[30:34] Thank you.
[31:04] call whenever you let me just turn
[31:07] volume up on this one second here.
[31:23] See,
[31:26] >> the icon
[31:29] turn.
[31:32] » Just one second. Sorry.
[31:44] Sound. Okay.
[31:59] You want me to come to order? Would you
[32:00] like to go to order?
[32:02] >> Would you possibly?
[32:04] >> Okay. So, it's 9:31 on August 24th.
[32:07] We'll call the meeting to order
[32:10] and I'll start with the roll call.
[32:12] Hearing Officer Cohen
[32:14] >> present.
[32:15] >> Okay. And that concludes the roll call.
[32:18] Okay. Will everybody please stand for
[32:19] the pledge of allegiance?
[32:29] » Yes. We'll just
[32:32] >> and begin
[32:35] to flag United States of America and to
[32:39] the republic for which it stands. One
[32:41] nation under God, indivisible with
[32:45] liberty and justice for all. Will the
[32:47] audience please remain standing?
[32:51] I'll now place you under oath. Please
[32:53] raise your right hand. When I complete
[32:55] reading the oath, please state, I do.
[32:57] You do solemnly affirm that the
[32:59] testimony you're about to give in the
[33:00] matter now pending before this board
[33:02] will be the truth, the whole truth, and
[33:04] nothing but the truth.
[33:05] >> Thank you.
[33:16] That takes us to item number five,
[33:18] agenda review.
[33:23] The clerk of the board recommends
[33:24] approval of the agenda reviews by the
[33:26] assessment of by the hearing officer.
[33:28] The agenda review consists of the
[33:29] following agenda items. Item number 10,
[33:33] application number 231155.
[33:37] Francisco and Margaret Swain irrevocable
[33:39] trust denied due to lack of appearance.
[33:42] Item number 21, application number
[33:45] 2410484.
[33:48] Applicant N92714
[33:50] LLC, denied due to lack of appearance.
[33:54] Item number 24, application number
[33:56] 2411067.
[33:59] Applicant Matthew Freeland, removed from
[34:01] the agenda due to the submission of a
[34:02] withdrawal. Item number 25, application
[34:06] number 2411079.
[34:09] Applicant Lucas Sellers Wine denied due
[34:11] to lack of appearance.
[34:13] Item number 26, application number
[34:16] 25100005.
[34:19] Applicant Ohigh Valley Medp Spa denied
[34:22] due to lack of appearance. Item number
[34:24] 28, application number 25100018.
[34:29] Applicant, the Derek M. Olsen Living
[34:31] Trust, denied due to lack of appearance.
[34:34] Item number 29, application number
[34:36] 25100019,
[34:39] continue to October 26, 2026, pending
[34:42] receipt of an original stipulation.
[34:45] Item number 31, application number
[34:47] 2510237.
[34:49] Applicant Aurora Sendas continue to
[34:52] October 26, 2026, pending receipt of an
[34:55] original stipulation.
[34:57] Item number 35, application number
[34:59] 251041.
[35:02] Applicant Maria J. Martinez denied due
[35:05] to lack of appearance. Items number
[35:08] items 36 and 37. Applications 2510437
[35:13] and 2510439.
[35:16] Applicant Frederick Ward L. To tell
[35:18] Trust continue to October 26, 2026.
[35:22] Penny receipt of original stipulations.
[35:25] Item number 39, application number
[35:27] 2510470.
[35:30] Applicant Kenhai continue to October 26,
[35:33] 2026 pending receipt of original
[35:36] stipulations.
[35:38] Item number 40, application number
[35:40] 2510471.
[35:42] Applicant Alona Ferlin
[35:45] removed from the agenda due to the
[35:46] submission of withdrawal.
[35:49] Item number 41, application number
[35:51] 2510477.
[35:53] Applicant Roger Stone, continue to
[35:55] October 26, 2026. Penny receipt of
[35:58] original stipulations.
[36:01] Item number 42, application number
[36:04] 2510482.
[36:06] Applicant Masad M. Afar, continue to
[36:09] October 26, 2026, pending receipt of an
[36:12] original stipulation.
[36:14] Item number 43, application number
[36:17] 2510494.
[36:19] Applicant Anish B. Shestra, denied due
[36:23] to lack of appearance.
[36:25] Item number 44, application number
[36:28] 2510589.
[36:30] Applicant Frederick Silvers, denied due
[36:32] to lack of appearance.
[36:34] Item number 49, application number
[36:37] 2511779.
[36:39] Applicant Charlene Toledto continue to
[36:42] October 26, 2026 pending receipt of an
[36:45] original stipulation.
[36:48] Item number 50, application number
[36:50] 2511816,
[36:52] applicant Bolt Chiropractic, continue to
[36:55] October 26, 2026, pending receipt of an
[36:58] original stipulation.
[37:00] And item number 51, application number
[37:02] 2511837.
[37:05] Applicant Linda Santianis, continue to
[37:08] October 26, 2026 penny receipt of
[37:11] original stipulation.
[37:16] » The agenda is so approved.
[37:17] >> Okay.
[37:33] Sorry, I'm having issues.
[38:06] Okay. Item number six, public comments.
[38:09] Is anybody in attendance that does not
[38:11] have an item on the agenda?
[38:15] Okay. There are no requests to speak.
[38:19] Okay. Item number seven, hearing officer
[38:21] comments.
[38:22] >> No hearing officer comments.
[38:23] >> Okay. No comments. That takes us to um
[38:27] the first item on our agenda. Would you
[38:29] like to read it out or would you like me
[38:31] to take us through the agenda?
[38:32] >> Would you read it for us, please?
[38:34] >> Okay. First item, item number eight,
[38:36] application number 2310594,
[38:40] Martin Family Investments LLC, and we
[38:43] have David Misco here in person.
[38:47] Misco,
[38:48] >> morning.
[38:49] >> Good morning.
[38:50] >> Let's hold it over. I'm still waiting
[38:51] for all the refunds. I know resolution
[38:53] came from you folks in April, but we're
[38:54] still not [clears throat] getting the
[38:56] checks real fast.
[38:57] Okay.
[38:58] >> The assessor is good with that.
[39:00] Actually, our notes are there. He's
[39:02] waiting for the refund to withdraw his
[39:04] book deal basically.
[39:05] >> Okay. And so you'd like a a continuence
[39:07] until that has occurred.
[39:09] >> Okay.
[39:10] >> How how long do these refunds usually
[39:11] take?
[39:13] >> Has the assessor any idea?
[39:15] >> I don't want to have idea for the the a
[39:17] has some issues there. I don't know. You
[39:18] might contact the auditor's office.
[39:20] >> Okay. I got I got one in May and one in June. Haven't seen one since.
[39:26] So, our options for continuance are
[39:29] October 26, 2026, which is 63. And this goes for everyone requesting a
[39:34] continuence today. Um, we have October
[39:36] 26, 2026, 63 days from now. Um, I'm
[39:39] assuming there's no data, but if you
[39:41] need to provide data, it would be due by
[39:43] September 26, 2026, or February 22nd,
[39:47] 2027, which is 183 days from now. Data
[39:50] would be due January 23rd, 2027. Sorry,
[39:53] that's my typo.
[39:57] And uh you have a waiver on file so you
[39:59] can continue to whichever date you'd
[40:01] like.
[40:01] >> Let's do the February.
[40:02] >> February done there.
[40:04] >> Okay. Any um questions about that
[40:07] continuence date or issues from theor?
[40:09] >> Our the assessor has done everything
[40:12] need to get done at our end
[40:14] check.
[40:15] >> Okay, good. That was February 87.
[40:18] >> February 22nd 2027.
[40:20] >> Okay. Uh and so this matter is continued
[40:23] to February 22nd, 2027. Thank you.
[40:27] >> Thank you.
[40:34] » And then just to confirm the assessor,
[40:36] there's no data providing nothing.
[40:55] » [clears throat]
[40:56] >> And that takes us to item number nine,
[40:59] application number 2311125.
[41:02] Applicant David R. Williams.
[41:06] Do we have Mr. Williams in attendance?
[41:09] Okay. I did speak with the applicant
[41:11] last week. Um he was hopeful that a stip
[41:13] was going to be signed. Um but he
[41:16] understood that if it wasn't um he he
[41:19] was okay with the deny due to lack of
[41:20] appearance and so
[41:22] >> right
[41:23] >> the recommended action would be to deny
[41:25] application number 2311125
[41:28] for lack of appearance
[41:29] >> and that application is denied for lack
[41:31] of appearance.
[41:41] That takes us to items 11 through 13.
[41:44] Applications 2311849
[41:48] through 2311851.
[41:50] Applicant Dean Delorenzo.
[41:55] We have a Dean Delorenzo here.
[41:59] Okay. Um, I did speak with the applicant
[42:02] last week and he confirmed that his um
[42:09] that his appeal has been resolved. Um,
[42:11] and he wanted to continue for refund
[42:14] processing, but as he did not attend.
[42:16] Uh, we would recommend denying the
[42:19] applications due to lack of appearance.
[42:21] Uh, the issues been resolved. He'll get
[42:23] refunds regardless. Um, I think he just
[42:25] wanted to keep them open as a formality.
[42:28] >> Can the same as other children. The um
[42:31] we did everything on the assessor side
[42:32] or just wait for the auditor read button
[42:35] to check.
[42:35] >> Okay. Was it a stipulation?
[42:37] >> Uh
[42:39] I probably was. I do not know top of my
[42:41] head.
[42:41] >> All right. Uh so this application is
[42:43] denied for lack of appearance.
[42:55] And that takes us to item number 14.
[42:57] Application number 2311886.
[43:01] Applicant Sunil Raj Po Pro
[43:06] and we have Sil here in person.
[43:08] >> Yeah. Good morning. Um and at this time
[43:11] we continue to authorize those lies
[43:13] office and uh Mr. Jeffrey and uh today I
[43:17] would sincerely request continuence.
[43:20] >> You're requesting a continuance.
[43:22] >> Yes. And um I had a little difficulty
[43:24] hearing you. Could you tell me the
[43:26] reason you're requesting the
[43:27] continuence, please?
[43:28] >> Sure. As I uh mentioned uh we've been
[43:31] working very closely with uh M Jeffrey
[43:33] who's our assessor
[43:34] >> and there have been a lot of information
[43:36] additional information over the the
[43:39] course of last three or four weeks we
[43:41] have sent out information for the
[43:44] assessor's office to consider. So I
[43:45] would imagine it would take a limited
[43:46] time for them to suitably incorporate
[43:48] that and uh we can then proceed with the
[43:50] process.
[43:51] >> Okay, I see. Uh to the assessor could
[43:54] >> the applicant is correct. Um we're still
[43:56] working from this. Jeffree is still
[43:57] working with him and going through the
[43:58] process. So hopefully we don't have to
[44:00] hear but um
[44:01] >> Okay.
[44:01] >> Going through the process.
[44:02] >> Um okay, very fine. Um would you prefer
[44:05] the February uh the October the 26 2026
[44:10] date or the February 22 2027 date? Let
[44:14] me ask the assessor what they think
[44:15] first and I'll come back to you.
[44:18] >> Um either or would be f actually either
[44:21] or would be fine. I would actually say
[44:22] the February 22nd um 2027 would be
[44:24] actually the best for the assessor. Just
[44:26] as Jeff um asked some plans coming up.
[44:30] So I was wondering if they could push
[44:31] out where possible.
[44:33] >> All right. Thank you. Uh would the
[44:35] February 22nd, 2027 date work for you
[44:38] for to continue this matter?
[44:40] >> Well, I would effort to you know
[44:42] whatever works for the office. It's been
[44:44] pending for you know some time now and
[44:45] the information uh in the data request.
[44:47] So hoping there's not too much the
[44:49] additional data request but at this time
[44:52] we would prefer October but I was happy
[44:54] to sort of refer to the assessor's
[44:55] office you know not an issue.
[44:58] >> Did she give you any any estimate of how
[45:00] much time it would take for her to get
[45:02] back with you?
[45:03] >> No uh we didn't have conversation to
[45:06] that effect. We're still trying to sort
[45:07] of you know absorb the information and I
[45:10] would imagine that we receiving this
[45:11] hearing and busy so we didn't get to
[45:14] connect uh but as I said obviously it's
[45:16] been pending for some time so you know
[45:18] prefer October but then I would refer to the assess office happy to
[45:22] support the February timeline as well
[45:24] >> I see it's a 2023 appeal application
[45:28] um do you think it would be reasonable
[45:32] for October 26 in this case
[45:34] >> okay thank Thank you. So this matter is
[45:37] continued to October 26, 2026.
[45:41] >> Thank you.
[45:41] >> Okay. And you are available on that
[45:43] date?
[45:43] >> Yes.
[45:44] >> Okay. Perfect. And you have a waiver on
[45:45] file. So you are all set. Any additional
[45:48] data would be um turned into by
[45:50] September 26th.
[45:52] >> Thanks.
[46:12] That takes us to
[46:15] item number 15, application number
[46:18] 2311946.
[46:20] Applicant Thompson Family Trust.
[46:24] Do we have anyone checked in for
[46:27] Thompson Family Trust?
[46:30] No.
[46:32] Okay. So, looks like no one has checked
[46:34] in for this item. Um, I did speak with
[46:36] the applicant last week and confirmed uh
[46:39] Rita would be intendance in attendance
[46:41] for a continuence request, but it looks
[46:44] like um it'll be a denied due to lack of
[46:47] appearance.
[46:48] >> Yes, this this shall be denied for lack
[46:50] of appearance.
[47:01] And that takes us to item number 16,
[47:03] application number 2311957,
[47:06] Reed Trust, dated March 7th, 2023.
[47:10] We have
[47:11] >> Brandon, John, Senator on behalf of my
[47:13] client Patty Joe Reed. We spoke with the
[47:17] assessor's office and agreed to
[47:19] continue, but that's okay.
[47:22] >> Okay. And for what reason though?
[47:24] >> Still working with my client on trying
[47:26] to figure out a resolution. Just not quite an error on figuring out
[47:30] a resolution to the
[47:33] >> Okay.
[47:33] >> Sorry.
[47:35] >> I see this is a 2023 case. Uh to the
[47:38] assessor, could you brief me on where
[47:40] you are on this?
[47:43] >> Um my notes don't show that right now.
[47:46] Um my notes say attorney will continue.
[47:49] Um
[47:50] actually Jose Angel can you come up and
[47:54] speak to that?
[47:57] >> Yes with the assessor's office. Um so we
[48:01] did our review but we don't see
[48:05] uh how to resolve the issue. Um so the
[48:08] attorney has to decide if they want to
[48:09] present
[48:11] resolution.
[48:14] >> So that's what I'm working with my
[48:15] client on. We're trying to work on
[48:16] figuring out what we want to do, whether
[48:19] we want to submit more information or
[48:21] how to resolve it.
[48:22] >> Okay.
[48:23] >> Just not there yet.
[48:24] >> Okay. So, I'm understanding the assessor
[48:26] that there's no recommended reduction
[48:28] that you the assessor would be
[48:30] supporting the role value. Correct.
[48:33] Okay. How much time do you feel you
[48:35] would need to speak with your client and
[48:38] >> probably the February date would be best
[48:40] if it's enough time for preparing?
[48:43] >> Okay. Okay. Uh, what type of property is
[48:46] this?
[48:47] >> It's a single family residence or home.
[48:49] >> Uhhuh.
[48:50] >> Yeah.
[48:51] >> Do you need till February to prepare
[48:55] appraisal for single family residents?
[48:57] >> Maybe
[49:00] it's a change in ownership issue. Yeah.
[49:02] >> Oh, it's a change in ownership issue.
[49:05] Okay. Rather than a valuation issue.
[49:07] >> Correct.
[49:08] >> Oh, I see. I see. Okay. Okay. Um, all
[49:13] right. This matter is then continued.
[49:15] Does the assessor by the way have any
[49:17] objection to or or any thoughts about
[49:19] continuing to the February 2027 date?
[49:23] >> No, we do not.
[49:24] >> All right. Okay. So, this matter then is
[49:27] continued to February 22nd, 2027.
[49:31] >> And then I just want to confirm is there
[49:33] a data provisal on that?
[49:36] >> Um three I have a 30-day provisal
[49:39] hearing. Do you have any objections to
[49:40] providing any data to the assessor's
[49:42] office at least 30 days prior to
[49:45] >> just in case?
[49:45] >> No objection.
[49:46] >> Is that data requested by the assessor?
[49:49] Is that is that how that works?
[49:51] >> It's a change ownership. So, it's a
[49:52] little different to recording deeds and
[49:54] that aspect of it, but we do like a
[49:56] 30-day previsor if we do need something
[49:57] different from the applicant. Would that
[49:59] be triggered by a request from the
[50:01] assessor or is that just a blanket
[50:03] request where you're asking the
[50:05] applicant to send
[50:07] any information that he may feel is
[50:09] pertinent?
[50:09] >> A blanket within 30 days. If Jose is
[50:12] still going through the files and trying
[50:13] to well, he did go through the files,
[50:15] but anything else he could provide us,
[50:16] the applicant can provide us for his
[50:18] case may help us out.
[50:21] >> Is there any information that you need
[50:23] at this point?
[50:24] >> Um, from our review, it does on the
[50:26] plan. We just need to know if they're
[50:29] going to withdraw or they're going to
[50:30] >> Okay. Thank you.
[50:31] >> And we don't see a resolution
[50:33] data received everyone the situation.
[50:36] >> All right. Thank you.
[50:37] >> So if it helps the data proviso is if
[50:40] they provide additional data, it needs
[50:41] to be 30 days prior to give Jose and Joe
[50:44] enough time. Um I don't think they're
[50:46] asking for anything at this point, but
[50:48] if they do, just 30 days prior. If
[50:51] there's data that you'd like the
[50:52] assessor to review that you would be
[50:55] presenting that you feel is pertinent
[50:57] then um the uh order is going to be
[51:01] asking you to present that to the
[51:03] assessor no later than 30 days prior to
[51:06] the hearing which is going to be
[51:08] February 22nd 2027 and that is so
[51:11] ordered.
[51:13] make it. We'll be fine.
[51:20] » And you have a waiver, correct?
[51:21] >> Yes. Yes. That application has a
[51:23] two-year waiver on file. So, you're all
[51:25] set.
[51:25] >> Thank you.
[51:26] very much. I appreciate it.
[51:30] >> Thank you.
[51:32] >> That takes us to item number 17,
[51:35] application number 2410265.
[51:38] applicant Christine Chia uh Fang.
[51:44] Do we have anyone here for that item?
[51:47] Okay. Looks like we spoke with uh the
[51:55] applicant last week and she indicated
[51:58] she'd be submitting a withdrawal, but we
[52:00] did not receive that withdrawal. Uh the
[52:02] recommendation would be to deny due to
[52:04] lack of appearance.
[52:05] >> Okay. It's ordered that this is denied
[52:07] due to lack of appearance.
[52:16] That takes us to item number 18,
[52:18] application number 2410392,
[52:22] applicant Charles Elliott. Do we have
[52:24] anyone checked in for Charles Elliott?
[52:31] Okay. Uh, my notes indicate that we
[52:34] spoke with the applicant last week and
[52:36] he indicates he sold the vessel and will
[52:38] no longer pursue the appeal. Um, I did
[52:41] send over those withdrawal instructions,
[52:42] but we did not receive a withdrawal. So,
[52:44] the recommendation would be to deny due
[52:46] to lack of appearance.
[52:47] >> It is ordered that this is application
[52:49] is denied due to lack of appearance.
[52:57] » Okay. Items 19 and 20 can be handled
[53:00] simultaneously. These are applications
[53:02] 2410399
[53:04] and 251171.
[53:07] Applicant Vidal Valencia. Uh we we were
[53:10] expecting this application these
[53:12] applications to move forward today. Uh
[53:15] the applicant called our office this
[53:16] morning and indicates that he will not
[53:18] be pursuing the matter and is fine with
[53:20] a denial due to lack of appearance.
[53:23] >> Okay. Then it is ordered that the two
[53:26] applications shall be denied due to lack
[53:28] of appearance.
[53:39] That takes us to applicate to item
[53:41] number 22, application number 2410492.
[53:46] Applicant William Huninger and we have
[53:48] Mr. Huninger here in person.
[53:51] >> Thank you.
[53:52] >> Good morning.
[53:53] >> Just for investigate continuence. I've
[53:54] been working with my the assessor's
[53:56] office um and he asp.
[54:03] » All right. And um if this is going to be
[54:07] approved for continuence, would you
[54:08] prefer October the 26 26 or February 22
[54:13] 27?
[54:15] >> Whatever this means.
[54:16] >> Okay. Let me check with them and see how
[54:18] they're feeling. Um
[54:21] could you brief me on this please?
[54:24] This is an aircraft actually.
[54:26] [clears throat]
[54:29] Um, we got late data on 8526.
[54:32] So, we need some time to process it.
[54:34] That's the pro what we're doing right
[54:35] now.
[54:35] >> Uhhuh.
[54:36] >> Um, a continuous be for the assessor for
[54:39] 20 26 2026.
[54:42] >> Okay. Is there any other information
[54:43] that you need?
[54:44] >> I always like 30 advisor just in case
[54:46] there's some information that we come up
[54:48] with that we may need or the applicant
[54:49] has some more data want to give to us.
[54:51] >> Okay. So, the provisor, the 30-day
[54:54] provisal would be if the assessor
[54:55] requests information from you, they
[54:57] would uh or would like to have it um
[55:01] what will be ordered that it will be
[55:03] turned in to the assessor no later than
[55:06] 30 days prior to the continued hearing
[55:09] which um is October the 26, 2026. Would
[55:13] that work for you?
[55:14] >> Yes.
[55:14] >> Okay.
[55:16] >> And there's a waiver on file.
[55:18] >> Mr. Ninger just provided a waiver, so we
[55:20] are all set.
[55:21] >> Okay. So, it is ordered that this
[55:23] application shall be continued to
[55:25] October 26, 2026 with a 30-day uh
[55:30] proviso and with waiverss on file.
[55:34] >> Thank you.
[55:36] >> We're set. Thank you.
[55:43] » Okay. And so that takes us to item
[55:45] number 23, application number 2410576.
[55:50] Applicant AM2
[55:53] fly Susan Ying here in person.
[55:57] >> Good morning.
[55:58] >> Morning. Uh I've made three copies here.
