Californians Adapting to New Property Tax Rules In many states, calculating property taxes is pretty straightforward: It's a simple equation of your assessed property value and established tax rate. But in California, property taxes are far more complex. Numerous laws have been enacted in recent decades that mandate property tax rules in the Golden State. The most recent – Proposition 19, a statewide ballot measure passed by voters in November 2020 – went into effect Feb. 16, 2021. “Prop. 19 changes several tax rules, but the biggest impact will be on high-net-worth families who have a crown jewel asset – their home – that they want to leave to their family," said Paul DeLauro, manager of wealth planning at City National Bank. “Prop. 19 eliminates the exclusion that allowed children to inherit their parents' home at the parents' tax assessment." WHAT ARE CALIFORNIA TAX ASSESSMENTS? Property taxes typically are based on assessed value rather than current fair market value. In most states, tax assessments are conducted every one to five years and are not changed when a property is sold or transferred as a gift. However, in California, laws have been passed that artificially limit the tax assessed value over time, explained DeLauro. “In 1978, California voters approved Prop. 13, a constitutional amendment known as 'The People's Initiative to Limit Property Taxation' that was meant to protect older residents who were unable to keep up with large property tax increases," said DeLauro. “Several propositions since then have tinkered with property taxes." Homeowners who plan to transfer their residence to their children now or as part of their inheritance should seek professional advice, so they understand the impact of the new property tax rules, said Bruce M. Macdonald, an attorney with Carico Glowacki Macdonald Kil & Benz LLP in El Segundo, Ca. “The change in property tax rules could be significant for some families, because it's not that unusual in California to have a house that was assessed at $150,000 when the parents bought it to be worth $5 million 40 years later," said Macdonald. “When the kids could inherit their parents' house at the assessed value of $150,000, the property taxes would be approximately $1,500. Now, if the house is assessed at $5 million, that would incur a significantly higher tax bill," he explained.
CALIFORNIA PROPERTY TAX HISTORY A quick history lesson about previous tax laws is helpful in understanding the full implications of Prop. 19. In 1986, voters approved Prop. 58, which permitted inheritors to keep the tax assessed value of the grantors, who are generally parents or grandparents. In combination with Prop. 13, this meant that children could be gifted or inherit their parents' home at fair market value while paying property taxes at the lower assessed rate of the parents. In addition, the inheritors were not required to live in the home and could keep it as an investment property. The rules also allowed parents to transfer up to $1 million per spouse or $2 million total in assessed value on additional properties without changing the tax assessment. “But with Prop. 19, kids who are gifted a house or who inherit a house mustlive in the property in order to benefit from property tax exclusions, and those tax benefits are now capped," said Macdonald. “Heirs will be able to pay property taxes on the current assessed value and exclude up to another $1 million in assessed value. Any currently assessed value above that amount would be taxable."
