Late changes: modifications to tax appeals process proposed.

• Author: Allen, Bruce C.
• Position: CapitolBeat

A number of proposals designed to modify the tax appeals process have corm to the forefront of the Legislature. Late into the legislative process. Assembly Bill 404 (Gatto) and Assembly Bill 2323 (Petra) were gutted of their nontax language and "unended to make significant changes to the tax appeals process. Similar changes have been quietly inserted into budget trailer language. These late proposals have the potential to greatly hinder a CPA's ability to represent clients ill tax appeals.

AB 404 was amended to require taxpayer advocates to register as lobbyists ill counties that regulate local lobbying activity Specifically, anytime CPAs or other taxpayer advocates represent a client before the county assessor, county assessor's staff or the county assessment appeals board ill a county that regulates lobbying, they would be required to register as a lobbyist with the county. CaICPA is opposing this legislation arguing that it will inadvertently and unfairly harm taxpayers by limiting their options in seeking professional representation.

Like California, some counties prohibit lobbyists from being paid on a contingency free basis. Therefore. requiring tax advocates to register as lobbyists could eliminate an affordable option of representation in complicated tax proceedings. Contingency fees in tax proceedings are important to assure access to professional assistance for all individuals independent of socioeconomic status so that taxpayers rights may be protected. Additionally. the local lobbyist registration process is not clearly defined and is inconsistent across counties. Subjecting CPAs that an. representing clients before local taxing entities to an already confusing registration process can lend to inadvertent violations of the law.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

AB 2323 would require the California Board of Equalization to publish a Formal opinion for every decision it makes when the contested amount is $500,000 or more. CaICPA is also Opposing this measure arguing that this is a duplicative and costly mandate.

The BOE already keeps records and minutes of all decisions that publicly available on its website. The new reporting could also delay the BOE appeals process, since most appeals involve simple issues that fall under previous precedential decisions. Additionally, the BOE publishes its Formal Legal Opinion and Memorandum Opinions, which are the only opinions with precedential walue. Adding non-precedential opinions would create...