[56:02] >> Okay. Are you prepared to go forward
[56:04] with hearing today?
[56:05] >> Yes, I am.
[56:06] >> Okay, good. You know what we're going to
[56:07] do? Uh, let us finish this this agenda
[56:10] first and then you'll be the first one
[56:12] up for hearing.
[56:13] >> Oh, okay. Sure.
[56:14] >> Okay. Not not yet. Not quite yet.
[56:16] >> Yeah. So, you can just hang on to those.
[56:18] Um, you're checked in. We're moving
[56:19] forward with the hearing today. So,
[56:20] we'll get the continuences out of the
[56:22] way and then um the assessor, are you
[56:24] confirming you're prepared to present?
[56:25] >> Assess our mic and um Kristen will be
[56:27] ready to present. Yes.
[56:29] >> Okay. Okay.
[56:34] » Okay. And that takes us to
[56:36] item number 27, application number
[56:39] 251006.
[56:43] Applicant Kayn Glazer. And we have
[56:45] Kaylin here in person.
[56:46] >> Yes.
[56:48] >> Good morning. Could you brief me on what
[56:50] we're going to be doing today?
[56:52] >> I think I'm asking for a continuence
[56:53] because we're resubmitting everything.
[56:57] >> Okay.
[56:59] >> So, just a little background on this
[57:00] one. Um there are two marks in the
[57:02] assessor's office that they've been
[57:04] working with
[57:05] >> and so they believe they provided all
[57:07] their data
[57:08] >> to the assessor's office but
[57:11] >> not to Mark Stove
[57:14] >> in the appeals department. So just a
[57:17] little
[57:17] >> they told you that?
[57:18] >> Yes. Yeah. Yeah. We had a little
[57:20] [laughter]
[57:20] >> Yeah.
[57:21] >> You just discovered that did you how
[57:23] long ago?
[57:25] >> On on Thursday when I called say I
[57:27] gotten a call saying submit everything
[57:28] like I submitted everything to Mark.
[57:31] And it was the wrong part. Oh,
[57:33] >> okay. So, Mark didn't forward it over.
[57:35] >> No, usually our departments or
[57:37] residential or um property transfer
[57:39] division works the everything up front
[57:42] and then they file appeal. We get the
[57:43] data from applicants. So, fresh eyes
[57:45] look at the appeal. We could not get
[57:48] skewed by what our departments did.
[57:50] >> Okay. But Mark didn't forward.
[57:51] >> Mark didn't forward it. No. And we
[57:53] usually don't get forwarded um
[57:54] information unless he did it recently.
[57:56] >> I see. All right. Okay. Um so then um
[58:01] forgive me if you've already said when
[58:03] did you for forward the information over
[58:05] to the assessment appeals mark?
[58:08] >> Uh
[58:12] just approximately we'll be fine.
[58:21] the uh the the the mark that is supposed
[58:24] to review your material from appeals.
[58:26] Was that just recently?
[58:29] >> No, was it just recently? It was
[58:32] >> she she's asking about this this note.
[58:34] [laughter]
[58:37] » Sorry, I forwarded all the emails that I
[58:39] sent to
[58:40] >> When did you send it to this Mark?
[58:42] >> Just this past Thursday.
[58:43] >> Oh, you said so. Okay. Okay. Thank you.
[58:45] I forgot you said that. I'm sorry. And
[58:47] which date would you like to continue to
[58:49] the
[58:51] >> Okay. And then um Mark, is there any
[58:53] more information that you have you had a
[58:55] chance to review?
[58:57] >> Okay.
[58:57] >> So I imagine your procedure will be
[58:59] review and let the applicant know if you
[59:01] need more.
[59:02] >> Yeah.
[59:02] >> And then how much time before the
[59:04] hearing would you like to see that
[59:05] information? Uh
[59:07] >> 30 days should it shouldn't take uh too
[59:09] much documentation to prove your
[59:12] >> Okay. Thank you.
[59:14] There you go.
[59:15] >> Okay.
[59:17] Um, all right. And then there is a
[59:19] waiver on file.
[59:20] >> Uh, this So, if you're okay signing a
[59:22] waiver, we have a a paper there for the
[59:25] application. Um, and that's for the
[59:27] continuence request.
[59:30] >> And you're all right with signing that
[59:31] waiver and turning that in to the clerk?
[59:34] >> Yes. Is there any reason I shouldn't be?
[59:36] >> It's up to you. You don't have to sign
[59:38] it. Um, we have deadlines to get your
[59:42] appeal resolved. And so if you sign a
[59:44] waiver, it just kind of gives you more
[59:47] flexibility with working with Mark. Um
[59:51] it's up to you,
[59:52] >> but you can if you sign it. By the way,
[59:55] uh we have two years to hear your case
[59:58] in from from filing. So um I don't think we normally ask for
[1:00:04] them from 25 cases, do we?
[1:00:07] >> Um we have been because it's
[1:00:09] >> been an issue um
[1:00:11] >> Okay.
[1:00:11] >> lately. Okay. But I didn't mess up.
[1:00:14] >> No.
[1:00:15] >> Okay, good. So, um, yeah. So, it there's
[1:00:19] just basically
[1:00:21] the appeals board has two years from the
[1:00:24] date of filing of your application to
[1:00:26] render a decision. Okay? And if they
[1:00:29] miss that, um, then
[1:00:33] the value that you put on your
[1:00:34] application goes on the roll until the
[1:00:36] case can be heard. Now, um so that
[1:00:40] waiver, um is waving your right to have
[1:00:43] your application heard within the 2-year
[1:00:47] deadline.
[1:00:48] >> Okay.
[1:00:48] >> And if you sign that, you do have a um
[1:00:51] the option to um resend that waiver in
[1:00:56] writing.
[1:00:56] >> Okay.
[1:00:57] >> And are the instructions on the waiver
[1:01:00] by chance?
[1:01:01] >> Uh yes, I believe so. I believe it it
[1:01:03] explains um
[1:01:05] >> they can be revoked at any time.
[1:01:07] >> Yeah. And so
[1:01:08] >> so you'll get a copy of that if you
[1:01:09] decide to sign that. Are you all right
[1:01:11] with signing that?
[1:01:12] >> But if she doesn't sign it,
[1:01:15] >> um then they just terminate the case.
[1:01:19] >> No. No. Um if she doesn't sign it, um
[1:01:22] basically we make sure to get your case
[1:01:25] heard before that two years is expired.
[1:01:29] >> So her original application was in
[1:01:32] [clears throat] 2023.
[1:01:35] When was that application filed? What
[1:01:36] was the date?
[1:01:37] >> So, that's a separate um that that
[1:01:40] application wasn't accepted. It was
[1:01:41] filed outside of the
[1:01:42] >> Okay. filing peri. So, this is this is a
[1:01:44] 2025 application for a change in
[1:01:46] ownership.
[1:01:47] >> So, we're we're we're going by the 2025
[1:01:49] application. The 2023
[1:01:52] is not on the agenda here. We're talking
[1:01:55] about this 2025.
[1:01:57] And that was filed when?
[1:01:59] >> Um July 2nd, 2025.
[1:02:05] Okay. Do you want to do you want to
[1:02:07] speak with each other and then we'll
[1:02:09] come back to you. You can decide.
[1:02:12] >> Is all right.
[1:02:15] >> Yes.
[1:02:16] >> If she has data for us, can is those
[1:02:18] copies? Can we can you hand them to Mark
[1:02:19] now? So we don't have to mail them in or
[1:02:21] email them or
[1:02:23] >> documentation. That'd be great if you
[1:02:26] or or give Jose.
[1:02:28] >> Do you have your You're keeping your
[1:02:30] original, right?
[1:02:31] >> They're all just copies.
[1:02:35] So we don't have
[1:02:37] >> Okay. All right. So then um let's see
[1:02:41] here. Um then um
[1:02:45] we're talking about continuing till
[1:02:49] for this. What do you think? October.
[1:02:51] Yeah,
[1:02:51] >> I think you said so.
[1:02:52] >> It should be.
[1:02:53] >> Okay. Thank you. Um how uh would October
[1:02:56] the 26, 2026 work for you for this
[1:02:59] hearing to be continued to? Okay. So
[1:03:02] it's so it's ordered that this uh
[1:03:04] hearing shall be continued to October
[1:03:06] 26, 2026
[1:03:09] um with the data proviso of 30 days
[1:03:13] prior to hearing no later than and
[1:03:17] that's with signed waiver which the
[1:03:19] applicant has consented to. That's so
[1:03:22] ordered. Thank you.
[1:03:25] >> You're all set.
[1:03:33] Okay, that takes us to item number.
[1:03:36] >> Somebody has a question.
[1:03:37] >> I just wanted to ask, are you a judge?
[1:03:39] >> No, I'm an attorney. I'm an attorney.
[1:03:42] >> Know who? Everyone.
[1:03:44] >> Yeah, I'm not uh employed by the
[1:03:46] assessor's office, by the way. I'm
[1:03:48] independent
[1:03:50] here to provide unbiased opinions.
[1:03:53] Okay.
[1:03:56] » Okay. Thank you. And then sorry, can we
[1:03:58] get your name for the record?
[1:04:00] >> Glazer.
[1:04:03] » E L I N.
[1:04:05] >> E L L E N
[1:04:08] G L A C E R. I'm
[1:04:14] supposed to
[1:04:18] » Okay, thank you. You're all set. As soon
[1:04:20] as we get that waiver, you can.
[1:04:22] Okay, that takes us to item number 30.
[1:04:24] Application number 2510179.
[1:04:28] Applicant Ashan uh Gai and Shaham Fatmi.
[1:04:33] Do we have anyone checked in for this
[1:04:35] item?
[1:04:38] Okay. My notes indicate that we spoke
[1:04:40] with the applicant last week and they
[1:04:43] were going to submit a withdrawal. Um,
[1:04:45] but we're fine with deny due to lack of
[1:04:47] appearance. If they did not get that
[1:04:49] withdrawing, the recommendation would be
[1:04:51] to deny the lack of appearance.
[1:04:52] >> It is so ordered.
[1:05:03] That takes us to item number 32,
[1:05:06] application number 2510346.
[1:05:09] Applicant Kai Chiron.
[1:05:12] We have Kai here in person.
[1:05:16] » Okay. Uh, do you want to give us an
[1:05:18] update on your appeal?
[1:05:20] >> Yeah. When I find the paper for the
[1:05:22] appeal, I submitted on the paper. If not
[1:05:25] understanding, I think I spoke to you
[1:05:27] and he told me to call Mark and he said
[1:05:30] he didn't receive the copy of the paper.
[1:05:34] So, I'm here to submit it again, I
[1:05:37] guess, and hopefully resolve it.
[1:05:40] >> Okay, let me ask the assessor. Let me
[1:05:42] get their thoughts on this
[1:05:45] >> um to the assessor. Can you brief me on
[1:05:46] this, please? The notes my notes
[1:05:48] basically say that he submitted with his
[1:05:50] application the information the clerk of
[1:05:52] the board
[1:05:53] >> does not for that to us because of the
[1:05:55] application. Oh.
[1:05:56] >> So we never got it. Um and we still
[1:05:59] haven't received the data. So today he
[1:06:01] was to give us the data and we can
[1:06:02] proceed from here.
[1:06:03] >> Okay.
[1:06:04] >> Do continuence.
[1:06:05] >> All right. All right. Uh and and you
[1:06:07] have information for a copy for the
[1:06:10] assessor today. All right. Um and um
[1:06:16] then uh would you would you need um
[1:06:19] proviso uh after you re for after you
[1:06:22] review the information if you should
[1:06:24] need more?
[1:06:24] >> Yes, there's always yes 30 proviso would
[1:06:26] be great.
[1:06:27] >> Okay.
[1:06:27] >> Any of the hearing dates those two
[1:06:29] dates.
[1:06:30] >> Okay. And which date do you prefer?
[1:06:32] >> I prefer not to come again because I
[1:06:34] posted border to Arizona. So for that
[1:06:37] matter it seems like commute. Oh,
[1:06:39] >> who renders the whole process worthless?
[1:06:42] I rather
[1:06:43] >> provide the information whatever they
[1:06:45] decide they decide and don't want to
[1:06:47] come here.
[1:06:48] >> Is it a base year appeal?
[1:06:51] >> It's actually from the assessor's
[1:06:53] office. I'm handling our appeal for you,
[1:06:55] sir. Um, it's not a base year appeal.
[1:06:57] It's you sold the vote just after lean
[1:06:59] day. So, it's that sale information we
[1:07:01] would need to try and evaluate whether
[1:07:02] or not we should revise our lean date
[1:07:04] assessment. [clears throat]
[1:07:05] >> Oh, I see.
[1:07:06] >> We just don't have to date again for the
[1:07:07] sale price.
[1:07:08] >> All right. All right. Would you be the
[1:07:10] person accepting the information? Okay.
[1:07:13] >> Okay. Um,
[1:07:14] >> thank you.
[1:07:17] >> All right, then. Um,
[1:07:28] make sure
[1:07:30] >> in case you decide and change your mind
[1:07:32] and decide.
[1:07:34] >> No, let me just ask you this way. Okay.
[1:07:35] because I have I have to have one of two
[1:07:37] dates in case you were to decide to
[1:07:40] change your mind. Would you uh want to
[1:07:42] come up?
[1:07:43] >> It would be February.
[1:07:44] >> February. Okay.
[1:07:47] So, this matter is then continued
[1:07:49] to February 22nd, 2027
[1:07:54] uh with a 30-day proviso. And this is
[1:07:56] the waiver waivers.
[1:07:58] >> Um so, we don't have a waiver on file.
[1:08:00] It sounds like he's not going to proceed
[1:08:02] if the
[1:08:05] >> Do you want to get him to sign a waiver
[1:08:07] if he will do so?
[1:08:08] >> Are you willing to sign a waiver for the
[1:08:09] two years?
[1:08:10] >> Since it was since last year, it gives
[1:08:12] you another year. So, I see no point.
[1:08:15] >> Okay. So, he's refusing to sign the
[1:08:16] waiver. Um, we have
[1:08:17] >> with no waiver on file. So, ordered
[1:08:20] continued. Okay. Thank you.
[1:08:23] >> Okay. Thank you.
[1:08:37] And that takes us to item number 33,
[1:08:41] application number 2510361.
[1:08:44] Applicant Rajie Yata. And we have uh
[1:08:47] Rajie here in person. Um our office did
[1:08:50] not receive a confirmation of attendance
[1:08:52] on this application. Um the applicant
[1:08:54] indicates that he did email us one. We
[1:08:57] searched our records and were unable to
[1:08:58] locate a confirmation of attendance.
[1:09:00] >> Um so we would
[1:09:02] >> recommend having a conversation with the
[1:09:04] assessor's office and requesting a
[1:09:06] continuence of this matter.
[1:09:08] >> Okay.
[1:09:08] >> Um
[1:09:10] >> let let me
[1:09:11] >> possible we have we are very prepared
[1:09:14] for it.
[1:09:17] >> Are you prepared to move forward today
[1:09:19] if the assessor is? Well, let me just
[1:09:21] check with the assessor. Okay. Just a
[1:09:24] minute please to the assessor. Are you
[1:09:26] prepared to move forward?
[1:09:27] >> We are not prepared to go forward with
[1:09:29] this case. Um
[1:09:30] >> because
[1:09:31] >> we weren't he wasn't no confirmation of
[1:09:33] parents
[1:09:33] >> because they're not prepared.
[1:09:34] >> Click on my notes here too. I believe we
[1:09:36] still need some data from him. I believe
[1:09:38] >> yes. So the no confirmation of
[1:09:40] attendance requires a reschedule. Um and
[1:09:43] the assessor is waved from submitting a
[1:09:45] presentation um due to the no
[1:09:46] confirmation of attendance. Again, the
[1:09:48] applicant indicates he sent us one. We
[1:09:50] searched our email. We searched our
[1:09:51] online portal. We didn't get a
[1:09:52] confirmation of attendance. Um, so you
[1:09:54] can certainly provide that data to the
[1:09:56] assessor today, request a continuance.
[1:09:59] Hopefully there's no need to come back
[1:10:01] um if they review it and and agree. Um,
[1:10:04] but yeah, you would be required to
[1:10:06] request a continuence today since we
[1:10:07] didn't receive a confirmation of
[1:10:09] attendance.
[1:10:10] >> And then the confir where did you send
[1:10:12] the confirmation last time to the
[1:10:14] applicant? How how did you how did you
[1:10:17] provide the conf confirmation that you
[1:10:19] sent?
[1:10:20] >> Emile.
[1:10:20] >> Emailed.
[1:10:21] >> Yeah.
[1:10:22] >> Okay. Um, may I make a suggestion? Sure.
[1:10:26] >> Uh, when when you make a confirmation
[1:10:30] for this continued hearing, may I
[1:10:33] suggest you give them a telephone call
[1:10:34] to make sure that they've received it?
[1:10:36] So, Okay.
[1:10:38] >> Okay. Good. Um, and then do you have a
[1:10:41] waiver?
[1:10:41] >> We do not have a waiver. Would you be
[1:10:43] willing to sign the two-year waiver for
[1:10:45] the continuence request similar to the
[1:10:47] previous
[1:10:50] >> Okay. Um, and um I'm sorry. Did which
[1:10:55] date uh did we prefer?
[1:10:58] >> Either one's fine.
[1:10:59] >> Either one. Okay. And which date do you
[1:11:01] prefer to come back? October 26, 2026.
[1:11:05] >> Yes.
[1:11:06] >> Okay. Good. And the assessor may be
[1:11:10] requesting additional information.
[1:11:12] >> I found my notes on here. Actually, we
[1:11:13] have not received any data from the
[1:11:15] applicant. So, we definitely would need
[1:11:16] some data if they have today. Um.
[1:11:18] >> Okay. And
[1:11:20] >> you've requested data, have you?
[1:11:21] >> Yes. My notes from Miss Jeff is still
[1:11:24] waiting for documentation by applicant.
[1:11:25] So, we still haven't received any
[1:11:26] documentation from
[1:11:27] >> Okay.
[1:11:28] >> So, it looks like it just was handed to
[1:11:30] Jose.
[1:11:30] >> Jose has it now. So, that's great.
[1:11:32] >> Oh, good. Okay. Excellent. Okay. So this
[1:11:35] matter is continued to October 26, 2026
[1:11:39] with the um applicant consenting to sign
[1:11:43] a written waiver today and there shall
[1:11:46] be a 30-day proviso if the assessor
[1:11:49] needs more information um that you shall
[1:11:52] be submitting it no later than 30 days
[1:11:54] before October 26, 2026.
[1:11:57] And that is so ordered. Thank you.
[1:12:00] >> Then if you don't mind waiting around a
[1:12:01] few minutes, my colleague's going to
[1:12:02] bring down more waiverss. We we ran out
[1:12:04] of the the paper.
[1:12:14] That takes us to item number 34,
[1:12:16] application number 2510394.
[1:12:19] Applicant Eric Garcia.
[1:12:23] We have Eric Garcia here in person.
[1:12:26] >> Good morning.
[1:12:26] >> Hi.
[1:12:27] Um question to see if they can reassess
[1:12:30] the uh the stipulation
[1:12:32] to reflect a little closer to actual
[1:12:35] cost of repairs that are going to be
[1:12:36] required.
[1:12:37] >> Oh, is this is that stipulation um
[1:12:40] signed by all of the parties or just the
[1:12:43] assessor? What what what's the status of
[1:12:46] the signatures on that?
[1:12:47] >> There is Okay.
[1:12:50] >> So, it hasn't been signed. the it sounds
[1:12:51] like the assessor's office has offered a
[1:12:53] stipulation and he hasn't signed it and
[1:12:55] so he wants more time to
[1:12:57] >> um for our discussion he wants more time
[1:12:59] to see if they can
[1:13:01] >> you don't quite agree with the you feel
[1:13:03] the stipulated value is not correct
[1:13:06] >> correct okay um have you discussed it
[1:13:09] with the assessor yet
[1:13:10] >> not actually feels like it kind of was
[1:13:13] in standby since the first time we
[1:13:15] showed up
[1:13:16] >> okay
[1:13:16] >> yeah okay
[1:13:17] >> I guess I'll do that now
[1:13:19] >> okay And um let me check with the
[1:13:22] assistant and I'll come back with you on
[1:13:24] a date.
[1:13:25] >> Okay. Could you brief me on this?
[1:13:27] >> Um right, Miss Jeff um Dr. applicant
[1:13:32] >> gave him the stipulation and still
[1:13:33] waiting to hear back or heard anything
[1:13:34] back since the stipulation got offered.
[1:13:36] Um so we're still waiting. So we didn't
[1:13:38] know if he was agree with the
[1:13:39] stipulation or not.
[1:13:40] >> I guess he does not. Okay.
[1:13:42] >> Um we going to continue if possible we
[1:13:44] could work with them and go from there.
[1:13:46] >> Okay. Uh how much time does the assessor
[1:13:48] need? Uh would you prefer the October
[1:13:51] 26th date?
[1:13:52] >> That'd be that'd be fine for the
[1:13:53] >> assessment. Either date is fine.
[1:13:57] >> Okay, great. Um okay. And then um
[1:14:00] >> and then same thing, we have the we have
[1:14:02] the um the two waiver right there. It
[1:14:04] sounds like it's a quick continuence. Um
[1:14:07] but
[1:14:08] >> Okay, perfect. Thank you.
[1:14:09] >> And you agreed to sign that?
[1:14:11] >> Correct.
[1:14:12] >> Okay, thank you. Okay. So, this it's
[1:14:15] going to be ordered that this matter
[1:14:16] shall be continued to October 26, 2026
[1:14:21] uh with the 30-day proviso
[1:14:24] and uh with the applicant stating that
[1:14:27] he will be signing the wa written waiver
[1:14:29] today. So, or that's that's the order.
[1:14:32] >> Okay.
[1:14:35] Thank you. And then I'll take the
[1:14:37] waiver.
[1:14:41] Okay.
[1:14:46] is from the explanation just
[1:14:59] okay that takes us to
[1:15:04] sorry item number
[1:15:09] 38 application number 251 10461
[1:15:14] applicant Farzad Moajani.
[1:15:17] Do we have Farzad here? Okay.
[1:15:20] >> Thank you for the opportunity for
[1:15:21] considering my case. Uh I'm here to
[1:15:24] request for a I've been um communicating
[1:15:28] with Mark Stober from the cessor's
[1:15:32] office and he was wondering if you could
[1:15:34] consider continuous to allow more time
[1:15:37] for the communication.
