How is Los Angeles property tax calculated if a 50% owner later buys out the other 50%?
"Can't vouch for LA, but property typically is taxed at either the appraised value, the most recent purchase price (""if it wasn't worth that much, you wouldn't have paid that much""), or some combination of the two (usually highest of the two, to prevent ""$1 and other goods and services"" from lowering the tax to zero). You have now explicitly paid a total of $125k for the property; the fact that you bought it in two stages shouldn't be relevant. But ""should"" and law are only tangentially connected. I'd recommend asking a tax accountant who know your local practices, unless someone here can give you an authoritative answer." When property changes hands the sale prices may or may not be used to determine the appraised value of the property, and they may or may not be used to determine the appraised value of other properties. Because of the nature of the transaction: you already have an existing business relationship, the local government is likely to ignore the data point provided by your transaction when determining values of similar properties. They have no idea if there was some other factor used to determine the price. They will also not include in the calculation transactions that are a result of foreclosure becasue the target price is the loan value not the true value.  California and some other jurisdictions do add another wrinkle. You will need to determine if the transaction will trigger a reevaluation of the property value. In some states the existing laws of the state limited the annual growth of the assessment, but that could now be recaptured if the jurisdiction rules that this is a new ownership: California Board of Equalization - Change in Ownership - Frequently Asked Questions How does a change in ownership affect property taxes? Each county assessor's office reviews all recorded deeds for that   county to determine which properties require reappraisal under the   law. The county assessors may also discover changes in ownership   through other means, such as taxpayer self-reporting, field   inspections, review of building permits and newspapers. Once the   county assessor has determined that a change in ownership has   occurred, Proposition 13 requires the county assessor to reassess the   property to its current fair market value as of the date ownership   changed. Since property taxes are based on the assessed value of a property at   the time of acquisition, a current market value that is higher than   the previously assessed Proposition 13 adjusted base year value will   increase the property taxes. Conversely, if the current market value   is lower than the previously assessed Proposition 13 adjusted base   year value, then the property taxes on that property will decrease. Only that portion of the property that changes ownership, however, is   subject to reappraisal. For example, if 50 percent of the property is   transferred, the assessor will reassess only 50 percent of the   property at its current fair market value as of the date of the   transfer, and deduct 50 percent from any existing Proposition 13 base   year value. In most cases, when a person buys a residence, the entire   property undergoes a change in ownership and 100 percent of the   property is reassessed to its current market value.
"Disclaimer: I am a law student, not a lawyer, and don't claim to have a legal opinion one way or another. My answer is intended to provide a few potentially relevant examples from case law in order to make the point that you should be cautious (and seek proper advice if you think that caution is warranted). Nor am I claiming that the facts in these cases are the same as yours; merely that they highlight the flexible approach that the courts take in such cases, and the fact that this area of law is complicated. I don't think it is sensible to just assume that there is no way that your girlfriend could acquire property rights as a rent paying tenant if arranged on an informal basis with no evidence of the intention of the arrangement. One of the answers mentions a bill which is intended to give non-married partners more rights than they have presently. But the existence of that bill doesn't prove the absence of any existing law, it merely suggests a possible legal position that might exist in the future. A worst-case assumption should also be made here, since you're considering the possibility of what can go wrong. So let's say for the sake of the argument that you have a horrible break up and your girlfriend is willing to be dishonest about what the intentions were regarding the flat (e.g. will claim that she understood the arrangement to be that she would acquire ownership rights in exchange for paying two thirds of the monthly mortgage repayment). Grant v Edwards [1986] Ch 638 - Defendant had property in the name of himself and his brother. Claimant paid nothing towards the purchase price or towards mortgage payments, but paid