SENIORS AND OTHERS BENEFITING FROM PROPOSITION 19 While the tax assessment exclusion for inherited property could have a negative impact on some high-net-worth families, another tweak to property taxes made by Prop. 19 expands tax benefits for people 55 and older. “Prop. 60, which passed in 1986, allowed homeowners over age 55 who wanted to sell their home and move to another house of equal or lesser value in the same county to take their tax assessment with them," said DeLauro. “The idea was to make it easier for seniors to move without worrying about a huge jump in their property tax bill that might be difficult for them to pay." For example, if someone over 55 sold a house for $5 million, but they were paying taxes on a lower assessed value based on their original purchase price, they could buy a new house for $2 million and still pay taxes at their original, lower tax assessment, said Macdonald. Prop. 19 expands this benefit further. “The new rules allow people to move to any county in the state and not just within their own county," said Macdonald. “The new house can even be more expensive than the one they sell, and homeowners over 55 can transfer their tax assessments three times." Prop. 19's rules for homeowners 55 and older also apply to people with severe disabilities and to people who lost their homes due to a natural disaster or catastrophe, such as a wildfire or earthquake, said Macdonald. “Prop. 19 is highly attractive for eligible homeowners who want to sell their existing primary residence and move to another residence in the state without incurring a higher property tax bill," said DeLauro. It is important to keep in mind, however, that the new law comes with significant limitations for children inheriting real property from their parents. If you own a primary or secondary property that you intend to transfer to your children as an inheritance or gift, it is crucial to speak with your financial advisor and estate planning attorney about strategies designed to mitigate the limitations of the new law. You are encouraged to keep up-to-date with the latest economic perspectives and shifting global markets by signing up for City National Bank's newsletters here . Delivered biweekly, straight to your inbox. This article is for general information and education only. It is provided as a courtesy to the clients and friends of City National Bank (City National). City National does not warrant that it is accurate or complete. Opinions expressed and estimates or projections given are those of the authors or persons quoted as of the date of the article with no obligation to update or notify of inaccuracy or change. This article may not be reproduced, distributed or further published by any person without the written consent of City National. Please cite source when quoting. City National, its managed affiliates and subsidiaries, as a matter of policy, do not give tax, accounting, regulatory or legal advice. Rules in the areas of law, tax, and accounting are subject to change and open to varying interpretations. You should consult with your other advisors on the tax, accounting and legal implications of actions you may take based on any strategies presented, taking into account your own particular circumstances.
This publication is published by the law firm of Ervin Cohen & Jessup LLP. The publication is intended to present an overview of current legal trends; no article should be construed as representing advice on specific, individual legal matters. Articles may be reprinted with permission and acknowledgment. ECJ is a registered service mark of Ervin Cohen & Jessup LLP. All rights reserved.
- Partner
Partner Bruce Macdonald is a seasoned California estate and tax practitioner whose practice focuses on income, estate, gift and generation-skipping transfer tax planning. Additionally, Mr. Macdonald drafts estate plans ...
Subscribe
Recent Posts
- Tiny Fonts, Narrow Holding: California Clarifies When Fine Print Matters | By: Jared W. Slater
- When Old Privacy Laws Hit Modern Tracking: Salazar v. Paramount Global and the VPPA’s Next Chapter | By: Jeffrey R. Glassman
- California Court Upholds Federal Arbitration Act Election in Employment Arbitration Agreements | By: Jared W. Slater
- Privacy Returns to the Supreme Court: Geolocation, Video Data & What Clients Should Expect | By: Jeffrey R. Glassman
- The Risk of Boilerplate PAGA Waivers in Employment Arbitration Agreements | By: Jared W. Slater
- California Issues New Minimum Wage Poster | By: Kelly O. Scott
- What Is the Proper Venue for Filing Financing Statements and Judgment Liens When the Entity Involved Was Formed Out of State? | By: Peter A. Davidson
- Employment Arbitration Agreement Rollout During Class Action Backfires in Federal Court Case | By: Jared W. Slater
- Why Collateral Terms in Your Non-Disclosure Agreement May - or May Not - Tank Your Arbitration Policy | By: Jared W. Slater
- Courts Decline to Short-Circuit AI Copyright Claims | By: Banu Naraghi
Blogs
Contributors
- Kelly O. Scott
- Peter A. Davidson
- Jeffrey R. Glassman
- Pooja S. Nair
- Gary Q. Michel
- Kenneth A. Luer
- Byron Z. Moldo
- Geoffrey M. Gold
- Julie R. Zaligson
- Banu Naraghi
- Bruce M. Macdonald
- Catherine A. Veeneman
- Christopher D. Carico
- Elliot Z. Chen
- Eric Levinrad
- Jared W. Slater
- Jason L. Haas
- Kelly W. Cunningham
- Kenny Hsu
- Vanja Habekovic
Archives
- February 2026
- January 2026
- December 2025
- November 2025
- October 2025
- September 2025
- August 2025
- July 2025
- June 2025
- May 2025
- April 2025
- March 2025
- February 2025
- January 2025
- December 2024
- November 2024
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