[1:15:39] >> Okay.
[1:15:41] Um, have you provided information to to
[1:15:45] the assessor?
[1:15:46] >> Yes, I have provided information
[1:15:50] to the access.
[1:15:52] >> Okay. And then let me check with the
[1:15:53] assessor. Could you brief me on this?
[1:15:56] >> Uh, we received information on the 13th
[1:15:58] of this month. So, we still need time to
[1:16:00] go through it and make sure our
[1:16:03] evaluation what we do valuation or
[1:16:05] change ownership.
[1:16:06] >> Okay.
[1:16:10] value.
[1:16:11] >> It's it's value for a date of change of
[1:16:14] ownership.
[1:16:15] >> Is that right? Or is it a decline?
[1:16:18] >> Uh I believe it's a data change.
[1:16:29] » And Mr. Mahadani, are you also the
[1:16:31] waiver? Are you okay sending the um the
[1:16:34] waiver for the continuence request?
[1:16:36] Would it be possible for me to get
[1:16:38] myself familiar with the VA request
[1:16:40] after reading it and then um submit a
[1:16:44] paper later at a later time?
[1:16:48] >> Um
[1:16:49] yeah, so um it it pretty much just
[1:16:53] allows the county more flexibility while
[1:16:56] you guys are gathering data. Um the
[1:16:59] expectation would be that you move
[1:17:01] forward today, but since the data is
[1:17:03] just recently being provided, the
[1:17:05] county's going to need more time to
[1:17:06] review the the data. Um
[1:17:10] but yeah, we we can't force you to sign
[1:17:13] the waiver.
[1:17:15] >> Okay. If you decide to sign it, then um
[1:17:18] you take uh electronic.
[1:17:20] >> Yes, we we also take electronic. Um so
[1:17:22] it's you're not signing the waiver
[1:17:24] today.
[1:17:25] I would like to read through the if
[1:17:27] possible and and if the opportunity to
[1:17:31] sign it electronically is there would be
[1:17:33] fantastic.
[1:17:33] >> Okay. But just to confirm not today.
[1:17:35] >> Yeah.
[1:17:37] >> It's fine.
[1:17:38] >> Yes.
[1:17:38] >> It's decline in value.
[1:17:39] >> Okay. Thank you. Okay. Thanks. All
[1:17:41] right. Um then um
[1:17:46] then October the 26 the assessor said
[1:17:48] that would be all right. Is that all
[1:17:49] right with you? October.
[1:17:52] >> Forgive me if you've already said so.
[1:17:54] forgive me if you've already said
[1:17:57] October 26, if I'm asking you to repeat
[1:17:59] anything. Um, okay. Uh, so then, um, it
[1:18:03] is ordered that this, uh, application
[1:18:06] shall be continued to October 26, 2026
[1:18:09] for good cause with a 30-day proviso, no
[1:18:13] waiver on file.
[1:18:18] Just a quick question, but would that
[1:18:20] allow me time to the assessor office to
[1:18:22] look into the application? It just
[1:18:24] confirms.
[1:18:26] >> Why don't we let you ask the assessor uh
[1:18:28] if I can make it to February? If after
[1:18:31] they answer you decide you want to move
[1:18:33] it to February,
[1:18:35] >> it should be it shouldn't be a problem
[1:18:36] at all. Um it's up to you what you like
[1:18:38] to do all that, but it shouldn't be a
[1:18:39] problem. It's just it.
[1:18:42] >> Thank you. Appreciate it. So, October
[1:18:45] 26th, everybody's all good. Okay.
[1:18:48] >> Okay.
[1:18:48] >> We're all set.
[1:18:50] Okay.
[1:18:51] >> Thank you. If you'd like, you can pick
[1:18:53] up a waiver and give it some thought. If
[1:18:55] you decide to sign it, you can turn it
[1:18:58] in electronically.
[1:19:00] Okay. Thank you.
[1:19:02] >> That takes us to item number 45,
[1:19:05] application number 2510653.
[1:19:09] Applicant Christy Aldo.
[1:19:13] Do we have anyone checked in for
[1:19:14] Christie Aldra?
[1:19:22] » So, my notes indicate that we were
[1:19:24] unable to contact the
[1:19:27] Sorry,
[1:19:29] >> they have an agent.
[1:19:30] >> Yeah.
[1:19:34] Oh, okay. Sorry. Attorney uh Gerald, we
[1:19:36] spoke with his office last week and the
[1:19:39] he's okay with the denial due to lack of
[1:19:40] appearance.
[1:19:41] >> Okay.
[1:19:43] It is so ordered that this matter is
[1:19:45] denied for due to lack of appearance.
[1:19:49] Okay,
[1:19:49] >> set that takes us to item number 46,
[1:19:53] application number 2510884,
[1:19:57] Casey Living Trust.
[1:19:58] >> That's me.
[1:20:01] >> Hi,
[1:20:01] >> good morning.
[1:20:02] >> I'm just asking for a continuence
[1:20:04] because due to an unforeseen medical
[1:20:06] condition, I got my paperwork in just a
[1:20:08] couple days late.
[1:20:09] >> Okay. So, I'm not sure how much time
[1:20:10] he'll need and he might need more
[1:20:11] paperwork. So, I don't know how much
[1:20:14] time.
[1:20:15] >> Okay. Why don't I check back with check
[1:20:17] with the assessor and then I come back
[1:20:18] with you and we'll discuss it right now.
[1:20:21] Let me ask them first. Could you brief
[1:20:23] me on this?
[1:20:23] >> Is this a change of ownership? Um
[1:20:26] >> a value or
[1:20:29] legal?
[1:20:32] >> It's change ownership on its receive
[1:20:34] date.
[1:20:36] Um
[1:20:37] >> is it a value or It's a change
[1:20:39] ownership. So it's it's not a value.
[1:20:40] It's a change ownership. I believe
[1:20:41] >> a legal issue.
[1:20:42] >> Yeah. This is a B this is a B1 issue.
[1:20:44] >> Okay. Thank you.
[1:20:46] Uh and I'm sorry when you say um
[1:20:49] >> uh this is Angel. Um so this is a change
[1:20:52] in ownership case. U but it's happy to
[1:20:55] deal with two dates June 21st 2023 and
[1:20:58] September 24th 2024. So it looks like
[1:21:01] we're going to be needing a lot of data.
[1:21:04] >> Okay. So I would probably recommend the
[1:21:06] conference
[1:21:08] >> and then you know how to get reach me.
[1:21:11] >> Yes, we'll be working. Looks like we're
[1:21:13] going to need more time.
[1:21:14] >> Thank you so much.
[1:21:15] >> And thank you for getting
[1:21:17] >> I apologize.
[1:21:19] >> Okay. So I will take the February date,
[1:21:21] please.
[1:21:22] >> Okay. And we have a waiver on file, so
[1:21:24] there's no need to um
[1:21:26] >> Okay. This this application is continued
[1:21:30] to February 22nd, 2027
[1:21:33] for good cause. And is there a proviso?
[1:21:37] Um yes, the 38 provisor will be
[1:21:42] >> um they they if they ask for additional
[1:21:44] data, the assessor after reviewing what
[1:21:47] you've given them, they may ask for
[1:21:49] additional clarification or data and
[1:21:52] they're requesting that that be provided
[1:21:54] to them no later than 30 days prior to
[1:21:57] the February 27 hearing.
[1:22:00] >> Yeah. Hopefully. I mean, it was it was
[1:22:01] literally just me at getting the
[1:22:03] paperwork organized. Unfortunately, my
[1:22:05] kidneys failed and I ended up in the
[1:22:07] hospital and they wouldn't let me out of
[1:22:09] the hospital to send the paperwork in
[1:22:10] and that's sort of what happened.
[1:22:12] >> Okay.
[1:22:12] >> And I apologize. There was nothing I can
[1:22:14] do.
[1:22:14] >> Well, that's what we have these
[1:22:15] continuences for.
[1:22:16] >> So, thank you very much for
[1:22:17] understanding.
[1:22:18] >> All right. So, then I'm going to add to
[1:22:20] that order that there shall be a 30-day
[1:22:22] provisal.
[1:22:23] >> Okay.
[1:22:27] You're all set. Thank you.
[1:22:28] >> Thank you so much.
[1:22:30] >> Thank you.
[1:22:34] Okay. And that takes us to item number
[1:22:37] 47, application number 2511202.
[1:22:41] Applicant Valerie A. Pulich. Um, this
[1:22:45] applicant called our office this morning
[1:22:46] and let us know she would not be
[1:22:48] attending today's hearing. So, that's a
[1:22:50] denied due lack of appearance.
[1:22:52] >> Did she understand that it would be
[1:22:53] denied?
[1:22:54] >> Yes, I also spoke with her last week. Um
[1:22:56] and it it was like uh she was debating if
[1:23:02] she was going to pursue the appeal
[1:23:03] anyways.
[1:23:04] >> Okay.
[1:23:04] >> Um but she called us this morning and confirmed that um
[1:23:07] >> Okay.
[1:23:08] >> It would be a denial due to lack of
[1:23:09] appearance.
[1:23:09] >> Okay. It is ordered. This this
[1:23:11] application is denied due to lack of
[1:23:12] appearance.
[1:23:13] >> Did the assessor want to comment on
[1:23:14] that?
[1:23:15] >> No, we have no comment on that.
[1:23:18] >> Okay.
[1:23:24] And last item on the agenda, application
[1:23:26] number 2511770.
[1:23:30] Applicant Kenny Chi Tada. And we have uh
[1:23:32] Kenny Chi here in person.
[1:23:34] >> Good morning. Thank you for being here
[1:23:36] today.
[1:23:39] >> All right. Let me check with the
[1:23:40] assessor.
[1:23:42] >> Assessor is ready for presentation
[1:23:44] today, too.
[1:23:45] >> Okay. Very fine. So you'll be the second
[1:23:47] case that we're hearing today.
[1:23:49] >> Hearing officer Cohen. Um, so we
[1:23:51] actually had an amendment first and so
[1:23:54] typically
[1:23:55] >> for this application.
[1:23:57] >> Oh.
[1:23:58] >> Um, and so typically an amendment
[1:24:00] requires a 45day reschedule. Um, the
[1:24:03] assessor's office and if you can confirm
[1:24:05] on record is is waving that 45day
[1:24:08] >> um reschedule. Okay. And let me see. So
[1:24:14] my name indicate that we are
[1:24:27] and is this a
[1:24:30] yes.
[1:24:37] Okay. Just to confirm, um, you're
[1:24:39] amending the dates in your application
[1:24:42] from July 16, 2025 to
[1:24:47] >> the date of transfer.
[1:24:48] >> Oh, not not to change. Uh, yes. So, to
[1:24:50] remove July 16, 2025 and amend it to
[1:24:54] June 8th, 2023. Is that correct?
[1:24:57] >> Okay. And that's for both um the no
[1:25:00] change in ownership and the valuation.
[1:25:01] So, boxes B1 and B2.
[1:25:04] >> Okay.
[1:25:05] So that um before we decide on that
[1:25:09] amendment, are we going to do that now
[1:25:11] or when it's called?
[1:25:12] >> Uh now. So well, it's called now and
[1:25:14] then so we'll go get into our hearings,
[1:25:16] but first we need the amendment. The
[1:25:17] assessor waves there 45 days. Okay.
[1:25:19] >> And then we'll we'll decide which Yeah.
[1:25:23] >> Would you stand up again and explain to
[1:25:25] me the reason why you're requesting the
[1:25:27] date the uh application be changed?
[1:25:30] >> Of course. Um the process has been a
[1:25:33] little confusing for me. So initially I
[1:25:37] was working with assessor.
[1:25:38] >> Well, if you could just I'm so sorry for
[1:25:40] interrupting. Um just tell me why you
[1:25:43] want to amend to change the dates of
[1:25:46] value. Why?
[1:25:48] >> So the I've already been working with
[1:25:51] the censor's office presented.
[1:25:54] are grounded around the date that I was
[1:25:58] already
[1:25:59] I had a qualifying for on the day of transfer.
[1:26:04] >> Okay. So, you're you're saying the date
[1:26:06] of transfer is different that was on the
[1:26:08] application. Is that what you're saying?
[1:26:10] Okay. And would you mind repeating what
[1:26:12] was the date on the application that you
[1:26:14] put?
[1:26:15] >> It was in 202
[1:26:17] >> somewhere around 2025. and and you feel
[1:26:20] that the uh date should correctly be
[1:26:24] what again please
[1:26:26] >> the date of transfer
[1:26:27] >> which was
[1:26:28] >> which is June the 8th 2000
[1:26:31] >> June the 8th 2023
[1:26:34] >> yes
[1:26:36] >> now this application um was this filed
[1:26:41] timely for June 8th 2023
[1:26:45] >> so this was filed timely for the July
[1:26:50] 16th, 2025 change in ownership. Um,
[1:26:55] however,
[1:26:56] the date they're requesting an amendment
[1:26:59] to is still within the four-year. Um,
[1:27:02] >> it's within the four years and it would
[1:27:04] be would it be prospective relief then?
[1:27:07] So this would be um
[1:27:12] it would be prospective
[1:27:14] as of the the new supplemental that was
[1:27:17] issued for
[1:27:20] um for July 16, 2025.
[1:27:23] >> Oh, okay. Um so
[1:27:27] just he didn't file did he he didn't
[1:27:30] file on the supplemental for the June
[1:27:32] 8th, 2023 event.
[1:27:34] >> Correct.
[1:27:34] >> Did not file. did not file and it filed
[1:27:37] during a July 16th, 2025 event,
[1:27:42] but the June 8th date is still within
[1:27:44] the four years.
[1:27:46] >> Okay, thank you. Okay, let me check with
[1:27:49] the assessor before I make a ruling on
[1:27:51] this amend request for amendment. Okay,
[1:27:55] >> to the assessor,
[1:27:59] » um
[1:28:01] is correct. Um we're okay with the
[1:28:03] amendment. tell them we're ready to go
[1:28:04] forward. It's a basically a Prop 19 and
[1:28:06] a primary residence um hearing.
[1:28:10] >> Mhm. [clears throat]
[1:28:10] >> And we're ready to go forward with it
[1:28:12] and not prolong the hearing basically.
[1:28:14] >> Okay.
[1:28:15] >> Process.
[1:28:16] >> And you're willing to wave the 45 days?
[1:28:19] >> Yes.
[1:28:20] >> Uh okay. All right. Um then um this
[1:28:24] application uh the order is is that the
[1:28:26] application shall be amended and the
[1:28:29] date of value shall be June 8th, 2023.
[1:28:33] >> Okay. And I'll just restate for the
[1:28:34] record to approve the amendment in
[1:28:36] section six to add the change in
[1:28:38] ownership date of June 8th, 2023 to
[1:28:41] boxes B1 and B2 and remove the change in
[1:28:44] ownership date of July 16th, 2025.
[1:28:47] >> Perfect. So ordered.
[1:28:53] » Okay. And then just a housekeeping item.
[1:28:56] Are we for the hearing today? Are we
[1:28:58] going just on the change in ownership?
[1:29:00] Oh, sorry. I'm talking to are we um
[1:29:03] going just on the change in ownership
[1:29:04] today and the valuation pending the
[1:29:07] decision on the change in ownership or
[1:29:09] are we hearing both?
[1:29:10] >> Well, it depends on if the assist is
[1:29:12] also ready. Right.
[1:29:14] >> Right. Yeah.
[1:29:16] >> Will you be ready for both?
[1:29:19] >> Um yes, we're ready for both.
[1:29:21] >> Okay. And um does the
[1:29:23] >> Absolutely.
[1:29:24] >> Joe Phillips with the assessor's office.
[1:29:28] uh we would request we bifrocate the
[1:29:30] issues. So we deal with the legal issues
[1:29:33] surrounding the change in ownership and
[1:29:35] then the second part would be the
[1:29:37] valuation pending the results of the um
[1:29:40] legal issues around.
[1:29:42] >> Okay, Mr. Phillips in spite of the fact
[1:29:44] that your office would be ready to go
[1:29:45] forward on the uh valuation depending on
[1:29:48] the decision.
[1:29:50] >> We would not be ready today on the
[1:29:51] valuation.
[1:29:52] >> I must
[1:29:55] okay fine. Thank you Mr. Phillips. Mr.
[1:29:57] Tro, are you okay with that? That
[1:29:59] today's discussion is just the legal
[1:30:02] portion of the change in ownership.
[1:30:04] Okay.
[1:30:05] >> Okay. And then um
[1:30:06] >> so we can bifurcate that now so we don't
[1:30:08] forget later.
[1:30:10] >> Right. So the amendment's been approved
[1:30:12] and now we're going to bifurcate
[1:30:14] uh the hearing on the valuation.
[1:30:18] [snorts]
[1:30:20] >> And for the valuation we have two dates
[1:30:22] available. We have uh October 26, 2026
[1:30:27] uh or February 22nd, 2027.
[1:30:30] >> October 26.
[1:30:32] >> And then well, it depends on how the
[1:30:33] assessor is feeling about that as well.
[1:30:37] >> We'd be the assessor would be okay with
[1:30:39] that. Yes.
[1:30:39] >> Okay. And you'll have to get uh I don't
[1:30:43] know if you have information as of
[1:30:44] October I mean June 8th, 2023
[1:30:48] from the applicant.
[1:30:50] >> Yeah, I don't know regarding valuation
[1:30:51] stuff.
[1:30:52] >> Okay. Okay.
[1:30:53] >> That we be probably requesting in that
[1:30:56] regard for
[1:30:56] >> Okay. And you need how many days to re
[1:30:59] in advance of the hearing?
[1:31:01] >> 30 days.
[1:31:01] All right. Okay. Um
[1:31:06] so that um it is ordered that this the
[1:31:10] uh valuation portion of this application
[1:31:14] uh shall be continued to October 26,
[1:31:18] 2026 with a date of value of June 8th,
[1:31:21] 2023
[1:31:23] uh with a 30-day proviso. Any questions
[1:31:27] about the proviso
[1:31:30] portion of this?
[1:31:31] >> Okay. And that shall be so ordered.
[1:31:35] >> Okay,
[1:31:37] we're all set. Would you like to go
[1:31:40] straight into the case or do you want to
[1:31:41] take a 10-minute recess?
[1:31:42] >> Yeah, let me just check with all the
[1:31:43] parties and see does does anybody would
[1:31:45] anyone like a break uh before we get
[1:31:48] started on the hearings? I'm asking the
[1:31:50] parties and the assessor
[1:31:52] and you.
[1:31:54] >> I'm I'm good to go.
[1:31:55] >> Okay.
[1:31:55] >> Quick question. 49. Is that removed?
[1:32:00] >> 49 was added to a gender review. We had
[1:32:02] a a stipulation to sign.
[1:32:06] >> Okay. To the applicant, would you like
[1:32:08] to take this short break before we start
[1:32:09] your hearing?
[1:32:11] >> I'm actually okay.
[1:32:13] >> You're okay.
[1:32:15] >> Okay. [laughter]
[1:32:17] >> I can I can ask that gentleman when
[1:32:18] we're done with your hearing if he wants
[1:32:20] a break. What about the assessor? Would
[1:32:22] you like a break before we get started?
[1:32:24] >> You want a break or I'm moving? Very
[1:32:26] well. Okay. Mike will be okay.
[1:32:27] >> Okay. Very fine.
[1:32:29] >> Okay. And um the clerk will tell you
[1:32:33] when to give up give your exhibits over.
[1:32:36] You can just wait just a moment more
[1:32:37] please to the applicant.
[1:32:40] >> Um maybe maybe 10 minutes is a good idea
[1:32:43] so we can set up the t we're going to
[1:32:45] the tables.
[1:32:46] >> Okay.
[1:32:46] >> Maybe 10 minutes is good.
[1:32:47] >> Okay. We're going to resume and what
[1:32:49] time is it?
[1:32:50] >> Uh it's 10:32. We can say
[1:32:56] » 10:42. Uh, we're going to start your
[1:32:58] hearing at 10:45.
[1:33:00] >> Okay.
[1:46:06] It's 10:45. We're back on the record. We
[1:46:09] have application number 2410576.
[1:46:13] Applicant AM to fly. Moving forward, uh
[1:46:18] this is a
[1:46:20] 2024
[1:46:22] uh January 1 decline in value
[1:46:25] application. And so just a little bit of
[1:46:28] procedural um this is a evaluation. So
[1:46:32] you have the burden of proof, you'll go
[1:46:34] first. Um the assessor will have an
[1:46:37] opportunity to ask questions about your
[1:46:39] presentation.
[1:46:40] Um if the burden of production has been
[1:46:43] met, then the assessor will provide
[1:46:45] their presentation. You'll have an
[1:46:47] opportunity to ask questions on their
[1:46:48] presentation. Then we'll go to closing
[1:46:52] remarks. And then you have the right to
[1:46:54] close the hearing since you have the the
[1:46:55] burden of proof.
[1:46:57] >> Okay.
[1:46:58] >> Any questions about the procedure?
[1:46:59] >> Uh no, it's clear as well.
[1:47:02] >> All right. Thank you very much.
[1:47:03] >> Okay. So, I've provided a copy of the
[1:47:05] application and the applicants exhibits
[1:47:08] uh 1 through 12.
[1:47:11] The first PowerPoint is uh exhibit 12
[1:47:14] and then she has them labeled after.
[1:47:16] >> Okay. Um before we start, I'd like to
[1:47:19] just ask the assessor to introduce the
[1:47:22] case for us by giving me the value on
[1:47:25] the role as of the date of this
[1:47:28] application.
[1:47:30] Um and um
[1:47:34] the physical characteristics of the
[1:47:36] property just the physical
[1:47:37] characteristics
[1:47:39] >> and um your what your opinion of value
[1:47:43] will be what you'll be testifying to
[1:47:45] today and then I'll come to you.
[1:47:48] >> All right. The enrolled value for this
[1:47:49] aircraft, excuse me, Michael Gillinger
[1:47:51] for the assessor's office. The enrolled
[1:47:53] value for this aircraft for the 2024 tax
[1:47:55] year is $457,800.
