[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-1-en-105":3,"doc-seo-279453-105":53,"doc-detail-279453-en":126},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,14,19,24,29,34,39,44,49],{"id":8,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":11,"show_sort_weight":12,"slug":13},11,1,"Template","Presentations",90,"presentations",{"id":15,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":16,"show_sort_weight":17,"slug":18},12,"Resumes",80,"resumes",{"id":20,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":21,"show_sort_weight":22,"slug":23},14,"Invoices",70,"invoices",{"id":25,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":26,"show_sort_weight":27,"slug":28},15,"Posters",60,"posters",{"id":30,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":31,"show_sort_weight":32,"slug":33},16,"Social Media",50,"social-media",{"id":35,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":36,"show_sort_weight":37,"slug":38},17,"Forms",40,"forms",{"id":40,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":41,"show_sort_weight":42,"slug":43},18,"Letters",30,"letters",{"id":45,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":46,"show_sort_weight":47,"slug":48},21,"Paper Templates",5,"papers-templates",{"id":50,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":51,"show_sort_weight":4,"slug":52},158,"General","general-158",{"code":4,"msg":54,"data":55},"ok",{"site_id":56,"language":57,"slug":58,"title":59,"keywords":60,"description":61,"schema_data":62,"social_meta":119,"head_meta":121,"extra_data":123,"updated_unix":125},105,"en","letter-to-assessors-no-2018023-interested-parties-process-change-in-ownership-rescission-comment-on-draft-rescission-letter","Letter to Assessors No. 2018/023 - Interested Parties Process: Change in Ownership Rescission - Comment on Draft Rescission Letter","","Email comment from Jeffrey Olson (San Diego County Assessor’s Office) addressing a draft rescission letter for Assessors No. 2018/023. Olson questions a stated enrollment and adjustment approach on Page 6, arguing that a rescission is not a change in ownership and should not trigger reassessment. He references Revenue and Taxation Code Section 75.10 and Property Tax Annotation 220.0598, describing the typical lien-date methodology used in San Diego County and asking whether the new letter intends a different restoration timing.",{"@graph":63,"@context":118},[64,80,101],{"@type":65,"itemListElement":66},"BreadcrumbList",[67,71,74,77],{"item":68,"name":69,"@type":70,"position":9},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":72,"name":10,"@type":70,"position":73},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/",2,{"item":75,"name":41,"@type":70,"position":76},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/letters/",3,{"item":78,"name":59,"@type":70,"position":79},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/letter-to-assessors-no-2018023-interested-parties-process-change-in-ownership-rescission-comment-on-draft-rescission-letter/279453/",4,{"url":78,"name":59,"@type":81,"image":82,"author":87,"headline":59,"publisher":90,"fileFormat":93,"inLanguage":57,"description":61,"dateModified":94,"datePublished":95,"encodingFormat":93,"isAccessibleForFree":96,"interactionStatistic":97},"DigitalDocument",{"url":83,"@type":84,"width":85,"height":86},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/letter-to-assessors-no-2018023-interested-parties-process-change-in-ownership-rescission-comment-on-draft-rescission-letter/279453.png","ImageObject",442,249,{"name":88,"@type":89},"Ezra","Person",{"url":68,"name":91,"@type":92},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-07","2026-09-16",true,{"@type":98,"interactionType":99,"userInteractionCount":79},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":100},"ViewAction",{"@type":102,"mainEntity":103},"FAQPage",[104,110,114],{"name":105,"@type":106,"acceptedAnswer":107},"What specific language does Olson question in the draft rescission letter?","Question",{"text":108,"@type":109},"He questions the Page 6 statement that the county assessor enrolls the property at its factored base year value as of the original transfer date, with inflation adjustments, and that no refunds be made for the period when transfers were in force.","Answer",{"name":111,"@type":106,"acceptedAnswer":112},"Why does Olson argue that rescission should not trigger reassessment?",{"text":113,"@type":109},"He states that rescission is neither a change in ownership nor new construction, so reassessment as of the rescission-related date is not warranted. He supports this with R&T Code Section 75.10 and Property Tax Annotation 220.0598.",{"name":115,"@type":106,"acceptedAnswer":116},"What clarification does Olson request regarding the intended timing for restoring values?",{"text":117,"@type":109},"He asks whether the new letter is intended to instruct assessors to restore values supplementally versus restoring them on the following lien date after the rescission.