various outgoings and expenses. The court found a constructive trust in favor of the claimant, who received a 50% beneficial interest in the property. Abbot v Abbot [2007] UKPC 53, [2008] 1 FLR 1451 - Defendant's mother gifted land to a couple with the intention that it be used as a matrimonial home. However it was only put into the defendant's name. The mortgage was paid from a joint account. The claimant was awarded a 50% share. Thompson v Hurst [2012] EWCA Civ 1752, [2014] 1 FLR 238 - Defendant was a council tenant. Later, she formed a relationship with the claimant. They subsequently decided to buy the house from the council, but it was done in the defendant's name. The defendant had paid all the rent while a tenant, and all the mortgage payments while an owner, as well as all utility bills. The claimant sometimes contributed towards the council tax and varying amounts towards general household expenses (housekeeping, children, etc.). During some periods he paid nothing at all, and at other times he did work around the house. Claimant awarded 10% ownership. Aspden v Elvy [2012] EWHC 1387 (Ch), [2012] 2 FCR 435 - The defendant purchased a property in her sole name 10 years after the couple had separated. The claimant helped her convert the property into a house. He did much of the manual work himself, lent his machinery, and contributed financially to the costs. He was awarded a 25% share. Leeds Building Society v York [2015] EWCA Civ 72, [2015] HLR 26 (p 532) - Miss York and Mr York had a dysfunctional and abusive relationship and lived together from 1976 until his death in 2009. In 1983 Mr York bought a house with a mortgage. He paid the monthly mortgage repayments and other outgoings. At varous times Miss York contributed her earnings towards household expenses, but the judge held that this did ""not amount to much"" over the 33 year period, albeit it had helped Mr York being able to afford the purchase in the first place. She also cooked all the family meals and cared for the daughter. She was awarded a 25% share. Conclusion: Don't make assumptions, consider posting a question on https://law.stackexchange.com/ , consider legal advice, and consider having a formal contract in place which states the exact intentions of the parties. It is a general principle of these kinds of cases that the parties need to have intended for the person lacking legal title to acquire a beneficial interest, and proof to the contrary should make such a claim likely to fail.  Alternatively, decide that the risk is low and that it's not worth worrying about. But make a considered decision either way." 10 people live in country X in 10 separate households, 5 own their homes and the others rent unrelated property. Home ownership = 50% 10 people live in Country Y in 5 seperate households, 5 own their homes while the others rent from them. Home ownership = 50% One day, person 1 leaves his rented spot in one of the homes to opt for a new home elsewhere. Home ownership = 50%. It doesn't work out, so he moves back in with mom and dad. Home ownership = 50% Where am I making a mistake? My basic rule of thumb is that if the the bill come from a government office of taxation, and that if you fail to pay the amount they can put a tax lien on the property it is a tax. for you the complication is in Pub530: Assessments for local benefits.    You cannot deduct amounts you pay for local benefits that tend to increase the value of your property.   Local benefits include the construction of streets, sidewalks, or   water and sewer systems. You must add these amounts to the basis of   your property.  You can, however, deduct assessments (or taxes) for   local benefits if they are for maintenance, repair, or interest   charges related to those benefits. An example is a charge to repair an   existing sidewalk and any interest included in that charge.  If only a   part of the assessment is for maintenance, repair, or interest   charges, you must be able to show the amount of that part to claim the   deduction. If you cannot show what part of the assessment is for   maintenance, repair, or interest charges, you cannot deduct any of it. An assessment for a local benefit may be listed as an item in your   real estate tax bill. If so, use the rules in this section to find how   much of it, if any, you can deduct. I have never seen a tax bill that said this amount is for new streets, and the rest i for things the IRS says you can deduct. The issue is that if the Center City tax bill is a separate line or a separate bill then does it count. I would go back to the first line of the quote from Pub 530: You cannot deduct amounts you pay for local benefits that tend to   increase the value of your property. Then I would look at the quote from the CCD web site: The Center City District (CCD) is a business improvement district. Our   mission is to keep Philadelphia's downtown, called Center City, clean,   safe, beautiful and fun. We provide security, cleaning and promotional   services that supplement, but do not replace, basic services provided   by the City of Philadelphia and the fundamental responsibilities of   property owners. CCD also makes physical improvements to the downtown, installing and maintaining lighting, > signs, banners, trees and landscape elements.  