[1:47:58] This is a diamond DA40 aircraft. Uh it
[1:48:03] was purchased overseas and flown into
[1:48:05] the United States and improved and made
[1:48:07] um subject to the FAA's restrictions
[1:48:10] here and requirements here. Received an
[1:48:12] FAA flight certification airworthiness
[1:48:15] certificate. Um and all of those
[1:48:17] improvements occurred before the lean
[1:48:18] date 2024. Our opinion of value has not
[1:48:21] changed. Uh the processor supports an
[1:48:23] opinion of value of $457,800
[1:48:27] based on the R&T code 5362 which states
[1:48:30] we must assess the value at market
[1:48:32] value.
[1:48:32] >> Okay. Thank you.
[1:48:34] >> Um now do you agree with the physical
[1:48:37] characteristics of the aircraft that
[1:48:40] he's described just the physical
[1:48:43] characteristics?
[1:48:44] >> Uh couple of things. One is that the
[1:48:47] assessed value is based on the US value.
[1:48:50] >> Okay. And aside from the assessed value
[1:48:53] though, uh just the physical
[1:48:55] characteristics of the aircraft,
[1:48:58] um I want to make sure that we're on the
[1:49:01] same page as to what is a diamond
[1:49:03] aircraft in Austria.
[1:49:05] >> Uhhuh.
[1:49:05] >> And it was a 2016 aircraft.
[1:49:08] >> Okay. 2016. And that's what you have,
[1:49:10] correct?
[1:49:11] >> Yes, that's correct.
[1:49:12] >> Yeah. and it didn't have some of the
[1:49:13] requirements that flying in the US would
[1:49:15] require as well as some of the
[1:49:18] mechanical aspect that's not very good but I have to
[1:49:24] >> you'll get into that into your case and
[1:49:25] chief. Okay. And uh what value will you
[1:49:28] be testifying to today? What's your
[1:49:30] opinion of value?
[1:49:31] >> Um the the actual value that I bought it
[1:49:34] for which is 350,000
[1:49:38] >> in two 2023. Yes.
[1:49:43] Okay.
[1:49:49] Then um
[1:49:51] >> so I have a introduction file as well
[1:49:54] that I Yes. I plan to go through answer
[1:49:56] a lot.
[1:49:57] >> I would like you to ask ask you to go
[1:49:58] ahead and present your case and chief
[1:50:00] now.
[1:50:00] >> Okay. Thank you. Your honor, should I
[1:50:03] >> No, it's not necessary.
[1:50:04] >> All right. Thank you. Um well uh first
[1:50:07] of all I I have this print out and uh
[1:50:10] the first page shows this uh diamond
[1:50:12] from the desert and uh it's a diamond
[1:50:16] aircraft built in Austria. It's called
[1:50:19] diamond star some and I have it
[1:50:21] registered at 787 Yankee uh because I
[1:50:24] used to work at Boeing. I have 40 years
[1:50:27] in the aerospace industry. 20 years 20
[1:50:29] of those 40 years are with Boeing. And
[1:50:32] this particular aircraft was also the
[1:50:35] first one that is general aviation
[1:50:37] aircraft that has been electrified. So
[1:50:40] I'm currently in electric uh in
[1:50:43] electrifying business. I have a app to
[1:50:45] fly is to electrify these uh gas burning
[1:50:49] uh power plants. And so uh I bought the
[1:50:52] airplane fully intend to move into a
[1:50:55] sustainable aircraft. Um anyway, so it's
[1:50:58] from the desert because uh at the time I
[1:51:01] was looking up in the US uh market as
[1:51:03] well and uh so we can move on to the
[1:51:08] first chart where uh it's the value
[1:51:11] chart.
[1:51:13] Yeah, you can open that. Uh the value um
[1:51:17] I believe is global market and it is
[1:51:20] global market because when I was in
[1:51:21] Boeing we sell airplanes everywhere in
[1:51:23] the world you fly everywhere you see
[1:51:25] going airplanes and of course uh this
[1:51:27] airplane is from Austria as you can see
[1:51:30] in Camaro there's quite a few of them as
[1:51:32] well but not as many as out in the world
[1:51:35] out in Europe because this was
[1:51:38] relatively late comparing to sessuts and
[1:51:40] pipers and so on that are in the United
[1:51:42] States. Um and as we all know the market
[1:51:46] economy is such that you know it's a
[1:51:47] supply demand. So in the US there's not
[1:51:50] as many as in in Europe obviously and
[1:51:55] that pricing in the US is way higher
[1:51:58] than pricing in Europe. And in Middle
[1:52:00] East
[1:52:02] speaking of Middle East this was
[1:52:04] actually purchased not in Europe but in
[1:52:06] Doha Qar. So at least I paid for this
[1:52:09] airplane unlike our president who just
[1:52:11] got one for free. So the pricing over in
[1:52:14] the Middle East is also very different.
[1:52:17] Um while in the US this is done by a
[1:52:19] distributor and uh at the time I didn't
[1:52:22] get this from the United States because
[1:52:24] this was right after COVID and if I had
[1:52:27] got you I called this guy several times
[1:52:29] and they were saying after COVID there
[1:52:31] was a delay in the distribution of the
[1:52:33] new airplanes and so on and also in the
[1:52:36] used airplane there's the market is
[1:52:39] dwindling that was right after the coke.
[1:52:42] So, uh, the price of the used airplane
[1:52:44] will be almost like a new one. And I
[1:52:46] didn't want to spend all that money and
[1:52:48] buying a used airplane while still
[1:52:49] paying almost the same as a new
[1:52:51] airplane. So, I decided using my
[1:52:53] aerospace background because I have a
[1:52:55] network around the world. So, I t I
[1:52:58] checked the data myself and found this
[1:53:00] airplane from Qatar.
[1:53:03] And so, uh, today the assessed value for
[1:53:05] the 2627 bill is $410,200.
[1:53:09] And my appeal now is for current value
[1:53:12] of less than 350,000.
[1:53:15] Why? Because uh there's even appre
[1:53:17] depreciation since 2023. So that would
[1:53:19] get it down to 297,000
[1:53:22] today. So if we move on to the next
[1:53:25] chart,
[1:53:25] >> so we're looking at a data value as of
[1:53:29] January the 1st, 2024.
[1:53:32] >> Yeah, that will be a little closer to
[1:53:34] 350K because I have flown the airplane.
[1:53:36] I went to see the airplane in 2023
[1:53:40] >> and the whole purchasing uh the whole
[1:53:42] acquisition took from the January of
[1:53:44] 2023 to uh May June because I had to fly
[1:53:49] it back across the Atlantic. Uh and so I
[1:53:54] have the uh attachments uh or the
[1:53:56] exhibits. One is the application file
[1:53:59] actually this file and number two is a
[1:54:02] purchase agreement. These are in your
[1:54:04] >> They're in the the uh Yeah, the one
[1:54:06] that's under this one. Exactly. So,
[1:54:08] number one, number two, and then the
[1:54:10] closing document because uh when you pay
[1:54:12] so much money, you usually go through
[1:54:14] the title company, ESO company. So, I
[1:54:17] went through this uh esro company that's
[1:54:19] called air uh aerospace reports and
[1:54:22] that's based in Oklahoma. I believe it's
[1:54:24] a pretty common company because I sold
[1:54:26] my previous airplane also using that
[1:54:28] company. And uh before you buy an
[1:54:31] airplane, I'm an aerospace nerd.
[1:54:33] [laughter] So before you buy an
[1:54:34] airplane, you have to thoroughly check
[1:54:36] out the airplane and everything. So I
[1:54:37] actually made uh a couple trips to Doha
[1:54:40] before I bought it. And uh I managed to
[1:54:43] basically determine on that the day
[1:54:45] before uh Valentine's Day. So I call
[1:54:48] this my Valentine in 2017.
[1:54:50] >> What page are you pointing to there?
[1:54:52] >> Uh that's the next page.
[1:54:53] >> That's the next page. Okay.
[1:54:54] >> Yeah. So that's the airplane. You can
[1:54:56] see on the airplane the number there it
[1:54:57] still shows A7 A I believe.
[1:55:02] >> Uhhuh.
[1:55:02] >> So that's that belongs to the original
[1:55:04] owner
[1:55:05] >> and he's the first and only owner.
[1:55:07] >> Uhhuh.
[1:55:08] >> Um so the title of the airplane was
[1:55:10] transferred after that date. Uh and then
[1:55:14] also I received all the lock works to
[1:55:16] check out the airplane and I presented
[1:55:18] that as part of the uh evidence as well.
[1:55:21] Um but due to the fact that that it's
[1:55:23] going to be you know the a lot of books
[1:55:25] are three books this thick so I just
[1:55:27] presented the picture of book if you
[1:55:30] need anything that I can present but
[1:55:32] then every year I have to go through the
[1:55:34] service here so they have electronic
[1:55:35] copies of everything. Mhm. Um, so the
[1:55:39] next page if you flip over is this
[1:55:41] actual signage of the previous owner.
[1:55:45] Um, because the airplane was actually uh
[1:55:47] registered in Qatar just like Trump's
[1:55:50] airplane was originally there
[1:55:52] registered. So you have to change the
[1:55:54] whole registration as well as
[1:55:56] certification because in order to fly in
[1:55:59] Qatar is instead of FAA or YASA is the
[1:56:03] CAA the Qatar uh Qatari CAA that has to
[1:56:07] raise tax to certify that because unlike
[1:56:10] the car if you don't have the safety
[1:56:12] certification from the safety agencies
[1:56:15] you cannot even fly it's illegal to fly
[1:56:18] and uh and another thing is that because
[1:56:20] I do have to fly this airplane all the
[1:56:22] way back he gave me because he owns this
[1:56:24] flying club. So, he gave me uh one of
[1:56:26] those ID cards so I can go through all
[1:56:28] the securityities and everything uh
[1:56:30] without any issue in the Middle East. Um
[1:56:33] so, back in 2025, I submitted uh this
[1:56:37] appeal support letter that's now in the
[1:56:40] exhibit number six. And in this letter,
[1:56:43] I uh
[1:56:45] >> What page are you? What page is it?
[1:56:47] >> Uh this this page here. That's the next
[1:56:50] page.
[1:56:50] >> Uhhuh.
[1:56:51] >> Yeah. So in 2025 I submitted this in the
[1:56:55] system which is appeal support letter
[1:56:57] that outlines these four things. One is
[1:57:00] the global market based on supply and
[1:57:03] demand and so the cost I mean the
[1:57:05] pricing over in other parts of the world
[1:57:07] could be considerably lower or even free
[1:57:10] in the case for Trump. And then the
[1:57:13] second thing is that after I had the
[1:57:15] airplane, I bought the airplane with
[1:57:17] 350,000.
[1:57:18] I had to insure it to in order to fly
[1:57:20] across that that big ocean, right? And I
[1:57:23] wouldn't insure it for more than what
[1:57:26] it's worth, the value that I have paid,
[1:57:29] right? So when I insure that, it was
[1:57:31] based on 350,000. I have that as a uh
[1:57:34] attachment here. Uh so that's attachment
[1:57:38] number eight or uh exhibit number eight
[1:57:40] in that other package. Okay.
[1:57:42] >> Um, and also that insurance is very
[1:57:44] high. It's like $22,000
[1:57:48] just to fly across the ocean. And that
[1:57:50] is in comparison to flying in the US.
[1:57:54] The uh premium will be something like
[1:57:56] around a couple thousand dollars for me,
[1:57:57] for my age and for my experience. So, uh
[1:58:01] you got to be care
[1:58:03] what you ensure you know not more and
[1:58:06] not less, right? Mhm.
[1:58:07] >> Um and then the third item is the fact
[1:58:10] that the airplane because uh in the
[1:58:12] United States the airplanes are only
[1:58:14] required to have ADSB that's automatic
[1:58:17] broadcast system for whereabout you are
[1:58:19] using the GPS. So you're only uh
[1:58:21] supposed to have that since 2000 the
[1:58:24] year 2020
[1:58:26] and uh this airplane was made in 2016.
[1:58:30] So it didn't have that. Uh but you know
[1:58:33] uh you can file for special uh special
[1:58:36] flight permit in order to get it back
[1:58:38] because you know if I were to put it
[1:58:40] over there then that would be another
[1:58:42] cost and I have to get it certified and
[1:58:43] all that. So it doesn't have that. And
[1:58:46] also the turbocharger has uh some issue.
[1:58:49] It has a leak. I know that it did but
[1:58:51] it's not going to break or anything. And
[1:58:54] uh so all those things I could have them
[1:58:56] fixed uh either at the Austrian uh
[1:59:00] factory that where it came from on my
[1:59:02] way back or when I flew it all the way
[1:59:05] back to the United States. So that's
[1:59:07] item number three. And number four and
[1:59:10] the most important part is that it's not
[1:59:12] certified by FAA. It was certified by
[1:59:14] the CAA of uh Qatar. And um so on the
[1:59:19] bottom of this page, it specifies
[1:59:21] several things that are mentioned there.
[1:59:24] um from the support letter which was uh
[1:59:26] in the exhibit number six, ABSB system
[1:59:29] which I later on put in while I arrived
[1:59:31] in the United States uh which was uh
[1:59:34] 13,600 and turbocharger that has to be
[1:59:37] replaced um it was $12,000
[1:59:40] uh dollars and then the in insurance
[1:59:43] because the insurance I included that
[1:59:45] crossing Atlantic insurance as well as
[1:59:46] flying in the US and Canada. Um so the
[1:59:50] last part is the certification by an FAA
[1:59:53] uh they they call it D designated uh uh
[1:59:57] aviation representative or aerospace
[1:59:59] representative and so that's in
[2:00:02] attachment nine for exhibit number nine
[2:00:05] uh for the uh D and the D cost quite a
[2:00:08] bit because I had to fly him over to Qar
[2:00:12] to do the initial one and then
[2:00:14] afterwards I had to fly him over to
[2:00:16] California. So, uh, all those added up
[2:00:19] to be $18,000.
[2:00:22] >> Was that in the category of insurance?
[2:00:25] >> No, it's in the last category of
[2:00:27] certification by an FAA individual.
[2:00:30] >> Okay. I'm sorry.
[2:00:30] >> FAND individuals have to be the
[2:00:33] specified. I mean, they have to be
[2:00:34] recognized and certified by the FAA. So,
[2:00:37] they have to have their expertise
[2:00:39] recognized by the FAA. Not just anybody
[2:00:41] can do that. Initially I had to do
[2:00:44] research to is to see if I could get a
[2:00:46] FAA designated certain in Europe to do
[2:00:48] it and in the end it's just not
[2:00:50] worthwhile. I mean you know it's the
[2:00:53] cost everything balance out. So so it's
[2:00:56] uh uh designated by the FAA.
[2:00:58] >> Um
[2:00:59] >> so that was attachment. In the next page
[2:01:04] you will see that uh arrow is what
[2:01:07] pilots
[2:01:08] know that you know when you fly the
[2:01:10] airplane the arrow are the five senses
[2:01:13] of memory for what you need in the
[2:01:15] airplane. Airworthiness registration
[2:01:19] radio station license operating manual
[2:01:22] and weight and balance. So the operating
[2:01:24] manual weight and balance is part of the
[2:01:26] airplane uh system. So that I won't
[2:01:29] mention because it comes when I bought
[2:01:31] airplane they give me that but the
[2:01:33] airworthiness is what uh that's required
[2:01:36] and if I'm going to fly the airplane
[2:01:38] around halfway around the world I need
[2:01:40] to have airworthiness that's enough to take me all around the world because
[2:01:44] uh with the Qatari uh registration it's
[2:01:47] kind of difficult but with the US that's
[2:01:49] why I had to fly this guy over there
[2:01:51] because to get a US registration and
[2:01:53] certification then uh it's recognized
[2:01:56] around the world because US capital
[2:01:58] afterward is the leader of aerospace
[2:02:00] still.
[2:02:01] >> Uh registration uh so I just mentioned
[2:02:03] as well. So I needed to get the
[2:02:05] registration from the United States that
[2:02:07] starts with N number uh N uh 787 Sierra
[2:02:11] Yankees. Sierra Yankees are my initial.
[2:02:14] Um and 787 because I used to work on the
[2:02:17] Dreamliner in the Boeing company. Um so
[2:02:20] all these things are unique. And then
[2:02:22] the next page shows you the fact that I
[2:02:24] actually hand carry the the numbers end
[2:02:27] numbers over there. So the airplane has
[2:02:29] changed from the A7 T8 to N7 CR Yankee
[2:02:34] uh until the next page if you see that and of course the insurance
[2:02:38] is shown in attachment states.
[2:02:41] And another one that um I don't know how
[2:02:43] many here, maybe Michael knows, is uh
[2:02:46] what's needed for the radio station
[2:02:48] license. And in the US, we no longer
[2:02:50] need to do that. Uh that's uh authorized
[2:02:53] by FCC, but uh in the rest of the world,
[2:02:57] most of the rest of the world, you still
[2:02:59] need that. So I had to apply for that as
[2:03:01] well. Uh the FCC, that's a different
[2:03:04] thing. So overall um you can see that
[2:03:09] [clears throat] I well I actually took
[2:03:11] this flight and so this is uh the next
[2:03:14] page is a actual flight path all the way
[2:03:17] from Qatar um to crossing the Atlantic.
[2:03:22] But that first part the green the green
[2:03:24] line was my original plan namely I was
[2:03:27] going to go through the Austria uh
[2:03:29] factory
[2:03:30] >> but then the weather did not cooperate.
[2:03:33] So in the end I wound up going to Egypt
[2:03:36] and Greece and Italy and and so on you
[2:03:39] know went all the way around. Um so the
[2:03:43] airplane uh actually was safe in order
[2:03:46] to go around and also I had a temporary
[2:03:49] certification namely it's safe to go
[2:03:51] around but then it's not a permanent one
[2:03:53] that will require much detailed uh uh
[2:03:57] other uh certification tasks and so I
[2:04:00] plan to have that done in California
[2:04:02] once it's here and uh so overall the
[2:04:05] trip summary I have provided also all
[2:04:08] the uh receipts all the loss files
[2:04:12] of the flight from Doha to Oxford.
[2:04:15] That's like the first half uh first one
[2:04:17] third. And so that was uh because I have
[2:04:22] a network of a lot of people that I know
[2:04:24] from around the world. So in Oxford, we
[2:04:27] were able to rent a hanger there to park
[2:04:29] the airplane for uh about almost a
[2:04:31] month. Uh at first I didn't know I was
[2:04:33] going to be there for almost a month but
[2:04:35] uh because the weather uh across the
[2:04:38] Iceland and Greenland you know uh this
[2:04:41] was May time frame. Imagine I got the
[2:04:43] airplane in uh Valentine's Day in
[2:04:46] February and then March and so this is
[2:04:48] already in May. Uh the the icing
[2:04:51] condition is still down to the ground.
[2:04:52] So you want to wait until it's at least
[2:04:55] not icing you know up to a few thousand
[2:04:57] feet above the ground. And so uh waited
[2:05:00] there for a bit and then flew from
[2:05:02] Oxford to uh Montreal, Canada. Uh that's
[2:05:06] St. Cubber uh that that CYU
[2:05:10] airport and then from Montreal to uh
[2:05:13] Camaro. So altogether almost 10,000
[2:05:16] nautical miles and uh 75 hours of total
[2:05:19] flight time for that little airport.
[2:05:23] So then this last one is just a picture
[2:05:26] when I was in Oxford. Uh had that
[2:05:28] picture taken.
[2:05:30] But uh really I think the main thing is
[2:05:32] in the value of this airplane. Uh and I
[2:05:35] do not argue that if we try to look up
[2:05:38] the value of a used airplane first of
[2:05:41] all they have to be available and
[2:05:42] secondly if it's also a monopoly. By the
[2:05:45] way this monopoly is a lifestyle or
[2:05:47] whatever. Just about everybody I call
[2:05:50] from controller, from trader plane,
[2:05:51] whatever, it always wind up to to this
[2:05:54] guy. It's really a monopoly,
[2:05:56] >> the seller
[2:05:58] >> uh distributor.
[2:05:59] >> Oh,
[2:06:00] >> yeah. And uh so so in the US you will if
[2:06:06] you look up or whatever you will get
[2:06:07] that value. However, if you go around
[2:06:09] the world, you can get much better deal.
[2:06:12] And so the market is really a supply
[2:06:13] demand. However, when you bring in, you
[2:06:16] do have to, you know, you have your cost
[2:06:18] of shipment, you have your cost of
[2:06:20] registration, you have your cost of all
[2:06:21] that, but that's not a sale value.
[2:06:23] That's value that you have to put in the
[2:06:25] airplane. I mean, a airplane owner has
[2:06:27] to spend on maintenance, m on all kinds
[2:06:31] of things, right? But that's just part
[2:06:33] of flying. That's not part of the sale
[2:06:35] of the airplane.
[2:06:37] So the value what I I really uh think it
[2:06:41] should be less than 350K
[2:06:43] of the 350K back in 2023. So now it will
[2:06:46] be much less than that. I mean 15%
[2:06:49] depreciation or whatever it's like 290
[2:06:52] something.
[2:06:52] >> So what what do you think the value is
[2:06:55] as of the date of value? January the 1st
[2:06:58] 2024.
[2:06:59] >> Uh 350. Okay.
[2:07:01] >> 350.
[2:07:01] >> Yeah.
[2:07:02] >> That's our data value.
[2:07:03] >> Yeah. That's already if you believe of
[2:07:06] depreciation a little bit for one year
[2:07:08] it should be less than that
[2:07:12] >> because I got it in February March of uh
[2:07:14] 2023.
[2:07:16] >> Yeah.
[2:07:16] >> Okay. Um is there any other evidence
[2:07:19] you'd like to present for your case and
[2:07:21] chief?
[2:07:22] >> Um well the airplane is just down in
[2:07:26] that airport. If anybody wants to take a
[2:07:28] look and all the paperwork and
[2:07:29] everything I'm happy to
[2:07:32] show. Oh, I've got lots of pictures,
[2:07:34] lots of rubies, and even the maintenance
[2:07:37] because the maintenance is done by uh
[2:07:39] Long Beach uh diamond facility.
[2:07:41] >> Okay.
[2:07:42] I think we'll give the assessor
[2:07:44] opportunity to ask you questions now.
[2:07:46] >> Sure.
[2:07:46] >> All right. Okay. To the assessor, thank
[2:07:48] you.
[2:07:49] >> You have cross examination.
[2:07:50] >> I do have a few questions. Um you said
[2:07:52] that your opinion of value is 350,000.
