Captain's Post #21 - Findings of Facts & Next Steps...
I received my “Findings of Facts” from the County last week regarding the 2023 assessment that included overvaluation, a 10% penalty and an interest charge for the penalty and being late. I won, well partially.
I must say how unsettling this entire process has been, although I have not lived in Marin my entire life, I have always called Marin “home”. I feel like a family member or an old friend has turned on me.
The latest example of the, what’s the word I am looking for: dishonesty; manipulation; corruption; or how about just plain old BS is the following. Jamie and I were traveling, and I received an email from the County saying, “Because the December 12, 2025, hearing occurred within 180 days of the expiration of the two-year period for your case, Property Tax Rule 325(b) requires a written agreement to extend the two-year period to 180 days…”. This is the third time that they have tried to delay the 2023 hearing and Findings. Needless to say, I was not happy. Various emails went back and forth with me saying this must be a mistake, blah blah blah. Then I finally hit the nail on the head, I said that I am away from my house so I can’t check my records, but I will check them when I get home, but I believe I did check that box when I filled out my Appeal two years ago, way longer than 180 days ago.
The next morning there was my “Findings of Facts” in my inbox! Just like when I did not allow the delay in December about the 2024 assessment. I won on several fronts but not on the big one, the Sales Tax being added every year. BUT this is a big win for some other people. Those people who I refer to have not had their boat found or they have not reported ownership to the County. I believe this is why the County wanted to delay my Findings; I cannot come up with any other explanation.
I had the foresight to do a ‘screen shot” of the Counties web page a few years ago. The “Question and Answer” page listed that the County found out ownership by the USCG, Harbor Masters and the DMV, nothing about me having to report ownership. That Changed in June just before my August hearing. Now you are obliged to report ownership to the County if your boat is worth over $100,000. I believe that my line “isn’t that what a question-and-answer page is for, answering my questions. It says they get the information”. If you have not reported your boat and it was brought into the County before last June you could be in luck, I have the paperwork that could help you out. I think that is why the County kept on trying to delay.
The Appeals Board also reduced the valuation a small amount, every bit helps especially regarding the Marine Assessor SOB who said, “I have never lost a case”, well now he has lost two.
Now the big one, Sales Tax being added. As I previously mentioned in my last email I have a contact at the Pacific Legal Foundation. They reviewed the case and said “it still makes no sense in my opinion that you should pay that tax-on-tax every year…The upshot of that analysis is that to win a case like yours, one would likely have to get the First District Court of Appeals to depart from the prior Xerox case and the 40+ year old administrative agency guidance implementing it, or hope for discretionary review at the California Supreme Court after losing at trial and appeal. That is a long road of litigation for a relatively small tax, and PLF does not ordinarily do tax cases”.
As I was figuring out how much the County owed me, and as I had mentioned in a prior email, the County also adds school and health bonds to the assessment. Those numbers are based on the “full assessed value”, which means after sales tax has been added, in other words we are paying sales tax on the health and school bonds. This was not part of the Xerox case, additional grounds for an appeal IMHO. I asked the lawyer from the PLF this very question and his response was: "I think that’s the opening—it may cause a court to distinguish this from the Xerox case, and create a little bit of a mess (i.e. you can tax the fair value plus sales tax, per Xerox, but then you have to ignore the sales tax when determining the contribution for bonds. That mixed result of confusion could make the case more attractive for the California Supreme Court to review one day...The reason I wanted to avoid it is because it will take a lot of litigation in the trial court, then appellate court, and maybe losing in both, to get a shot at a Cal Supreme Court petition for review—which is discretionary, and a long shot".
I have six months to file with Marin Superior Court. In doing the research in what that entails it looks like I would need a lawyer, please let me know if you have someone who will help.