and later on the same page: CCD directly bills and collects mandatory payments from properties in   the district. CCD also receives voluntary contributions from the   owners of tax-exempt properties that benefit from our services. The issues is that it is a business improvement district (BID), and you aren't a business: I did find this document from the city of Philadelphia explain how to establish a BID: If the nature of the BID is such that organizers wish to include   residential properties within the district and make these properties   subject to the assessment, it may make sense to assess these   properties at a lower level than a commercial property, both because   BID services and benefits are business-focused, and because   owner-occupants often cannot treat NID assessments as tax-deductible   business expenses, like commercial owners do. Care must be taken to   ensure that the difference in commercial and residential assessment   rates is equitable, and complies with the requirements of the CEIA. from the same document: Funds for BID programs and services are generated from a special   assessment paid by the benefited property owners directly to the   organization that manages the BID’s activities. (Note: many leases   have a clause that allows property owners to pass the BID assessment   on to their tenants.) Because they are authorized by the City of   Philadelphia, the assessment levied by the BID becomes a legal   obligation of the property owner and failure to pay can result in the   filing of a lien. I have seen discussion that some BIDS can accept tax deductible donations. This means if a person itemizes they can deduct the donation. I would then feel comfortable deducting the tax because: If you can't deduct it that would mean the only people who can't deduct it are home owners.  So deduct it. (keep in mind I am not a tax professional) "Is this legal? Why not? But you might have trouble deducting losses on your taxes, especially if you sell to someone related to you in some way (which is indeed what you're doing). See the added portion below regarding dealing with ""related person"" (which a sibling is). The state of Maryland has a transfer/recordation tax of 1.5% for each, the buyer and seller. Would this be computed on the appraised or sale value? You should check with the State. In California property taxes are assessed based on sale value, but if the sale value is bogus the assessors have the right to recalculate. Since you're selling to family, the assessors will likely to intervene and set a more close to ""fair market"" value on the transaction, but again - check the local law. Will this pose any problem if the buyer needs financing? Likely, banks will be suspicious.Since you're giving a discount to your sibling, it will likely not cause a problem for financing. If it was an unrelated person getting such a discount, it would likely to have raised some questions. Would I be able to deduct a capital loss on my tax return? As I said - it may be a problem. If the transaction is between related people - likely not. Otherwise - not sure. Check with a professional tax adviser (EA or CPA licensed in Maryland). You mentioned in the comment that the buyer is a sibling. IRS Publication 544 has a list of what is considered ""related person"", and that includes siblings. So the short answer is NO, you will not be able to deduct the loss. The tax treatment is not trivial in this case, and I suggest to have a professional tax adviser guide you on how to proceed. Here's the definition of ""related person"" from the IRS pub. 544: Members of a family, including only brothers, sisters, half-brothers, half-sisters, spouse, ancestors (parents, grandparents,   etc.), and lineal descendants (children, grandchildren, etc.). An individual and a corporation if the individual directly or indirectly owns more than 50% in value of the outstanding stock of the   corporation. Two corporations that are members of the same controlled group as defined in section 267(f) of the Internal Revenue Code. A trust fiduciary and a corporation if the trust or the grantor of the trust directly or indirectly owns more than 50% in value of the   outstanding stock of the corporation. A grantor and fiduciary, and the fiduciary and beneficiary, of any trust. Fiduciaries of two different trusts, and the fiduciary and beneficiary of two different trusts, if the same person is the grantor   of both trusts. A tax-exempt educational or charitable organization and a person who directly or indirectly controls the organization, or a member of   that person's family. A corporation and a partnership if the same persons own more than 50% in value of the outstanding stock of the