[2:07:55] Um is that because that's the sale price
[2:07:57] of the aircraft that you paid the sheet
[2:07:59] of guitar? Well, so the value of
[2:08:03] something is uh interesting. Yes, that's
[2:08:07] the value because at the time because in
[2:08:10] fact when I the airplane uh was found by
[2:08:15] a colleague, he noticed that airplane
[2:08:17] was not being flown uh at that airport.
[2:08:20] And so he asked and found out that
[2:08:22] airplane belongs to a sheep. He used
[2:08:24] that airplane to learn how to fly. And
[2:08:26] then I said, "Oh, well, he's not flying.
[2:08:28] Maybe he wants to sell it." So anyhow,
[2:08:30] they went to ask the the sheep uh if he
[2:08:34] wants to sell it. The next thing the
[2:08:35] sheep came back to me and says, "How
[2:08:37] much does she want to pay for it?"
[2:08:40] >> So that's the value I paid.
[2:08:42] >> I see that from the uh aerospace reports
[2:08:44] showing your escrow account. Yeah,
[2:08:46] >> you paid 350,000 to the sheet, but you
[2:08:48] paid 356,000 in total for the aircraft.
[2:08:51] So your value is not what you paid out.
[2:08:53] It's only what the cash seller received.
[2:08:55] That's your opinion of value. Yeah,
[2:08:57] because the 10K was for my friend who
[2:08:59] helped with all that.
[2:09:00] >> So even on costs that are on the same
[2:09:02] page as part of your escro closing
[2:09:04] statement.
[2:09:05] >> Yeah.
[2:09:05] >> You paying 356,000. That's not the value
[2:09:08] according to you.
[2:09:09] >> It's only the amount that goes to a
[2:09:10] seller.
[2:09:11] >> Exactly.
[2:09:12] >> Okay. That's not what California state
[2:09:14] law applies, but I appreciate you
[2:09:15] answering that. Um, as you purchased
[2:09:17] this aircraft in Qatar, you said it's
[2:09:18] not legal to fly in the US in the
[2:09:20] condition you purchased it in. Correct.
[2:09:22] >> Correct.
[2:09:22] >> Thank you. Um, you mentioned the aero
[2:09:25] components. Uh those components add
[2:09:26] value to a purchased aircraft, don't
[2:09:29] they? If you were to get airworthiness
[2:09:31] certificates, if you were to get
[2:09:34] registration in the United States, if
[2:09:35] you were to get the other components,
[2:09:36] adding those components does add value
[2:09:38] to the aircraft or not.
[2:09:39] >> No, the value of the aircraft is just
[2:09:43] the value of this is is the the glasses
[2:09:47] are the value of glasses. But what's it
[2:09:50] worth to you? Maybe at least last it's
[2:09:52] not worth but you know
[2:09:54] >> we're going to come back to that issue
[2:09:55] of worth. I appreciate you raising that.
[2:09:57] Thank you.
[2:09:58] >> Uh the radio license that you mentioned
[2:10:00] you said it's not needed in the US.
[2:10:02] >> No.
[2:10:02] >> So how would that be relevant to our
[2:10:04] valuation process today?
[2:10:06] >> Uh well you paid for radio
[2:10:08] >> license. That one was really not so not
[2:10:11] so important because I I just included
[2:10:14] because I had a whole arrow in there.
[2:10:16] Yeah. So, you have a lot of costs that
[2:10:17] you you spent uh certainly to get the
[2:10:19] aircraft purchased and get it here and
[2:10:22] to get it legal in the United States.
[2:10:23] There's no doubt about that. There was a
[2:10:24] lot of costs involved.
[2:10:26] Um you'd mentioned that you did submit
[2:10:28] all of the receipts from the ferry
[2:10:29] flights and I just want to go on the
[2:10:30] record and say that there were some that
[2:10:32] we did not receive, but you had
[2:10:33] estimated in your email that it was
[2:10:34] about 40,000 in total for the ferry
[2:10:36] flight
[2:10:38] >> portion. Does that sound accurate?
[2:10:39] >> Yeah, I'm happy to submit those. I mean,
[2:10:42] >> that's fine. They aren't really
[2:10:43] necessary because we are not using a
[2:10:44] cost method in our evaluation.
[2:10:45] >> Right. But that's just showing that but
[2:10:47] that's not the value of the airplane.
[2:10:49] The value of
[2:10:51] >> Yeah. You had also mentioned that um you
[2:10:54] had difficulty in purchasing because
[2:10:55] there's a monopoly uh for the
[2:10:57] distributor and that that also applied
[2:10:59] to used planes. Is that correct?
[2:11:01] >> Used diamond.
[2:11:02] >> Okay. So now that you own a diamond
[2:11:04] aircraft, are you able to sell your
[2:11:05] aircraft?
[2:11:06] >> Uh I don't want to sell it.
[2:11:07] >> That's not the question. Well,
[2:11:09] >> would you be able to sell it if you
[2:11:10] wanted to or would you have to get it to
[2:11:12] this distributor so that he could sell
[2:11:13] it for you?
[2:11:14] >> That's a very interesting question
[2:11:15] because as soon as I own this airplane,
[2:11:17] guess what? I'm receiving emails all the
[2:11:19] time from this guy.
[2:11:20] >> He wants to buy it, I bet.
[2:11:21] >> Yeah. Well, he always asks, he says,
[2:11:23] "Oh, would you be ready to sell this? I
[2:11:25] can find you some, you know, I I bet the
[2:11:28] other diamond owners also get the same
[2:11:30] thing."
[2:11:30] >> Yeah. Because in the end, I was like on
[2:11:32] firstname basis with this guy.
[2:11:34] [laughter] Are you able to sell the
[2:11:35] aircraft yourself though or do you have
[2:11:36] to sell it to him so he can sell it
[2:11:38] later?
[2:11:38] >> I can sell it myself.
[2:11:39] >> So when you were buying aircraft, there
[2:11:40] were probably other diamond owners that
[2:11:42] could sell the aircraft directly. You
[2:11:44] found most results going back to this
[2:11:46] one individual. You said
[2:11:47] >> uh I found every number I call every
[2:11:49] time because at the time there was not
[2:11:51] that many. There was 19 uh 2023 and 22
[2:11:55] we had just come out of COVID.
[2:11:57] >> Uh and so I every honest to god everyone
[2:12:00] that I called it was the same thing. you
[2:12:03] know, they somehow it just transferred
[2:12:05] to this other guy. Even when I call the
[2:12:07] diamond uh the diamond manufacturer over
[2:12:10] in Austria u because I know the chief
[2:12:13] sales, Miss W. So, she says, "Oh, I
[2:12:17] could get you this and that, but you've
[2:12:18] got to call this guy in the US. Call
[2:12:20] this guy in Canada." And I said, "Oh, I bet you I know who that is." So, they
[2:12:26] really try to monopolize by getting the
[2:12:28] distributors. But you're not required to
[2:12:30] sell it to anybody other than whoever
[2:12:32] you want to finally sell the aircraft to
[2:12:34] when you decide to sell.
[2:12:36] >> You're not required to sell it to them.
[2:12:37] >> It's a free country. I can sell it
[2:12:38] anyway I want.
[2:12:39] >> Okay. Thank you.
[2:12:40] >> Mouth or something.
[2:12:40] >> The answer I was looking for.
[2:12:42] >> But because it was a rare thing, you
[2:12:44] know, at the time I think there was only
[2:12:46] like less than less than a handful you
[2:12:50] could count on the internet.
[2:12:52] >> One last question I have. Wouldn't if
[2:12:53] you were to decide to to sell this
[2:12:55] aircraft here, would you sell it for the
[2:12:57] same price you bought it for in Doha?
[2:13:00] >> No.
[2:13:01] >> Like it won't be it won't be worth that
[2:13:02] much.
[2:13:03] >> It wouldn't be worth that much. It'd be
[2:13:04] worth less than 350,000.
[2:13:06] >> Yeah. I'm I'm going to put on a lot of
[2:13:08] hours on it, first of all. Yeah. And I
[2:13:12] may not want to sell it here. I may sell
[2:13:13] it to somebody in another country, but
[2:13:16] uh I don't want to sell it.
[2:13:17] >> Would it have as much value in Dohas
[2:13:19] with all the equipment that's on it
[2:13:20] that's not needed?
[2:13:21] >> No, they don't need it there.
[2:13:22] >> Right. Right?
[2:13:22] >> They don't need the equipment that
[2:13:24] you've added to it.
[2:13:24] >> Right?
[2:13:25] >> Okay.
[2:13:26] >> So, you know, buy and sell is totally a
[2:13:28] supply and demand thing. You know, you
[2:13:30] have a whole curve like that. And in the
[2:13:32] US, you happen to have more uh, you
[2:13:35] know, demand than supply at the time
[2:13:38] that I was five or even now possibly. I
[2:13:40] don't know.
[2:13:42] >> Thank you. I have no further questions.
[2:13:44] >> Okay. Um,
[2:13:47] so how did you determine the price that
[2:13:49] you offered for it?
[2:13:52] >> Um, well the at the time the brand new
[2:13:55] meal was uh 600 and something and they
[2:13:59] wanted to have the the distributor they
[2:14:02] wanted to have 600 something namely a
[2:14:04] difference of like uh you know maybe 10
[2:14:07] 20,000. I said I don't want to buy used
[2:14:10] airplane that's almost the same as a
[2:14:12] brand new airplane. Well, I'm trying to
[2:14:15] use the sales car analogy, but of
[2:14:17] course, it's not a, you know, a used
[2:14:19] car. And uh so I so I that's why I tried
[2:14:23] and tried to find it myself. I looked
[2:14:26] up, you know, in Canada and uh Mexico,
[2:14:29] there's not that many in Mexico. So I uh
[2:14:32] was able to access the database and find
[2:14:34] a lot of overseas.
[2:14:36] >> Uhhuh.
[2:14:37] And even though even though the uh the
[2:14:39] overseas uh the the Taiwan was not even
[2:14:42] on the map because I found that because
[2:14:45] of my friend who happened to be working
[2:14:47] at the time for for another sheep
[2:14:50] >> in the airport. So then on your list of
[2:14:54] um sales that you used um how did you
[2:14:59] determine that the one that is the
[2:15:02] subject of this appeal that's closest to
[2:15:06] I'm sure you had a variety of sale
[2:15:08] prices, right?
[2:15:09] >> Yeah. How did you
[2:15:10] >> It's not only the pricing, it's what you
[2:15:12] have on the airplane, right?
[2:15:14] >> So this particular airplane has a wing
[2:15:16] left. You can see it's the Oh, it's
[2:15:19] hidden here, but it's Oh, maybe this
[2:15:21] one. You can see it's got the winglet
[2:15:24] >> and uh it's very efficient. There's
[2:15:27] only, you know, for a regular cruise,
[2:15:29] it's only 5 gallon per hour.
[2:15:31] >> Imagine that. Five gallon per hour.
[2:15:33] >> So, the ones that you were looking at,
[2:15:35] were they advertising these different
[2:15:37] components? No idea because I know
[2:15:40] >> you had to call and ask when you were
[2:15:42] comparing determining this price.
[2:15:45] >> Did you make some calls to find out what
[2:15:47] the other
[2:15:48] >> I made some calls? But I know these
[2:15:49] airplanes. This is a very particular
[2:15:51] airplane. Not only that it's got
[2:15:53] winglets. It's very efficient long wing
[2:15:55] >> and it also has a FedEx that's a full
[2:15:59] authority something you know fully
[2:16:00] automated you know. So it's like flying
[2:16:02] a jet. Uh-huh.
[2:16:04] >> Uh so it's uh you don't have to use the
[2:16:07] fuel air mixture ratio and things like
[2:16:10] that to fly. And so once when I flew to
[2:16:13] uh Las Vegas,
[2:16:15] >> I taxi side by side with another jet.
[2:16:18] The jet went in and refill also from LA
[2:16:21] refill for like you know few hundred
[2:16:23] dollars. I refill for you know less than
[2:16:26] 100. It was only like 12 gallons.
[2:16:28] >> Okay. Okay. Um All right. Um, I'm going
[2:16:34] to um make a ruling right now that you
[2:16:37] have met your burden of production on
[2:16:40] this case. And so now the assessor, it's
[2:16:42] your opportunity to present your case
[2:16:44] and chief.
[2:16:45] >> Thank you.
[2:16:53] » Maybe second.
[2:16:56] So we have exhibits A through D.
[2:17:09] We'll mostly be working with the exhibit
[2:17:11] A as the narrative. Exhibit B is
[2:17:13] provided for legal references from your
[2:17:15] review if you need them. Exhibit C and D
[2:17:18] will be used to use source documents on
[2:17:20] occasion, but mainly exhibit A is what
[2:17:22] we'll be using.
[2:17:23] >> Okay. Thank you.
[2:17:28] » Would you proceed please?
[2:17:29] >> Yes.
[2:17:31] Aircraft assessments are made at fair
[2:17:33] market value on the lean date, not cash
[2:17:35] purchase price. The applicant's opinion
[2:17:37] of value is limited to only the cash
[2:17:39] sale price received by the seller of the
[2:17:40] aircraft. Generally, this value is used
[2:17:43] when calculating a onetime sales tax or
[2:17:45] use tax. R&T code sections 5362 states
[2:17:50] simply the assessor of the county in
[2:17:51] which the aircraft is habidually
[2:17:52] situated shall assess the aircraft at
[2:17:54] its market value. R&T code section 1110
[2:17:58] defines market value as an armslength
[2:18:00] transaction and reads in part full cash
[2:18:02] value or fair market value means the
[2:18:04] amount of cash or its equivalent that
[2:18:06] property would bring if exposed for sale
[2:18:08] in the open market under conditions in
[2:18:09] which neither buyer nor seller could
[2:18:11] take advantage of the exigencies of the other. and both the
[2:18:15] buyer and seller have knowledge of all
[2:18:17] of the uses and purposes to which the
[2:18:18] property is adapted and for which it is
[2:18:20] capable of being used and of the
[2:18:22] enforceable restrictions upon those uses
[2:18:24] and purposes.
[2:18:27] R&T code section 5364 further directs
[2:18:30] the board of equalization to establish
[2:18:32] standards and select a commercially
[2:18:33] available guide to be used by county
[2:18:35] assessors in the assessment of aircraft
[2:18:37] at market value. The BOE issued letters
[2:18:40] to assessor or known as LTA's number
[2:18:43] 97-303
[2:18:45] in January of 1997 selecting the
[2:18:47] aircraft bluebook price guide as the
[2:18:49] primary guide for valuing general
[2:18:51] aircraft in California. This LTA also
[2:18:54] directed county assessors to discount
[2:18:55] the listed retail value by 10% to
[2:18:58] provide reasonable estimates of fair
[2:19:00] market value for aircraft in truly
[2:19:02] average condition on the lean date.
[2:19:04] The assessor received a timely filed um
[2:19:07] aircraft property statement 2024 lean
[2:19:09] date. If you would open up exhibit D to
[2:19:12] page two.
[2:19:20] » Did you say D?
[2:19:21] >> D. It's behind scene. There's only a
[2:19:22] couple pages.
[2:19:23] >> Oh,
[2:19:28] » page two is the first page of the
[2:19:29] aircraft property statement filed for
[2:19:31] 2024. The filing reported that the
[2:19:33] aircraft was in average condition as you
[2:19:35] can see by the circled area there. Had
[2:19:37] no damage history and reported no
[2:19:39] avionics had been added. One interesting
[2:19:41] note as I was viewing this account, if
[2:19:43] you look at the damage history circle
[2:19:44] and go up about an inch, the reported
[2:19:46] purchase price on this form was 250,000.
[2:19:49] That may have just been a typo, but uh
[2:19:51] it's not the value that we used to value
[2:19:53] this account either because we're not
[2:19:55] using sale price as the basis for our
[2:19:57] valuation.
[2:19:59] On the next page, the filing also
[2:20:00] reported the airframe hours as of the
[2:20:02] lean date 1124.
[2:20:06] This APS filing information was used to
[2:20:08] generate an appraisal value from the
[2:20:10] aircraft bluebook price guide tool. If
[2:20:12] you turn the page one more time on
[2:20:13] exhibit D to page four, you'll see an
[2:20:15] example of the result of that aircraft
[2:20:18] blue book valuation price.
[2:20:21] You'll notice in the top box that there
[2:20:22] is a reduction of 10% as requested by
[2:20:25] the state board of equalization. You'll
[2:20:27] also notice that there are airframe
[2:20:29] hours and engine hour adjustments based
[2:20:30] on the number provided in the property
[2:20:32] statement. And that finally sales tax is
[2:20:34] an element of value that is added to the
[2:20:36] market valuation uh conclusion that's
[2:20:38] received using this price guide tool.
[2:20:44] Moving to page five of the narrative.
[2:20:48] The 2024 appraisal also includes the
[2:20:49] sales tax component as required by California law. Property tax
[2:20:54] rule 10 establishes that sales and use
[2:20:56] tax are included in full economic costs.
[2:20:58] There is no indication from evidence
[2:21:00] provided by the applicant that sales or
[2:21:02] use tax was paid on the purchase of the
[2:21:04] aircraft. It is likely that the aircraft
[2:21:06] met the requirements of the sales and
[2:21:08] use tax law to be exempt from that tax
[2:21:10] leaving. BOE annotation 1000.005
[2:21:15] from September of 2021 addresses that
[2:21:17] circumstance. Quoting from the document,
[2:21:20] thus even though the sp the board's
[2:21:22] sales and use tax division may have
[2:21:24] granted an exemption from sales or use
[2:21:26] tax on the sale or purchase of the
[2:21:27] aircraft pursuant to the pro provisions
[2:21:29] of the sales and use tax law which the
[2:21:31] board administers for property tax
[2:21:34] assessment purposes. If the sales or use
[2:21:36] tax is applicable to similar consumers
[2:21:38] using the aircraft at a similar trade
[2:21:39] level, sales and use tax is included in
[2:21:42] the assessment even when not paid at the
[2:21:43] time of purchase.
[2:21:47] The assessor also considered a cost
[2:21:49] approach to value. The applicant
[2:21:52] provided documentation during the appeal
[2:21:53] of several expenses she incurred in
[2:21:55] transporting her plane to Camaro after
[2:21:56] purchase. The assessor examined these
[2:21:58] costs to determine if an estimate of
[2:22:00] value could be determined to use the
[2:22:02] cost approach to value. The assessor
[2:22:04] followed the guidance of case law which
[2:22:06] states the cost of any asset includes
[2:22:08] purchase price, sales tax, brokerage
[2:22:10] commissions, duties, transportation, and
[2:22:12] all costs of placing an asset in a
[2:22:14] condition for use.
[2:22:16] As case law indicates, all costs of
[2:22:18] transporting and proving the aircraft
[2:22:19] are considered necessary to quote place
[2:22:22] the asset in a condition for use at the
[2:22:24] location the applicant plan to keep the
[2:22:25] aircraft.
[2:22:28] Using the invoices provided by the
[2:22:30] applicant, which if you'd like to refer
[2:22:31] to them are in exhibit C, pages 3
[2:22:33] through 19. Many of them are provided in
[2:22:35] the applicants presentation. The
[2:22:39] assessor reached an incomplete cost
[2:22:40] valuation total that was within 1.5% of
[2:22:43] the standard market value approach. The
[2:22:46] analysis was incomplete due to several
[2:22:47] costs that were not reported such as the
[2:22:49] fuel used and the ferry pilot wages for
[2:22:51] the three pilots listed on the insurance
[2:22:53] coverage for the ferry trip. The
[2:22:55] incomplete cost information rendered the
[2:22:56] result unreliable. If all costs had been
[2:22:59] reported, the cost approach value result
[2:23:01] would likely have exceeded the standard
[2:23:02] market value approach conclusion. on the
[2:23:05] 722 email that is in packet C uh
[2:23:07] provided by the applicant. She estimated
[2:23:09] those costs at $40,000.
[2:23:12] If you turn the page from the appraisal
[2:23:13] in exhibit D, that is the cost approach
[2:23:16] worksheet that was prepared.
[2:23:20] Excuse me. the uh incomplete cost
[2:23:22] approach without all of the receipts
[2:23:24] that were incurred um that the
[2:23:27] assessments office is aware of but did
[2:23:29] not receive information for had the
[2:23:31] result at a $7,000 difference or 1.5% of
[2:23:34] value. If 40,000 or so more document
[2:23:38] documented expenses were included
[2:23:39] obviously the cost approach would be
[2:23:40] much higher than market approach. Um
[2:23:44] going to page six of our narrative
[2:23:48] guidelines from the BOE is clear on the
[2:23:50] preferred method of aircraft valuation.
[2:23:53] This is also taken from the annotation
[2:23:55] 1.00.005.
[2:23:58] While the cost and income approaches are
[2:23:59] part of the appraisal process and each
[2:24:01] may contribute to the value conclusion,
[2:24:03] the market approach to value is by far
[2:24:05] the most reliable in the valuation of
[2:24:06] general aircraft. The market approach
[2:24:09] involves an analysis of sales listings,
[2:24:10] offerings, opinions, and published
[2:24:12] market guides of comparable aircraft or
[2:24:15] of the subject aircraft. Such data give
[2:24:17] an indication of what people in general
[2:24:19] are willing to pay for a particular
[2:24:20] model of aircraft at a certain time. The
[2:24:23] cost approach is used mostly with new
[2:24:24] aircraft that have list prices but no
[2:24:26] history of sales. The appraiser assumes
[2:24:28] that the cost and value are the same in
[2:24:29] the circumstance. Cost should be
[2:24:31] understood to include the cash selling
[2:24:33] price, sales tax, and any delivery
[2:24:35] charges.
[2:24:37] Even if all the costs were known, the
[2:24:38] cost approach would still not be the
[2:24:39] most accurate measure of market value
[2:24:41] for an aircraft model that has 10 years
[2:24:43] of sales history. When the subject
[2:24:44] assessment was made,
[2:24:48] the aircraft configuration when
[2:24:49] purchased in Qatar was not legal to be
[2:24:51] used in flight in the United States. The
[2:24:53] aircraft was modified and improved to be
[2:24:56] certified by the FAA for use within the
[2:24:57] United States. The changes made to the
[2:25:00] aircraft, all prior to lean date 1124,
[2:25:03] brought the aircraft up to the standard
[2:25:05] of the average aircraft listed in the
[2:25:06] aircraft bluebook price guide. The
[2:25:09] aircraft was valued as part of the North
[2:25:10] American market for general aviation
[2:25:12] because of its current location and
[2:25:14] equipment configuration.