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":78,"og:type":120,"og:title":59,"og:site_name":91,"og:description":61},"article",{"robots":122,"canonical":78},"index,follow",{"doc_id":124,"site_id":56},279453,1791007372,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":127},{"doc_id":124,"user_id":128,"nickname":88,"user_avatar":129,"doc_module":9,"category_id":40,"category_name":41,"doc_title":59,"doc_description":61,"doc_content":130,"file_id":131,"file_url":132,"file_type":133,"file_size":134,"view_count":79,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":9,"is_downloadable":9,"audit_status":9,"page_count":73,"language":135,"language_code":57,"site_id":56,"html_lang":57,"table_of_contents":136,"faqs":137,"seo_title":138,"seo_description":61,"update_tm":139,"read_time":9},1099514068035,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_276721f389ce27ea32af1340a28f341c","From: Olson, Jeffrey [[mailto:Jeffrey.Olson@sdcounty.ca.gov](mailto:Jeffrey.Olson@sdcounty.ca.gov)]  \nSent: Wednesday, May 30, 2018 9:06 AM  \nTo: Schultz, Glenna  \nCc: Gomez, Robert  \nSubject: Letter to Assessors No. 2018/023, Interested Parties Process: Change in Ownership Rescission  \nGood Morning Glenna,  \nI would like to make a comment on the draft rescission letter. While this letter, for the most part, mirrors how San Diego County is handling rescissions, thereis one difference and I cannot tell if it was an oversight or something intended. On Page 6, starting on line 29:  \n“Thus, as a result of the two rescissions effected concurrently in this example, in our opinion, the county assessor should enroll the property at its factored base year value as of the original transfer from Party A to Party B, as of the date of the rescission, with appropriate adjustments for inflation. No refund of taxes should be made by the county assessor to the rescinding parties for the time during which the transfers were in force.” [Emphasis added]  \nRevenue and Taxation Code (R&T) Section 75.10 provides generally in subdivision (a),“whenever a change in ownership occurs or new construction resulting from actual physical new construction on the site is completed, the assessor shall appraise the property changing ownership or the new construction at its full cash value”. A rescission is neither a change in ownership nor new construction, and therefore no reassessment as of that date is warranted. Property Tax Annotation 220.0598 clearly states, in part,“A rescission is not a reappraisable event; it merely restores the parties to their positions prior to the contract”.  \nIt has been previously understood (in San Diego County) that the FBYV is tobe enrolled on the lien date following the date of rescission. As such there would be no refunds. In the typical rescission scenario the original transfer resulted in a change in ownership and reassessment. Upon the recordation of the rescission the property’s base value prior to the original transfer is restored,  \nplus the annual inflation adjustments for the interim period, effective on the lien date following the date of the rescission. Therefore the property’s assessed value today is the same as it would have been had the original documents never been executed.  \nFor example, if a rescission deed is recorded on July 15, 2018, the property’s base value prior to the recordation of the deed now being rescinded will be enrolled (plus indexing) as of January 1, 2019 (lien date), for the 2019-2020 roll.  \nIs this new letter intended to instruct Assessor’s to restore values supplementally versus on the following lien date?  \nThank you.  \nJeff Olson  \nSan Diego County Assessor's Office Division Chief II-Assessment Services 619-531-5484  \n~ Please think green before printing this email ~","cbCaikMG9yW7g8HD","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaikMG9yW7g8HD","pdf",59054,"English","# Comment on Draft Rescission Letter\n## Key Issue on Page 6 Language\n## Relevant Authority and Typical County Practice\n## Clarification Request on Enrollment Timing","[{\"question\":\"What specific language does Olson question in the draft rescission letter?\",\"answer\":\"He questions the Page 6 statement that the county assessor enrolls the property at its factored base year value as of the original transfer date, with inflation adjustments, and that no refunds be made for the period when transfers were in force.\"},{\"question\":\"Why does Olson argue that rescission should not trigger reassessment?\",\"answer\":\"He states that rescission is neither a change in ownership nor new construction, so reassessment as of the rescission-related date is not warranted. He supports this with R\\u0026T Code Section 75.10 and Property Tax Annotation 220.0598.\"},{\"question\":\"What clarification does Olson request regarding the intended timing for restoring values?\",\"answer\":\"He asks whether the new letter is intended to instruct assessors to restore values supplementally versus restoring them on the following lien date after the rescission.\"}]","Letter to Assessors No. 2018/023 - Interested Parties Process: Change in Ownership Rescission - Comment on Draft Rescission Letter | PDF",1789520988]