corporation and more than   50% of the capital interest or profits interest in the partnership. Two S corporations if the same persons own more than 50% in value of the outstanding stock of each corporation. Two corporations, one of which is an S corporation, if the same persons own more than 50% in value of the outstanding stock of each   corporation. An executor and a beneficiary of an estate unless the sale or exchange is in satisfaction of a pecuniary bequest. Two partnerships if the same persons directly or indirectly own more than 50% of the capital interests or profits interests in both   partnerships. A person and a partnership if the person directly or indirectly owns more than 50% of the capital interest or profits interest in the   partnership." "There is a legal document called a ""Stock Purchase Agreement"" and it depends on who is the other party to the buyer in the Agreement. In almost all startups the sale goes through the company, so the company keeps the money. In your example, the company would be worth $10,000 ""Post-Money"" because the $1k got 10% of the Company." "There's truth to that, although I'm not sure if the ratio is quite 6 to 1. It IS true that they are processing foreclosures much slower now after the robo-signing fiasco, and also that there is some justification for letting a house stay occupied rather than sit empty.  I disagree with your assertion that ""smart banks"" would dump massive amounts of property at a loss. Selling their inventory quickly would slim their balance sheet (which they been trying to do) and let huge losses flow through their income statement. That's a bad way to achieve a good end, even though the changes are purely accounting and not economic. That's not smart for any business, operating in a vacuum and independent of competition, whether a bank or a retailer. Should GM and Ford sell their backlogs of cars at a massive loss now, just to get rid of the property? There's underlying, economic, intrinsic value.  Properties in the biggest bust markets, like LV and Phoenix, are down 2/3rds from the prices around 05/06; one would argue that the prices are so low they fail to make economic sense. Florida was a huge bust market, but today's NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/28/us/miami-courts-free-spending-brazilians.html?_r=1&amp;scp=2&amp;sq=brazil&amp;st=cse) talks about a recovery in property values, fueled by Brazilians.  Given that cities like Vancouver and throughout the SF Bay Area have seen property prices recover, in part fueled by foreign purchasers (mostly China, etc) why would a bank not want to hold onto the property until it gets a good price?" I agree with the other posters that you will need to seek the advice of a tax attorney specializing in corporate taxation. Here is an idea to investigate: Could you sell the company, and thereby turn the profits that are taxed as ordinary income into a long-term capital gain (taxed at 15%, plus state income tax, if any)? You can determine the value of a profitable business using discounted cash flow analysis, even if you expect that the revenue stream will dry up due to product obsolescence or expiry of licensing agreements.  To avoid the capital gains taxes (especially if you live in a high-tax state like California), you could also transfer the stock to a Charitable Remainder Trust. The CRT then sells the shares to the third-party acquirer, invests the proceeds and pays you annual distributions (similar to an annuity). The flip side of a sale is that now the acquiring party will be stuck with the taxes payable on your company's profits (while being forced to amortize the purchase price over multiple years -- 15, if I recall correctly), which will factor into the valuation. However, it is likely that the acquirer has better ways to mitigate the tax impact (e.g. the acquirer is a company currently operating at a loss, and therefore can cancel out the tax liabilities from your company's profits).  One final caveat: Don't let the tax tail wag the business dog. In other words, focus your energies on extracting the maximum value from your company, rather than trying to find convoluted tax saving strategies. You might find that making an extra dollar in profits is easier than saving fifty cents in taxes. The sale of shares on vesting convolutes matters. In a way similar to how reinvested dividends are taxed but the newly purchased fund shares' basis has to be increased, you need to be sure to have the correct per share cost basis. It's easy to confuse the total RSU purchase with the correct numbers, only what remained.  The vesting stock is a taxable event, ordinary income.  You then own the stock at that cost basis. A sale after that is long or short term and the profit is the to extent it exceeds that basis.  The fact that you got these shares in 2013 means you should have paid the tax then. And this is part two of the process. Of course the partial sale means a bit of math to calculate the basis of what remained.