[2:25:16] The assessor followed California state
[2:25:17] law and procedures specifically
[2:25:19] established by the board of equalization
[2:25:20] for the value of general aircraft when
[2:25:22] determining the 2024 assessment of the
[2:25:25] subject aircraft.
[2:25:27] That's the case and chief.
[2:25:29] >> Okay.
[2:25:30] Um, have you had a chance to look at
[2:25:33] this material prior to the hearing?
[2:25:35] >> No.
[2:25:35] >> Do you want some time to take a look at
[2:25:37] it before you start your
[2:25:39] crossexamination? You may have questions
[2:25:40] for the assessor.
[2:25:42] >> Yeah. Um, I just really have one thing.
[2:25:46] I mean, it is a market approach and
[2:25:48] market is not only the blue book of
[2:25:50] California or the blue book of United
[2:25:52] States. The market is global.
[2:25:54] >> Okay. Then but do you have a question
[2:25:57] specific? Uh this is a chance for asking
[2:26:00] questions. It's called cross
[2:26:02] examination.
[2:26:03] >> The cost approach I you know I didn't
[2:26:06] include all the fuel and pilots uh
[2:26:09] receipts but I have all those itemized I
[2:26:12] could share. Um anyway I I don't quite
[2:26:16] understand when you say that there's the
[2:26:19] well three questions actually. you first
[2:26:22] it's a cost approach in the end your
[2:26:25] conclusion did not base on the cost
[2:26:27] correct
[2:26:28] >> that's correct
[2:26:29] >> it's not a reliable approach
[2:26:30] >> yeah it's I I would say that too because
[2:26:33] uh you know what cost to me and you know
[2:26:35] you could even mention that uh
[2:26:38] registration numbers and all those costs
[2:26:40] should I didn't
[2:26:43] um but you mentioned this use tax uh
[2:26:46] that I did get an exemption because as
[2:26:49] long as you go out of the states for
[2:26:52] business which I did and you justified
[2:26:55] that and they review it. So uh that was
[2:26:58] exempt.
[2:26:59] >> That's fine. My statement was that it's
[2:27:00] included whether or not it's paid at the
[2:27:02] time of purchase or not. [clears throat]
[2:27:04] >> No, it was afterwards I got this thing
[2:27:07] from California.
[2:27:08] >> Correct. My statement was that it's
[2:27:09] included in an assessment valuation
[2:27:11] whether it's paid at the time of sale or
[2:27:12] not.
[2:27:13] >> Right. [clears throat]
[2:27:14] And another one that um question has to
[2:27:16] do with the market bush. So what exactly
[2:27:19] of the market uh comps say did you use
[2:27:24] this is not like a real estate comps you
[2:27:26] know you you
[2:27:27] >> no the comps are the make and model of
[2:27:30] the aircraft
[2:27:31] >> right
[2:27:32] >> so if you look at the valuation page on
[2:27:33] page four
[2:27:35] they start from average retail value for
[2:27:37] a 2016 DA40G aircraft in average
[2:27:42] condition
[2:27:44] >> right
[2:27:45] >> you stated that yours was in average
[2:27:46] condition on the property mentioned the
[2:27:49] uh five sty or aircraft loop book is mostly US
[2:27:55] >> I believe it is but I'm not familiar
[2:27:57] with their methodology
[2:27:58] >> I have seen maybe one or two that snuck
[2:28:00] up from Europe because you know they know that in Europe in US they may
[2:28:04] get some sales from something but the
[2:28:07] thing is that mostly uh around the world
[2:28:10] you would have other available that's
[2:28:13] not listed in this uh textbook in the
[2:28:16] I don't value aircraft around the world.
[2:28:18] I value them here in Camaro or in
[2:28:20] Ventura County. And so I use the tool
[2:28:22] that's prescribed by the state of
[2:28:23] California to do so.
[2:28:24] >> That's that's no problem. But the thing
[2:28:26] is that this airplane is not from
[2:28:27] Camaro. It's
[2:28:29] >> it's in Camaro now though.
[2:28:30] >> It's in Camaro now, but it was purchased
[2:28:33] in talk.
[2:28:34] >> Yes. And purchase price is not the basis
[2:28:36] of valuation either. But it's
[2:28:38] >> because that's using the cost method. If
[2:28:39] you're using the purchase price
[2:28:41] >> is a large part of it
[2:28:44] because later on if I can sell it
[2:28:46] overseas, you know, so it's a supply the
[2:28:50] market is a supply and demand. It's not
[2:28:52] just one point in the world. There are
[2:28:54] many points
[2:28:56] >> and if you sell it around the world,
[2:28:57] they have to pay to transport it back.
[2:28:58] What you said in this statement was
[2:29:00] >> the most expensive part of the added
[2:29:02] cost that you had was
[2:29:03] >> well I'm willing to pay. I understand
[2:29:07] not every buyer is
[2:29:08] >> question.
[2:29:13] » Did you have any other questions?
[2:29:15] >> No.
[2:29:16] >> Okay. Um let me ask the assessor a
[2:29:20] couple of questions.
[2:29:21] >> Certainly.
[2:29:22] >> Now um the blue book does that have um
[2:29:27] sale prices?
[2:29:29] >> It tracks sales over the course of the
[2:29:32] um year making model. So there's 10
[2:29:33] years of sale history from 2016 to 2026
[2:29:37] for this model of aircraft.
[2:29:39] >> Okay. And so um
[2:29:43] then if it if it's 10 years of history,
[2:29:45] how how do you do you use a weighted
[2:29:49] average to get to your data value? How
[2:29:52] explain to me how you do that?
[2:29:53] >> Aircraft Loopex methodology is basically
[2:29:55] looking at all of the available data of
[2:29:56] sales in the marketplace for each
[2:29:58] >> 10 modelan.
[2:30:00] uh they update their estimate of retail
[2:30:02] value per quarter. So four times a year
[2:30:04] they're making adjustments based on
[2:30:06] whatever new information they've
[2:30:07] received about that aircraft making
[2:30:09] model.
[2:30:09] >> Okay.
[2:30:10] >> Um they're valuing all years of that
[2:30:12] aircraft as it goes along. So they have
[2:30:13] a different valuation would be assigned
[2:30:15] to a 2016 plane versus 2025 plane
[2:30:18] because they start from different year
[2:30:20] manufacturer. So do you have for example
[2:30:23] just one column where the the state has
[2:30:27] um condensed the data into a single
[2:30:30] value as of a year of model.
[2:30:35] >> It's in the column.
[2:30:37] >> It's an online tool that you're
[2:30:38] basically selecting the year
[2:30:39] manufacturer the manufacturer diamond
[2:30:42] and then you select the aircraft model.
[2:30:44] So you're selecting that model by
[2:30:45] manufacturer by year
[2:30:47] >> and then you get a value
[2:30:48] >> and then you get a starting point value
[2:30:50] of 430,000 which you then adjust.
[2:30:52] >> The board of equalization requires a 10%
[2:30:54] reduction off the top.
[2:30:56] >> Then we make adjustments based on the
[2:30:57] airframe and the engine usage hours.
[2:31:00] Each of those elements are contribute
[2:31:01] greatly to value.
[2:31:02] >> Aircraft use very little. It means it's
[2:31:04] still very valuable. If you use your
[2:31:06] aircraft with a lot more than average,
[2:31:07] it's worth less obviously than average
[2:31:09] aircraft. So then the data that the
[2:31:11] state board gets the starting value from
[2:31:16] is that
[2:31:18] United States data or
[2:31:20] >> I believe it's the US market.
[2:31:21] >> US market.
[2:31:23] >> That's where most of the people in this
[2:31:24] market are shopping.
[2:31:25] >> Uhhuh.
[2:31:26] >> And we're tasked with providing market
[2:31:28] value for the average consumer in this
[2:31:29] market.
[2:31:31] >> [clears throat]
[2:31:32] >> Some people choose to go around buying a
[2:31:34] less expensive model somewhere else
[2:31:36] around the world and adding that value
[2:31:37] adding those costs in as they get it
[2:31:39] here and get it legal.
[2:31:41] >> But very few consumers do so as you
[2:31:43] heard the orals that were gone through
[2:31:45] to make that happen.
[2:31:47] >> There's a lot of costs that are involved
[2:31:49] that aren't direct costs that are
[2:31:51] needed.
[2:31:52] >> Uhhuh.
[2:31:52] >> Um she spont uh the aircraft is as you
[2:31:55] see is 457,000 is what our estimated
[2:31:57] value is. uh she purchased for 350,000
[2:32:00] and then spent 130,000 more getting it
[2:32:02] here and getting it in condition so that
[2:32:03] it could be flown legally in the United
[2:32:05] States.
[2:32:05] >> Mh.
[2:32:06] >> Those things are fairly comparable.
[2:32:08] >> You could have spent that same amount of
[2:32:09] money buying the aircraft as is in this
[2:32:11] country and it'd be able to fly here.
[2:32:14] >> So that's why most people don't go to
[2:32:16] that expense because fing back as you
[2:32:18] heard was $20,000 in insurance alone.
[2:32:20] It's a very costly proposition to fly an
[2:32:22] aircraft back into the United States and
[2:32:24] then make it legal to fly here.
[2:32:25] >> Uhhuh. Uhhuh. Well, you cannot evaluate
[2:32:28] everything by money. That experience of
[2:32:31] flying through Middle East, through
[2:32:33] Europe and back from Canada all the way
[2:32:36] here. That was invaluable. I have
[2:32:38] learned so much. And for me, I'm going
[2:32:41] to electrify that airplane. I got to
[2:32:43] know every single bit of that airplane.
[2:32:45] >> Let me ask the assistant another
[2:32:47] question.
[2:32:48] Um so then you know there was a
[2:32:50] statement made by the applicant that um
[2:32:54] I believe she was saying that these um
[2:32:58] this particular model
[2:33:01] um is not
[2:33:04] uh and I'm kind of paraphrasing here I
[2:33:06] could be wrong but is not readily
[2:33:09] available in the United States that
[2:33:11] there's a broker that handles them
[2:33:13] overseas.
[2:33:15] there are manufacturing plants overseas
[2:33:18] for this aircraft.
[2:33:19] >> Um,
[2:33:20] >> so my question is this, if if that's the
[2:33:23] case, I mean assuming that what she
[2:33:25] stated is true, just for sake of
[2:33:28] discussion, then how would the um state
[2:33:32] blue book, you said that you believed it
[2:33:35] was United States sale prices for over
[2:33:38] the last 10 years.
[2:33:40] >> That is my understanding. So
[2:33:43] that's where I'm wondering if if the
[2:33:48] applicant is saying that there are not
[2:33:52] many sales
[2:33:54] that take place of this model in the
[2:33:56] United States
[2:33:58] then how if the blue book is using
[2:34:01] United States
[2:34:03] prices only I think you assume that
[2:34:07] >> I do assume that based on the
[2:34:08] information I've received so far
[2:34:10] >> where they're getting their data from
[2:34:11] then.
[2:34:12] >> Well, I think that um I would have a
[2:34:14] disagreement with the premise to begin
[2:34:15] with because the statement that I heard
[2:34:17] was that there were very few that were
[2:34:18] available that were not through the
[2:34:20] distributor that had monopoly on the
[2:34:22] environment.
[2:34:23] >> Very true.
[2:34:23] >> Not that though, not that no aircraft
[2:34:25] were sold of that description, just that
[2:34:27] they were limited in their sales channel
[2:34:29] to one individual.
[2:34:31] >> Okay.
[2:34:31] >> Is what I heard.
[2:34:32] >> Do you know how many sales
[2:34:35] um comprise the data for the state board
[2:34:38] in your blue book? In this case for this
[2:34:41] >> I just want to make one distinction. The
[2:34:42] state board of equalization has selected
[2:34:43] a private commercial entity aircraft
[2:34:46] blue book as their price got to use. The
[2:34:48] state of boardization used to do all
[2:34:50] this work themselves. Okay.
[2:34:51] >> And found that it was ownorous and to
[2:34:53] costly and all of those things. So they
[2:34:55] outsourced it in mid 90s.
[2:34:57] >> I see.
[2:34:57] >> To a commercially available price guide.
[2:35:00] >> Okay.
[2:35:00] >> There are many aircraft that are common
[2:35:02] in this United States that are not
[2:35:03] listed in the price guide because
[2:35:04] there's not enough data.
[2:35:05] >> Uhhuh. But this
[2:35:07] >> when there is enough data, they're
[2:35:08] listed in the price guide.
[2:35:09] >> Oh.
[2:35:10] >> So to me as an appraiser, when I see
[2:35:11] this is in the price guide, I feel
[2:35:13] confident that there's enough data
[2:35:14] behind it to say tell me that that's a
[2:35:16] good average retail number. I don't need
[2:35:18] to go do my own research, see what
[2:35:20] listings are available,
[2:35:21] >> try and come up with a number
[2:35:23] >> that I could use as a baseline for its
[2:35:24] market value.
[2:35:25] >> Okay. So you you relied on that and um
[2:35:29] am I'm correct in assuming then that you
[2:35:31] didn't um or the information may not
[2:35:35] have been available as to how many sales
[2:35:36] they relied on to give you the bottom
[2:35:39] line number.
[2:35:40] >> That's correct. I never see the
[2:35:41] underlying data information about how
[2:35:43] many data points they put together to do
[2:35:46] that.
[2:35:46] >> Okay. Okay. All right. Um now let's see
[2:35:51] here. We've had cross-examination. It's
[2:35:53] an opportunity for you if you have any
[2:35:57] um other
[2:36:00] evidence you'd like to submit
[2:36:03] as rebuttal evidence to what the
[2:36:06] assessor has presented. Is there any
[2:36:07] other evidence that would be to rebut
[2:36:10] anything that the assessor has
[2:36:12] presented?
[2:36:12] >> Um
[2:36:14] if I was if I was aware of this whole
[2:36:17] process, I would have taken all those
[2:36:20] calls. I mean taking down notes on the
[2:36:23] calls that I tried back in January,
[2:36:26] February of 2023
[2:36:28] just all those calls regarding the when
[2:36:32] I was trying to buy from through the
[2:36:33] individual or wherever that really in
[2:36:36] the United States I couldn't find I mean
[2:36:38] very few available and whatever the
[2:36:41] calls I made all goes to this monopoly
[2:36:44] uh and so I would have liked to use the
[2:36:47] data to rebut this one Because if you
[2:36:51] get the uh from that broker that
[2:36:53] outsource a commercial available thing,
[2:36:56] it probably is based on you know three
[2:36:59] or four or or even less of sales that
[2:37:02] they have and just average those. That's
[2:37:05] you know once again it's a supply and
[2:37:06] demand kind of thing. So I was being you
[2:37:09] know one of the few you know that's
[2:37:12] trying to get that.
[2:37:13] >> Did you say that um I'm sorry just step
[2:37:16] back for a second. Did you say that? Did
[2:37:19] you say that it pro the blue book was
[2:37:21] probably based on three or four sales
[2:37:24] that they may have had?
[2:37:25] >> It was probably the sampling is probably
[2:37:28] I I don't know exactly how many because
[2:37:30] I didn't take that data. I just went
[2:37:32] right away to my network to find the one
[2:37:34] that I found.
[2:37:35] >> Uhhuh. Okay.
[2:37:36] >> But in the US, I really could not get
[2:37:38] one that was satisfi satisfiable that
[2:37:41] would do the work that I like.
[2:37:44] >> What do you mean by that? do the work
[2:37:46] you like.
[2:37:47] >> Well, first of all, I like to have a uh
[2:37:49] airplane that that's efficient and I
[2:37:52] like to have, you know, with all the
[2:37:54] specs I'm looking for. I like you're
[2:37:55] buying a new car, you buying a used car,
[2:37:58] you want to have certain requirements
[2:37:59] that, you know, that satisfy what you
[2:38:02] need to do.
[2:38:02] >> Yes.
[2:38:03] >> Yeah.
[2:38:04] >> Okay. So, um then did what about the
[2:38:08] specs that she's mentioning?
[2:38:11] Uh the efficiency.
[2:38:12] >> So, yeah. So, for example, I wanted to
[2:38:14] buy a used airplane that's not abused by
[2:38:17] a flying school and you know in flying
[2:38:20] school they fly all the time and you
[2:38:21] know the students come down and bang the
[2:38:23] airplane really badly
[2:38:25] >> and uh probably higher hours and
[2:38:27] everything. So, I want to h have one
[2:38:29] that's probably not so high and also not
[2:38:32] from a flight school. So, that reduc it
[2:38:34] down to few. And then also in the
[2:38:38] >> there were a few a few of them in the
[2:38:39] United States.
[2:38:40] >> Yeah. also in the US. Uh
[2:38:42] >> what were the asking prices on the few?
[2:38:46] >> Uh probably higher.
[2:38:49] >> Yeah, I don't remember the exact price
[2:38:51] because uh Oh, yeah. I remember the the
[2:38:54] >> the field that I asked for that's belong
[2:38:56] to private individual rather than flight
[2:38:58] school.
[2:38:59] >> Uh is is uh basically uh almost the same
[2:39:03] as brand new. This guy wanted to to get
[2:39:06] almost the same as brand new price,
[2:39:08] >> which was
[2:39:09] >> 600 and something.
[2:39:10] >> 600. Yeah, that was one one of them.
[2:39:13] >> More than 600. More than one because I
[2:39:15] made the calls for almost like a month
[2:39:17] to try to find some. I couldn't.
[2:39:20] >> Okay.
[2:39:21] >> Because if you have to pay almost like
[2:39:23] brand new ones. This was back in 2023.
[2:39:26] >> And brand new ones are just coming up.
[2:39:28] Originally, I wanted to buy a brand new
[2:39:30] one,
[2:39:30] >> but because of COVID, they had
[2:39:32] manufacturing delays and everything.
[2:39:34] They say, "Well, you got to wait for at
[2:39:35] least another year or more than a year."
[2:39:38] I don't want that. Uh because I already
[2:39:40] have this finger open camera and
[2:39:42] everything. I still have my whole
[2:39:43] airplane.
[2:39:44] >> Okay. So, there were some of them that
[2:39:47] you checked in on that were advertised
[2:39:51] for sale here in the United States
[2:39:54] before before you made your decision to
[2:39:56] buy overseas.
[2:39:57] >> Uh this was not one particular airplane
[2:39:59] because I was just talking to this guy
[2:40:01] because I always got patched to him. So
[2:40:03] I asked him I said suppose I want to
[2:40:05] this because at first I was talking to
[2:40:06] him about the new airplane and I said I
[2:40:08] don't want any new airplane I want uh
[2:40:11] older one if new one
[2:40:12] >> the broker
[2:40:13] >> well that monopoly guy
[2:40:16] >> and so I said well I'll just uh get a
[2:40:18] used airplane
[2:40:19] >> and he says well you're going to pay for
[2:40:22] probably almost like a new airplane if
[2:40:24] that's the case because
[2:40:26] >> you know you you have a range between
[2:40:27] the flying school used airplanes and
[2:40:29] private individual used planes and so
[2:40:32] obviously He handles the whole spectrum.
[2:40:35] >> Uhhuh. Okay. All right. Um then uh did
[2:40:40] you have any um does that conclude any
[2:40:43] rebuttal you would have for the
[2:40:45] assessor?
[2:40:47] >> Uh
[2:40:49] well yeah the rebuttal I want to have is
[2:40:52] still it's a global market.
[2:40:54] >> Uhhuh.
[2:40:55] >> And so we shouldn't just look at a US
[2:40:57] sales. I mean if I did that I would have
[2:41:01] just be happy with a US airplane but
[2:41:03] this is a Austrian airplane that was in
[2:41:06] Qatar
[2:41:08] >> and uh if it's just in Austria it would
[2:41:11] have been okay too I didn't have to re
[2:41:13] reertify
[2:41:15] registration is one thing certify is
[2:41:17] another thing because FAA and YASA they
[2:41:20] have handshake so whatever that's
[2:41:22] certified by FAA or YASA they recognize
[2:41:25] each other
[2:41:25] >> okay
[2:41:26] >> so but this is already taken off the
[2:41:28] YASA one and moved into Qatar with a CIA
[2:41:32] certification.
[2:41:33] >> All right. Um, does the assessor have
[2:41:35] any rebuttal evidence they want to
[2:41:36] present?
[2:41:39] >> Um, rebuttal evidence, no, but there are
[2:41:41] some statements that were just made that
[2:41:43] I would like to follow up on if that's
[2:41:45] possible.
[2:41:46] >> Well, rebuttal evidence can be oral
[2:41:48] evidence. So, you can do that.
[2:41:50] >> Thank you. Um, you had stated that you
[2:41:52] didn't want to buy a aircraft that had
[2:41:54] been to a flight school, been used as a
[2:41:56] flight from a flight school. Correct.
[2:41:58] >> Right. That was not Well, I didn't want
[2:42:00] to because uh usually the flight school
[2:42:02] ones have really been abused.
[2:42:04] >> Sure.
[2:42:04] >> Yeah.
[2:42:05] And then you stated that those
[2:42:06] that are sold by flight schools are at
[2:42:08] retail value still. They haven't lost
[2:42:10] any value.
[2:42:11] >> I didn't. You said they were still at uh
[2:42:13] you're saying at 650,000. said that uh I
[2:42:16] want a low number of hours and most of
[2:42:19] the flight school ones they probably
[2:42:21] after abuse they being you know
[2:42:23] thousands of hours or something.
[2:42:24] >> Sure. And then you quoted a price of
[2:42:25] around 650,000 for those models. So my
[2:42:28] question would be how can it be damaged
[2:42:29] in the eyes of most consumers and not be
[2:42:31] worth as much and still worth as much as
[2:42:33] when it was brand new?
[2:42:35] >> Uh because that was not what he quoted.
[2:42:37] He did not quote the flying school
[2:42:39] flight schoolwise because I said I
[2:42:41] didn't want the flight school. And what
[2:42:43] information do you have about the flames
[2:42:44] you get quote?
