlying valuation dispute, rather than a hearing and final determination that jurisdiction is lacking. We grant the request for judicial notice but see nothing in the legislative history helpful to Heavenly Valley's position. To the contrary, the legislative history supports the board's position, as we explain in the text of this opinion. Heavenly Valley also asks that we take judicial notice of State Board of Equalization Rule 309. However, Heavenly Valley fails to persuade us that Rule 309 helps its case, and we therefore decline the request.

III

On page 3, line 7 [84 Cal. App. 4th 1327 , advance report, 2d par., line 3]: Change "adopting" to "ordering adopted". [86 Cal. App. 4th 25f]

On page 29, line 12 [84 Cal. App. 4th 1343 , advance report, 2d par., line 1]: Change "adopting" to "ordering adopted".

On page 36, line 21 [84 Cal. App. 4th 1347 , advance report, 3d par., line 3]: Change "adopt" to "ordering adopted".

On page 37, line 5 [84 Cal. App. 4th 1347 , advance report, 5th par., line 1]: Change "adopting" to "ordering adopted".

IV

There is no change in the judgment.

The petition for rehearing is denied.

Raye, J., and Hull, J., concurred.