[2:42:46] >> Well, I said that the well, first of
[2:42:48] all, he did not quote one specific
[2:42:50] airplane. I that's the data I wish I had
[2:42:53] that I could I have, you know, I could
[2:42:55] directly go to you with that. But I just
[2:42:57] remember that in order to buy one of
[2:42:59] those, which a it was really rare and b,
[2:43:03] you know, if it's only got a couple
[2:43:04] hundred or 300 hours like when I
[2:43:07] purchased mine, they would have been,
[2:43:09] you know, almost like the brand new one
[2:43:11] >> and I didn't want to do that. That was
[2:43:13] the main thing. I said, for a brand new
[2:43:15] airplane, I either get from the factory
[2:43:17] or pay for 650. Why would I, you know,
[2:43:20] pay for 650 and get one that's used?
[2:43:24] >> Because that's what the market says to
[2:43:26] work.
[2:43:27] It's that monopoly guy says what's
[2:43:29] worth. But I know the market overseas is
[2:43:32] not worth that much
[2:43:33] >> for an aircraft that's not in that same
[2:43:35] condition. That's correct.
[2:43:36] >> Not in the same condition. Right.
[2:43:37] >> Right. But I
[2:43:38] >> All those things that you added to it,
[2:43:40] all of those components that you're
[2:43:42] >> a process though. Certification is a
[2:43:43] process.
[2:43:44] >> Okay. Okay. Um
[2:43:45] >> and there's a cost to that process.
[2:43:47] There's a cost to repairing.
[2:43:48] >> Yeah. Well, you'll have an opportunity
[2:43:50] for put that information in your closing
[2:43:53] remarks. Um then um if there's no other
[2:43:58] evidence, rebuttal evidence, uh no other
[2:44:02] questions on the rebuttal evidence has
[2:44:04] been been uh presented. It's time for
[2:44:08] closing arguments and you had the burden
[2:44:11] of proof. So would you present your
[2:44:13] closing argument?
[2:44:16] >> Would you present your closing arguments
[2:44:17] first? Thank you.
[2:44:18] >> Certainly.
[2:44:21] California state constitution is very
[2:44:22] clear that general aviation aircraft
[2:44:24] should be assessed at fair market value
[2:44:26] as of the lean date. Lean date in
[2:44:28] question is 2024. All of the
[2:44:30] improvements, all of the certification
[2:44:33] costs that are expensive and are um
[2:44:36] lengthy process to occur have all taken
[2:44:38] place by that lean date. So that
[2:44:40] aircraft is now equivalent to the
[2:44:42] average aircraft that's in the
[2:44:43] California market. And that's the
[2:44:45] aircraft that was valued by the
[2:44:46] assessor's office. You should note that
[2:44:48] our assessment initially was done that
[2:44:50] we've showed was done March 18th, 2024.
[2:44:52] We were not aware that this aircraft had
[2:44:54] been purchased out of state, out of the
[2:44:56] country, not aware that it had been
[2:44:57] upgraded. There was no mention of these
[2:44:59] improvements that were made in the
[2:45:00] property statement that was filed by
[2:45:01] Miss Yang for 2024. Just that the
[2:45:04] aircraft was in average condition, had
[2:45:05] no damage history, and had a low number
[2:45:07] of hours. Those are the data elements
[2:45:09] that we use in our standard process as
[2:45:11] described by the board of equalization
[2:45:13] to conduct our job the way that every
[2:45:15] assessor in California counties is
[2:45:16] supposed to do. The aircraft was in our
[2:45:18] jurisdiction. We valued it as if it was
[2:45:20] in this market. We valued it as if it
[2:45:22] was standard based on the guys price
[2:45:24] line guides. We don't ever know how many
[2:45:26] data points are involved in those
[2:45:28] processes that receive the data to it.
[2:45:30] We just know that the board of
[2:45:31] equalization has approved that
[2:45:32] commercial guide and it has so done so
[2:45:34] for over 26 years to be the source the
[2:45:37] authoritative source for us to use our standard fair market value process.
[2:45:42] There is a secondary guideline of excuse
[2:45:44] me price book called VREF that we are
[2:45:46] supposed to use if the aircraft is not
[2:45:48] located in the price guide. There are
[2:45:50] many that are not located in aircraft
[2:45:51] blue price guide because there's not
[2:45:53] enough data collected to be able to say
[2:45:55] what fair market value is. In those
[2:45:57] cases, we either have to use VREF or we
[2:45:58] have to use alternate methods to try and
[2:46:00] come up with fair market valuations.
[2:46:01] That was not necessary in this case,
[2:46:03] even before we knew all of these
[2:46:04] extraneous costs have been involved
[2:46:06] because they're not important to the
[2:46:08] fair valuation that we received on the
[2:46:10] lean day 2024.
[2:46:13] That is our conclusion that our opinion
[2:46:15] is valid as issued.
[2:46:16] >> Okay. Thank you.
[2:46:17] >> Thank you.
[2:46:18] >> And then may I have your closing
[2:46:19] remarks, please?
[2:46:20] >> Sure.
[2:46:22] um fair market values uh which involves
[2:46:25] the word market means a global market as
[2:46:29] airplanes are sold around the world is
[2:46:31] not just the US
[2:46:33] and uh also market is based on supply
[2:46:37] demand and so the US demand us supply at
[2:46:41] the time was one case while in Qatar or
[2:46:45] in Europe is another case so therefore
[2:46:49] that market price in US and overseas are
[2:46:52] different and I took advantage of that.
[2:46:55] Sure, I took advantage of that. So, I
[2:46:57] was able to get a market value that was
[2:46:59] much lower and I shouldn't be penalized
[2:47:02] for that. I went all the way around the
[2:47:04] world to find that price. And uh you
[2:47:07] mentioned the um uh improvement that's
[2:47:11] uh that's added to the airplane and that
[2:47:14] improvement part of that was process.
[2:47:17] Certification is a process. It's it
[2:47:20] doesn't have to have have to do with
[2:47:21] market. It's a process to let people you
[2:47:24] pay people to come and say okay this
[2:47:26] airplane is safe so therefore you are
[2:47:28] allowed to fly
[2:47:30] right it's not part of the price of the
[2:47:33] or or the market price so it shouldn't
[2:47:36] be counted as a fair market value for
[2:47:38] certification process now the other part
[2:47:41] for example the uh ADSB the ADSB is only
[2:47:45] special in the US I flew all the way
[2:47:48] around the world they didn't require
[2:47:49] ADSB basically ADSB is just not a GPS
[2:47:52] that you add to the airplane. The
[2:47:54] airplane already had two GPS's in the
[2:47:56] airplane, right? So why do I need to add
[2:48:00] all that value? Why does that value have
[2:48:02] to be added to the market? Once again,
[2:48:03] going back to the market, it's a global
[2:48:05] market unless I'm coming here to sell
[2:48:08] that airplane, then I would definitely
[2:48:10] add that because that's an improvement
[2:48:12] for this market. But for the other
[2:48:15] market, it didn't require the ADSB. Only
[2:48:17] the US from 2020 was requiring that.
[2:48:21] That's the improvement part. So um so
[2:48:25] overall I think the fair market value
[2:48:27] ought to be 350 subtracting off the 15
[2:48:30] for today you know with some
[2:48:32] depreciation but of the lean date or of
[2:48:34] uh 2024 January is slightly less than
[2:48:37] 350 even
[2:48:40] but you have to tell me what market is
[2:48:44] for the fair market price.
[2:48:47] >> Does that conclude your closing
[2:48:49] arguments?
[2:48:49] >> Yes. Okay. Okay. I want to thank both
[2:48:51] parties. I'm going to take this matter
[2:48:53] under submission. You'll get my decision
[2:48:55] in writing. Thank you both.
[2:48:56] >> Thank you.
[2:49:29] straight.
[2:49:38] So these are still perfect because
[2:49:42] that's really
[2:49:44] Thank you.
[2:49:54] » Just make sure parties.
[2:49:56] >> Yeah, if everybody's okay with it.
[2:50:00] >> Okay. So, we're going to take a 5m
[2:50:02] minute recess
[2:50:04] and we will come back after 11:55.
[2:50:17] Yeah,
[2:50:18] >> right here.
[2:56:40] Okay, we're back on the record. I've
[2:56:43] passed out a copy of the application
[2:56:47] 2511770
[2:56:50] applicant Benichi Prada.
[2:56:53] And it looks like this is a
[2:56:57] an appeal for a supplemental assessment
[2:56:59] issued January 20th, 2026.
[2:57:03] Um, and we've gone through and amended
[2:57:05] the application. And so the
[2:57:09] assessor, do you want to give us a an
[2:57:10] overview on the burden?
[2:57:14] >> Um, yes. The burden would be on us. This
[2:57:17] a scape assessment under property tax
[2:57:19] 321. uh you would bear the initial
[2:57:22] burden of establishing the validity of
[2:57:24] the assessment including demonstrating a
[2:57:26] change of ownership occurred and that
[2:57:27] the property was uh subject to
[2:57:29] reassessment.
[2:57:30] >> The this is a sorry just to clarify this
[2:57:34] is a supplemental.
[2:57:37] >> Uh yeah, so this would be a prospective
[2:57:40] uh Prop 19 exclusion moving forwards
[2:57:42] from 2025.
[2:57:44] >> Okay. I just want to make sure because
[2:57:46] originally it was filed for an escape
[2:57:47] assessment but it was corrected to a
[2:57:49] supplement for January
[2:57:52] issued January 20th 2026.
[2:57:56] >> Yeah, it wouldn't be qualified to be
[2:57:59] accepted but it would just be a base
[2:58:02] year.
[2:58:02] >> Yes. So based on Yeah, based on the So
[2:58:10] are we saying the supp as of the
[2:58:13] supplemental on for the July 16, 2025
[2:58:17] date
[2:58:18] >> 2023
[2:58:19] >> for 2025. Yes. So it's prospective base,
[2:58:22] but there was a supplemental that they
[2:58:24] filed timely on.
[2:58:25] >> Okay. But we are address we're
[2:58:27] addressing the June 8, 2023 correct
[2:58:30] change in ownership event. Okay.
[2:58:35] Um,
[2:58:35] >> so it's assessor's assessor's burden.
[2:58:37] >> Yeah, we believe it is the assessor's
[2:58:39] burden.
[2:58:46] » Okay. So, um, procedurally, Ceser will
[2:58:50] go first. You'll have an opportunity to
[2:58:52] ask questions of their appeal or their
[2:58:54] presentation.
[2:58:55] >> Um, then you'll do your presentation.
[2:58:59] they'll have the opportunity to ask
[2:59:00] questions of your presentation and then
[2:59:03] we'll go into your closing and since
[2:59:05] they have the burden they they'll close
[2:59:07] the hearing. Okay.
[2:59:08] >> I'm just going to backtrack uh just to
[2:59:10] make sure I'm tracking with everyone on
[2:59:12] the burden of proof. Um so then um is
[2:59:16] the assessor rebutting a deed
[2:59:18] presumption?
[2:59:21] >> We are not. Um so the
[2:59:27] basically um the appeal hinges on
[2:59:31] proposition 19 parentto child exclusion
[2:59:34] and whether the ex exclusion applies. So
[2:59:38] >> both parties are not in disagreement
[2:59:40] with the deeds. Uh we're just if uh
[2:59:44] we're determining if an exclusion
[2:59:46] applies or not to the transfer. So there
[2:59:49] was a denial of the
[2:59:50] >> we denied based on the facts we have.
[2:59:52] Yeah.
[2:59:52] >> Okay. Okay. Fine. Yes. So then um the
[2:59:56] assessor shall have the burden of proof.
[2:59:59] Um okay. Um
[3:00:03] well now um to the assessor if you would
[3:00:08] um before you introduce your case
[3:00:12] uh would you you've already talked about
[3:00:15] it but just concisely brief us on the
[3:00:18] facts that we're looking at today the
[3:00:22] data value um
[3:00:25] and um
[3:00:29] and we'll get the rest of in in your
[3:00:32] case the enrolled value the value you'
[3:00:35] be testifying to that will be in your
[3:00:37] introduction and then we can get into
[3:00:39] your case.
[3:00:39] >> So the valuation portion was bifurcated.
[3:00:42] Um okay so we were just going to talk
[3:00:45] about the change in ownership.
[3:00:46] >> Oh I see. Yeah you're right. Thank you.
[3:00:49] >> Okay.
[3:00:49] >> And so I passed out uh the assessors
[3:00:52] exhibits A through D.
[3:00:56] >> Okay. Good.
[3:00:57] >> So quick just a real quick overview.
[3:01:00] what we're looking at today. Um, so the
[3:01:03] June 8th, 2023 date, that is the subject
[3:01:06] of this appeal. Uh, that is due to the
[3:01:10] passing of a parent and according to the
[3:01:14] trust, two children inherited that the
[3:01:17] property upon the passing of a parent.
[3:01:20] Um, we treated that as a 100% change in
[3:01:24] ownership. Uh later we did get a
[3:01:27] proposition 19 application for parent to
[3:01:31] child exclusion. Uh the main reason we
[3:01:35] denied it is because proposition 19 has
[3:01:38] a rule that says you have it has to
[3:01:40] become your primary residence within one
[3:01:42] year based on the documentation which
[3:01:45] we'll go over. Um we found that it was
[3:01:48] not inhabited as the primary residence
[3:01:50] within a year and we felt we had to deny
[3:01:52] the application
[3:01:53] >> of both both children.
[3:01:55] >> Correct.
[3:01:56] >> Or either
[3:01:57] >> u it would just be one the one that
[3:02:00] eventually took
[3:02:02] full ownership of the property. Uh he
[3:02:04] that is the other date that was on the
[3:02:06] application originally July 16th 2025
[3:02:10] which is no longer the subject of the
[3:02:11] appeal but that's when EA took 50%
[3:02:13] ownership from his sibling.
[3:02:15] >> Okay. And was that an event on appra
[3:02:17] reappraising event?
[3:02:18] >> Yes, we treated that as 50% reappraisal.
[3:02:20] >> Okay. All right.
[3:02:23] >> One point of clarification. We
[3:02:25] originally treated it as a 100% change
[3:02:27] in ownership event, but after this
[3:02:29] appeal was filed, we noticed that error
[3:02:30] and we corrected it to 50%. For that
[3:02:34] >> July 16th, 2015.
[3:02:35] >> I see. Okay. Okay. Um, then did you have
[3:02:39] any questions about the procedure before
[3:02:41] we have the assessor present his case
[3:02:42] and chief? I think I have a a generally
[3:02:45] good idea of how this is supposed to go.
[3:02:48] >> Okay. Okay. Fine. The only thing that
[3:02:50] wasn't mentioned um in the explanation
[3:02:54] of the procedure is if you feel or if
[3:02:57] the other if the assessor feels that uh
[3:03:00] the opposite party is presenting
[3:03:02] evidence that is not admissible
[3:03:05] then you can interrupt and object and I
[3:03:07] would make a ruling on your objection.
[3:03:10] That would be the only time when we
[3:03:12] interrupt each other. Okay.
[3:03:15] >> All right. Let's get into the assessor's
[3:03:17] case and cheats, please.
[3:03:19] >> Uh March Sober, I'll be presenting for
[3:03:21] the assessor's office. Uh we have
[3:03:24] exhibit A, which is primarily what I'll
[3:03:26] be reading from today. Exhibit B is
[3:03:28] going to go over supporting docs uh
[3:03:30] documents I've either provided or were
[3:03:32] provided by the applicant. Um C and D
[3:03:37] are beads and the full Google uh context
[3:03:41] for uh annotations I'll be referencing
[3:03:44] throughout exhibit A.
[3:03:46] >> Before you start,
[3:03:48] >> let me make sure. Okay. So is is this is
[3:03:52] AB are all the exhibits under this one
[3:03:55] clip?
[3:03:56] >> Yes.
[3:03:56] >> Oh, okay.
[3:03:57] >> Yes. Uh if you notice down at the bottom
[3:04:00] it it'll have the numbering for the
[3:04:02] pages also include the exhibit.
[3:04:03] >> Got it. Okay. Thanks.
[3:04:05] >> Yeah.
[3:04:06] >> Okay. Please proceed.
[3:04:08] >> Dear board members, for your
[3:04:10] consideration, the assessor submits the
[3:04:11] following report on the determination of
[3:04:13] a change in ownership of the subject
[3:04:15] property. The assessor has completed
[3:04:17] this determination objectively and
[3:04:18] independently pursuant to all re
[3:04:21] California revenue and taxation code
[3:04:23] sections and California property tax
[3:04:25] rules. The assessor's representative is
[3:04:27] available for any questions regarding
[3:04:28] news reports information and analysis.
[3:04:30] Thank you for your service to venture.
[3:04:34] Um for this part I'm ask to page three
[3:04:38] the statement of facts. On June 22nd
[3:04:42] 1979 Kimo and Satoka Tada husband and
[3:04:44] wife acquired title to the subject
[3:04:47] property. A base year value was
[3:04:49] established as of that day pursuant to
[3:04:51] the applicable laws uh 60 and 4620001
[3:04:56] on February 8, 2008. The deed was
[3:04:59] transferred into a revocable trust. Uh
[3:05:02] this was not considered a change in
[3:05:04] ownership as the beneficiaries of the
[3:05:07] property did not change under the new
[3:05:08] trust.
[3:05:10] Um this at this time affidavit of death
[3:05:14] was also recorded for Kempo Turada. This
[3:05:16] was a spousal transfer of interest also
[3:05:19] not reassessed as Satoka Torado uh
[3:05:22] remained as the surviving spouse and uh
[3:05:26] qualified for an interspousal exclusion
[3:05:29] on June 8th 2023. Satoka Torata passed
[3:05:33] away and this was documented on a deed
[3:05:37] recorded July 18th 2023.
[3:05:41] The property then transferred in equal
[3:05:43] shares to Nichi Tata and Miho Turata
[3:05:47] effective on the June 8th 2023 date and
[3:05:52] was 100 uh% assessed at that time. Uh
[3:05:56] the trust became irrevocable which
[3:05:58] automatically conveys interest to the
[3:06:01] benefiting parties
[3:06:07] on July 16th 2025.
[3:06:11] uh deed was recorded with Kinichi Torata
[3:06:15] acquiring siblings interest in the
[3:06:17] property. This transfer was reviewed and
[3:06:19] it was decided that a 50% assessment was
[3:06:22] warranted as there is no exclusion uh
[3:06:25] for sibling to sibling trans transfers.
[3:06:29] Uh a supple supplemental notice from
[3:06:33] June 8th 2023 transfer was mailed on May
[3:06:35] 20th 2024.
[3:06:38] Uh I reference this because that uh
[3:06:40] establishes that this will be a
[3:06:42] prospective
[3:06:44] uh
[3:06:46] appeal as opposed to able to go back to
[3:06:48] the date and change in ownership.
[3:06:52] On July 29th, 2025, the assessor's
[3:06:55] office received Proposition 19 form uh
[3:06:58] stated the date the property was
[3:06:59] occupied was May 5th, 2025 as principal
[3:07:03] residence.
[3:07:05] On July 30th, 2025, the assessor's
[3:07:08] office received a homeowner's exemption
[3:07:10] form that stated the date the property
[3:07:12] was occupied as a principal residence
[3:07:13] was May 5th, 2025.
[3:07:15] >> And I'm sorry, the date the exemption
[3:07:18] that claim form was received
[3:07:20] >> was July 30th.
[3:07:21] >> 30th, 2025. Got it.
[3:07:27] » Also stated July 24th, 2026, I received
[3:07:32] an addendum from the applicant. appeal
[3:07:35] contains a picture of a 2025 income tax
[3:07:38] return which stated the property as his
[3:07:40] principal address in 2025.
[3:07:44] Um the addendum also included notice
[3:07:46] fromce that established a residency at
[3:07:49] the property effective July 14th6.
[3:07:53] Uh my analysis is the
[3:08:06] on the bottom of page four. I'll
[3:08:08] continue from there. On July 18th, 92.3,
[3:08:11] the death of the trustee was recorded
[3:08:13] with an effective date of June 8th,
[3:08:15] 2023. While the property remained titled
[3:08:18] in the name of the Turata trust, the
[3:08:19] exclusion provided under section 62D
[3:08:23] applies only so long as the trust is
[3:08:25] revokable and the trusters retain the
[3:08:28] present beneficial interest. Upon the
[3:08:30] death of the last surviving trust, that
[3:08:32] exclusion no longer applies. At that
[3:08:35] point, the beneficial interest in the
[3:08:37] property passes from the deedent to the
[3:08:39] trust beneficiaries.
[3:08:40] Accordingly, upon Satakaco Torata's
[3:08:43] death, the present beneficial interest
[3:08:45] in the property transferred from
[3:08:46] Satakaco Toata to the trust
[3:08:48] beneficiaries.
[3:08:50] This transfer constituted a change in
[3:08:52] ownership under section 60 because it
[3:08:55] represents a transfer of the beneficial
[3:08:57] use and enjoyment of the property. The
[3:08:59] assessor therefore correctly determined
[3:09:01] that a change in ownership occurred as
[3:09:03] of June 8th, 2023, establishing a new
[3:09:06] property base year.
[3:09:09] And then uh beginning month after
[3:09:12] February 16, 2021, change in ownership
[3:09:15] shall not include the transfer of real
[3:09:17] property which is the principal
[3:09:18] residence or the family farm of an
[3:09:20] eligible transfer in the case of
[3:09:22] transfers between parents and their
[3:09:24] children or between grandparents and
[3:09:26] their grandchildren meeting the
[3:09:27] following conditions. The principal
[3:09:29] residence or family farm of the transfer
[3:09:32] must become the principal residence or
[3:09:34] the family farm of at least one eligible
[3:09:36] transfer within one year of transfer.
[3:09:40] This rule states that the principal
[3:09:42] residence must be established within one
[3:09:44] year of the change in ownership, the
[3:09:47] June 8th, 2023.
[3:09:51] What constitutes a primary or principal
[3:09:53] residence is described with the board of
[3:09:56] equalizations annotations
[3:09:58] as a principal residence or principal
[3:10:01] place of residence is considered to be
[3:10:03] equivalent to doicile. that place where
[3:10:06] a person has his or true or his or her
[3:10:09] true fixed and permanent home and to
[3:10:11] which that individual has the intention
[3:10:13] of returning to whenever absent.
[3:10:16] Factors to consider when determining a
[3:10:18] person's principal residence or doicile
[3:10:20] in addition to where the owner of the
[3:10:22] property resided during that year
[3:10:23] include such indices as the filing of
[3:10:27] income tax returns in the state, the
[3:10:30] state of [clears throat] voter
[3:10:31] registration, the state of vehicle
[3:10:33] registration, the state of issuance of a
[3:10:36] driver's license. There is no time
[3:10:38] requirements under California property
[3:10:41] tax law in order to qualify a home as a
[3:10:44] principal place of residence. I.e. the
[3:10:46] six-month rule of having lived the
[3:10:48] majority of the time in that location as
[3:10:51] opposed to
[3:10:53] where you claim your actual residence.
[3:10:56] Whether a dwelling located in California
[3:10:58] is a person's principal place of
[3:10:59] residence is a question of fact. To
[3:11:01] qualify for the exemption, a dwelling
[3:11:03] must be the person's true fixed and
[3:11:05] permanent home and principal
[3:11:07] establishment to when he she whenever
[3:11:09] absent intends to return.
[3:11:12] In state presence, vehicle registration,
[3:11:14] voter registration, bank accounts, and
[3:11:16] state income filings are among the
[3:11:17] matters to be considered in determining
[3:11:19] residency, which for exemption purposes
[3:11:21] is equivalent to doicile.
[3:11:26] The documents received from applicants
[3:11:28] to did not make this property their
[3:11:30] primary residence until May 2025.
[3:11:33] No supporting documentation uh
[3:11:35] demonstrated a move in date within the
[3:11:37] timeline such as provided tax returns or
[3:11:40] not provided proof of voter
[3:11:42] registration, vehicle registration, or
[3:11:44] driver's license. By the laws stated
[3:11:47] above, the applicant would have needed
[3:11:48] to make the property their primary
[3:11:50] residence one year from the date of
[3:11:51] transfer, June 8th, [clears throat]
[3:11:53] 2023, which would have been June 8th,
[3:11:55] 2024.
[3:11:57] For the reasons set forth above, the
[3:11:59] evidence demonstrates that a change in
[3:12:00] ownership occurred on June 8th, 2023
[3:12:03] upon the death of Satoka Tora, resulting
[3:12:05] in the transfer of the present
[3:12:07] beneficial interest in the subject
[3:12:09] property to the trust beneficiaries.
[3:12:12] This constitutes a reassessible event.
[3:12:16] Per R&T code section 60 notwithstanding
[3:12:19] that legal title remained in the name of
[3:12:20] the trust. Further the applicant's claim
[3:12:23] for the parent child exclusion of
[3:12:25] Proposition 19 does not qualify for
[3:12:27] relief at the applicant did not
[3:12:29] establish the property as its primary
[3:12:31] residence within one year of the date of
[3:12:33] transfer as required by rule 462520.
[3:12:37] Accordingly, the assessor respectfully
[3:12:39] requests that the assessment appeals
[3:12:40] board uphold the assessor's
[3:12:42] determination that the June 8, 2023
[3:12:44] change in ownership constitutes a
[3:12:45] reassessible event under property uh
[3:12:50] under the applicable property tax law
[3:12:52] and sustain the resulting assessment as
[3:12:54] well as the denial of Proposition 19
[3:12:56] exclusion claim.
[3:12:59] In exhibit B, we do have the documents
[3:13:02] reference where we have the homeowners
[3:13:05] uh
[3:13:06] plan or tax uh tax exemption on uh about
[3:13:12] halfway down the page. It is number two,
[3:13:15] date you occupied this property as your
[3:13:17] principal residence was uh May 5th,
[3:13:22] 2025. This would be exhibit B, page two.
[3:13:32] And then on page three and also the
[3:13:36] reassessment claim for exclusion between
[3:13:39] parent and child of Proposition 19.
[3:13:44] It backs up that on page four also
[3:13:47] states a move in date of uh establishing
[3:13:50] a resident principal residence house of
[3:13:53] 5520.
[3:14:04] And then uh lastly, we do have uh the
[3:14:08] SCE
[3:14:11] um establishment notice for 202 July 15,
[3:14:16] 2026,
[3:14:18] page seven, and the 2024 and 2023
[3:14:23] California income tax returns page list
[3:14:27] the uh San Francisco property that the
[3:14:29] applicant also owns as the address.
[3:14:32] >> What page is that on?
[3:14:33] >> Sorry, that one is um Oh, that page is
[3:14:38] not numbered because I received them
[3:14:39] late. They're after seven, so they would
[3:14:41] be considered eight and nine.
[3:14:43] >> Oh, okay.
[3:14:44] >> Yeah. Sorry, I stayed put those
[3:14:45] together. Just see those a little late.
[3:14:48] And um
[3:14:57] and uh
[3:15:00] which page were you just referring to
[3:15:03] where it states his residence on the tax
[3:15:07] forms?
[3:15:08] >> Yes, those should be just before it on
[3:15:10] page two and three.
[3:15:13] Oh, on the tax forms. Yes. Um yeah, that
[3:15:16] would be uh after the the would be eight
[3:15:20] and nine 20.4 tax return and three tax
[3:15:24] return. Those would be the very
[3:15:26] >> Did you read the statement that states
[3:15:29] the
[3:15:30] >> location? Yes.
[3:15:31] >> From there.
[3:15:32] >> Um
[3:15:33] >> read read the address or whatever.
[3:15:36] >> Yes. It says 325 Fair Street, San
[3:15:38] Francisco, California. Um
[3:15:41] >> is that the mailing address?
[3:15:43] >> Yes. And it says principal residents
[3:15:45] enter your county at the time of filing.
[3:15:46] San Francisco.
[3:15:48] >> Where is Oh, I see.
[3:15:49] >> Yeah. It does not list the exact street
[3:15:52] number, but list the
[3:15:53] >> Okay.
[3:15:59] » Same on the 2000
[3:16:02] >> on the same on the uh
[3:16:05] 23. Yes, we did receive the 2025 tax
[3:16:09] return that does list the uh Camaro
[3:16:12] address. Um, however, that does just
[3:16:16] kind of confirm the other documents
[3:16:17] we've received that residency was
[3:16:19] established in 2025.
[3:16:20] >> Okay. And that's is that in the
[3:16:22] exhibits, the 20
[3:16:23] >> Yes, the 2025 should be before the SoCal
[3:16:28] Edison. So, that's page six.
[3:16:30] >> Okay.
[3:16:31] >> Yeah, it does list Ventura County as the
[3:16:33] principal residence.
[3:16:34] >> Okay. Thank you. [clears throat] Uh, was
[3:16:36] there any other evidence?
[3:16:37] >> Uh, no. That would be at this time.
[3:16:40] >> Okay. Uh, have you had a chance to
[3:16:44] um look at this evidence enough for you
[3:16:46] to cross-examine the assessor because I
[3:16:49] can give you some time if you need to
[3:16:50] take a look.
[3:16:51] >> I'm familiar with some of the evidence
[3:16:53] that's presented because we've been
[3:16:54] having communication about it. So,
[3:16:56] >> Okay.
[3:16:57] Sorry for your loss by the way.
[3:16:59] Thank you.
[3:16:59] >> Um, would you like to cross-examine the
[3:17:02] assessor now?
[3:17:03] >> Yeah. Um, so I I guess one question is
[3:17:09] there there
[3:17:15] I think it's page five, right?
[3:17:17] >> Of which exhibit?
[3:17:18] >> Exhibit A, page five.
[3:17:20] >> Mhm.
[3:17:20] >> Exhibit A. So the four
[3:17:24] um points being quote all about the tax
[3:17:27] return
[3:17:29] registration with the registration
[3:17:31] driver's license.
[3:17:33] Um
[3:17:34] so
[3:17:36] is it possible that there is someone
[3:17:39] that can satisfy all these requirements
[3:17:41] but not actually be physically resident
[3:17:44] and still qualify
[3:17:46] that home to be the primary resident?
[3:17:52] You're saying if they provide all these
[3:17:54] items and all these items show that it's
[3:17:57] their primary residence,
[3:17:58] >> right? The optics of
[3:18:00] >> Yeah. the the optics of it based on the
[3:18:03] law would make it look like that primary
[3:18:05] estimates, right?
[3:18:06] >> So I would read from I'm going to read
[3:18:08] from annotation 505.0078,
[3:18:11] which is the paragraph right below that
[3:18:14] list. It says um whether a dwelling
[3:18:16] located in California is a person's
[3:18:18] principal place of residence is a
[3:18:20] question of fact. Uh so based on the
[3:18:24] BOE's guidelines, um it should be
[3:18:28] factual and these are the documentations
[3:18:30] they suggest we review to ensure that
[3:18:33] it's a factual principal place of
[3:18:35] residence.
[3:18:36] >> But it could be possible even with all
[3:18:38] this evidence that person's not
[3:18:40] physically present at the home. Correct.
[3:18:43] Um, not so for our purposes, we're going
[3:18:46] to base any decision making on the
[3:18:49] documents the DOE requires.
[3:18:58] » I I think that's that's the only
[3:19:00] question I have regarding
[3:19:02] >> that's the only question you have. Okay.
[3:19:04] Um, could you direct me to the
[3:19:06] homeowners exclusion claim form? Where
[3:19:09] is that? That that is that should be the
[3:19:11] very sec the second page
[3:19:14] >> of [clears throat] exhibit
[3:19:15] >> of exhibit B
[3:19:18] >> exhibit B page two.
[3:19:20] >> Yes.
[3:19:20] >> Okay.
[3:19:20] >> That is
[3:19:22] property tax exemption.
[3:19:24] >> Okay. Let me just take a look at that
[3:19:30] exhibit B page two.
[3:19:33] >> I did have one.
[3:19:35] >> That's fine. Just one second. Let me
[3:19:36] look at this.
[3:19:38] >> Okay. So this is the
[3:19:40] exemption and it says when did you
[3:19:43] acquire the property
[3:19:45] and it says date you occupied the
[3:19:48] property as your principal residence.
[3:19:50] >> Yes,
[3:19:55] » May 5th, 2025.
[3:20:02] » Is that within one year?
[3:20:05] Uh, no. That was June 8th, 2024.
[3:20:08] >> That's right. You said that.
[3:20:10] >> I [clears throat] I do I'm going to let
[3:20:13] you ask your question and I have another
[3:20:14] question for them. But let me have you
[3:20:16] ask ask them first.
[3:20:17] >> Thank you. Uh so we we might be asking
[3:20:20] the same question but uh I guess to
[3:20:23] [laughter] the assessor's office upon
[3:20:24] receiving those forms given that date of
[3:20:27] May the 5th 2025 is there any is there
[3:20:31] any reasonable scenario that that date
[3:20:34] would even be valid for submission for
[3:20:36] that form
[3:20:38] >> that so that the form signed under
[3:20:41] penalty of perjury. So we do whatever's
[3:20:44] filled out on the form carries a lot of
[3:20:47] weight.
[3:20:48] >> Understood.
[3:20:48] >> And we are required to put a lot of
[3:20:51] weight on it because it is signed under
[3:20:52] penalty of perjury.
[3:20:53] >> Sure.
[3:20:54] >> Um if in your case an applicant
[3:20:58] fills it out incorrectly
[3:21:00] >> um for whatever reason put the wrong
[3:21:02] date on there. Maybe they were confused.
[3:21:04] I don't know. um we do allow them to
[3:21:07] make a correction and the correction
[3:21:09] would be through the documentation
[3:21:12] listed in that in our presentation. So
[3:21:17] essentially we're saying okay we rec we
[3:21:19] recognize everyone makes mistakes. If
[3:21:21] you can prove you've made a mistake then
[3:21:22] we can make the correction.
[3:21:25] >> Yes.
[3:21:29] » Okay. Um let's see here.
[3:21:34] I think that answered my question also.
[3:21:37] Okay. Um then hearing no other
[3:21:41] cross-examination questions, it's your
[3:21:43] opportunity to present your case and
[3:21:45] chief and um let me just ask you this
[3:21:48] just before you get started. Are you
[3:21:50] going to are you testifying
[3:21:53] that um
[3:21:55] do you believe that they should have
[3:21:57] been the u change in ownership should
[3:22:00] have been 100% excluded from
[3:22:02] reassessment?
[3:22:04] I'm challenging the the statement I'm
[3:22:08] going to be presenting is that there was
[3:22:10] a ministerial mechanical error on that
[3:22:13] date that was presented on the forms and
[3:22:16] I'm presenting evidence that I was
[3:22:18] physically resident in the camera
[3:22:21] >> and ultimately you believe that the
[3:22:23] exclusion the parent child exclusion
[3:22:25] should have been granted 100%. Is that
[3:22:27] correct?
[3:22:29] >> Okay, very fine. Um
[3:22:36] it's
[3:22:39] so
[3:22:40] >> it is yeah it's a original appeal and
[3:22:47] passing out the applicants exhibits. Um,
[3:22:51] so it looks like they're labeled A
[3:22:53] through D and
[3:22:56] an addendum and one. So we'll we'll
[3:22:58] identify them as exhibits 1 through
[3:23:00] eight.
[3:23:12] » Would you proceed please?
[3:23:14] >> Thank you.
[3:23:16] all again for your time. notes
[3:23:18] very late so it can distort
[3:23:22] uh the case I'm presenting is that the
[3:23:26] there was the mechanical error that they
[3:23:30] presented on the forms that were
[3:23:33] submitted to the county and the evidence
[3:23:36] that I'm presenting is around the fact
[3:23:39] that I was physically present
[3:23:43] at my mother's home up until the
[3:23:48] transfer starting from June. And it may
[3:23:52] seem con may seem convenient that I'm
[3:23:55] saying that uh the timeline starts from
[3:23:58] June uh 2022.
[3:24:02] However, I can go into some history of
[3:24:05] why that's your residence. So,
[3:24:09] as as we all already understood, my
[3:24:12] father passed away in 2007.
[3:24:16] Uh after his passing, my my mother lived
[3:24:20] in that home by herself and she felt
[3:24:24] that it would be a great idea on
[3:24:27] Memorial Day for his family to get
[3:24:29] together because she was getting she had
[3:24:32] just lost her father as well and um she
[3:24:36] wanted another reason for the the family
[3:24:38] to get together. So pretty much uh a
[3:24:41] year or two after his passing, we
[3:24:44] started having a annual uh Memorial Day
[3:24:46] barbecue and it was only until co co was
[3:24:52] the in 2020 was the one year that we had
[3:24:55] to to skip it. Uh
[3:24:58] I'm sure everybody understands why. It's
[3:25:00] just the there was a lot of uncertainty
[3:25:03] at the climb. So we that was the the one
[3:25:06] year since his passing uh and she
[3:25:08] started that barbecue band. We we did
[3:25:11] not have that
[3:25:13] um no more barbecue.
[3:25:16] And then
[3:25:18] come 2021 I mean everyone was happy to
[3:25:22] be back together. She was absolutely
[3:25:24] fine. And then skip forward one more
[3:25:26] year to 2022
[3:25:29] and it it was clear that there was
[3:25:31] something off.
[3:25:34] He just she would usually be excited
[3:25:36] about helping out and
[3:25:39] she just really wasn't herself. So I I
[3:25:42] think myself um my my partner and my
[3:25:47] sister, we all kind of questioned why
[3:25:49] she wasn't uh acting the way that she
[3:25:52] usually was. And she just said she was
[3:25:54] feeling bad. And I started to work with
[3:25:58] her to gain access to her medical
[3:26:00] records to just understand what was
[3:26:02] going on. And the more I read into it,
[3:26:06] uh that the more I found out that she
[3:26:08] just wasn't getting the the right health
[3:26:12] or the care that she needed. So, uh it
[3:26:16] became apparent that through discussions
[3:26:19] with her practitioner, through her ho
[3:26:21] that I needed to be an advocate for her
[3:26:25] health. So, I I decided in June to to
[3:26:28] come down and help be an advocate for
[3:26:30] her. Uh so that is the reason for the June 2022 date. I I intentionally
[3:26:36] made the decision to come down to to
[3:26:38] help take care of my mother. Um
[3:26:44] I think starting with exhibit A.
[3:26:47] This is just uh
[3:26:51] we skip a couple pages. Um sorry looks
[3:26:55] like there's no page numbers on this.
[3:26:58] Apologize. So if we go to the third
[3:27:00] page, this is just all my flight records
[3:27:02] from that date of um June 6th, 2022
[3:27:08] pass the data transfer up until the time
[3:27:12] I think it was current
[3:27:15] submitted.
[3:27:17] >> So you have your flight records
[3:27:20] that's
[3:27:23] » that's where it says arrival date,
[3:27:25] return date.
[3:27:26] >> Yeah, that's correct. Okay.
[3:27:30] And that tells how many days you stayed.
[3:27:33] >> That's cool.
[3:27:33] >> So the raal date is when I was alive.
[3:27:36] That's when you know he's in Burbank.
[3:27:38] And the return date was back. And we
[3:27:41] track the days that he's physically
[3:27:45] present here. 292 days
[3:27:50] a bit.
[3:27:57] We continue forward with two pages.
[3:28:00] These are just flight records around
[3:28:03] 20
[3:28:04] June 2022 dates and some additional
[3:28:08] evidence later on in the year.
[3:28:15] to Los
[3:28:19] and I think now instead of going to
[3:28:21] exhibit B, I'm going to go to exhibit C,
[3:28:27] which is
[3:28:29] um I tried as the best as possible to
[3:28:33] follow just the medical
[3:28:36] that
[3:28:38] um I was doing to to ensure my mom was
[3:28:41] getting the right amount of care. And
[3:28:44] one challenge that I had immediately
[3:28:46] faced was the the fact that she was
[3:28:49] locked into an HMO. I think if you
[3:28:53] didn't know any better, you don't want
[3:28:55] to necessarily spend too much on the
[3:28:56] medical insurance and she went with the
[3:28:59] she unfortunately went with the the
[3:29:00] chief medical plan. And she didn't she got stuck with the HMO and her
[3:29:05] general practitioner. Once I started
[3:29:07] looking into her history over the
[3:29:10] several years, um I I felt he was not
[3:29:13] taking care of her. We should have sent
[3:29:16] her to some specialist.
[3:29:22] So before I came into the picture, it
[3:29:25] was
[3:29:27] I I can't say enough how disappointed I
[3:29:31] was with the care that she was getting.
[3:29:34] Uh anyway, excuse me. Uh
[3:29:40] so moving on to uh attachments. These
[3:29:43] are just records of
[3:29:48] >> Do do you want to take a break before
[3:29:50] you proceed?
[3:29:51] >> I I thank you.
[3:29:53] >> Okay.
[3:29:56] >> Uh medical records have just uh taken
[3:29:59] occur to different specialists.
[3:30:02] Um, I I had to fight really hard. I I
[3:30:06] got help through my family to to get her
[3:30:10] in front of the oncologist when it
[3:30:11] wasn't really even
[3:30:14] part of her network. Uh, again, because
[3:30:16] she was on the HMO and he agreed to see
[3:30:19] her. We had an initial consultation to
[3:30:21] go over her her labs, her vitals, and he had made some recommendations and
[3:30:27] really it became clear to me that we
[3:30:30] needed to get her out of the HMO
[3:30:34] to get her quality care. So I would say
[3:30:38] other than trying to get her to see
[3:30:40] specialists through um through the
[3:30:44] general practitioner of the HMO, part of
[3:30:47] that toward the end of the year was
[3:30:49] trying to figure out a way to get her
[3:30:52] onto at least a PO plan to give her some
[3:30:54] flexibility.
[3:30:56] And um we ended up succeeding [laughter]
[3:30:59] toward the end of the year. Um I think
[3:31:02] in the the Novemberish time frame
[3:31:04] there's
[3:31:06] Yeah, there's we're skipping to
[3:31:09] attachments for again the politics of
[3:31:11] the pages on but um
[3:31:16] we've worked the USA angle because my
[3:31:19] father did serve time in the military.
[3:31:21] So we had a discussion with them and
[3:31:23] they approved getting her off to a PO
[3:31:26] plan that they would support and we were really optimistic.
[3:31:32] You know, I think you can focus in more
[3:31:35] on
[3:31:37] >> I think that
[3:31:39] uh one of the main issues is were you a
[3:31:42] resident of the property
[3:31:47] on the date of uh death or within one
[3:31:51] year. So if you can focus in on your
[3:31:54] evidence that would support you said
[3:31:56] there was some type of a clerical
[3:31:59] ministerial error
[3:32:00] >> in the data.
[3:32:01] >> Yeah. So, if you want to focus in on
[3:32:03] that,
[3:32:05] >> um, and also anything that you have that
[3:32:09] establishes
[3:32:10] your residency within that one year of
[3:32:14] when you lost her.
[3:32:16] >> Okay.
[3:32:16] >> So, so I guess this is a good time to
[3:32:18] ask my question. Um, is is that the only
[3:32:21] issue is the
[3:32:23] >> primary residence
[3:32:24] >> the primary residence within one year of
[3:32:26] the transfer date?
[3:32:28] >> That is Yeah, that is the only issue.
[3:32:30] >> Okay. And if there's nothing else that
[3:32:32] would be
[3:32:35] other than the the one year that would
[3:32:37] be considered in determining the
[3:32:39] eligibility for the reassessment.
[3:32:41] >> Yes, I believe that's it.
[3:32:45] >> Okay,
[3:32:49] » thank you for steering me straight.
[3:32:53] So I I guess going back to exhibit A
[3:32:55] then there there are looking at the
[3:33:00] lights
[3:33:01] history
[3:33:03] >> tracking up to the the date of transfer
[3:33:05] there there were 292 days they spent in
[3:33:09] the area. I mean,
[3:33:13] there's no way to to verify that I was
[3:33:16] at the house during that entire time,
[3:33:18] but there would be no reason for me to fly back to San Francisco. And I I
[3:33:25] think the medical evidence that I was
[3:33:27] maybe getting a bit too deep into. I
[3:33:30] wanted to use that to kind of overlay on
[3:33:32] the dates that I was here to provide
[3:33:35] evidence.
[3:33:36] Yes, I I was here transporting my
[3:33:38] mother. Right.
[3:33:40] >> Right.
[3:33:45] » Uh moving on to exhibit B. These are
[3:33:48] just a bunch of redacted
[3:33:51] bank statements, but what's been
[3:33:54] highlighted is just evidence that I was
[3:33:57] here paying to
[3:34:01] buy groceries gas station. Um, in
[3:34:05] addition to taking care of my mother, I
[3:34:07] take care of the house as well. So,
[3:34:08] there's some legal again. So this
[3:34:11] they're just pages of different periods
[3:34:13] of time during the period that I'm
[3:34:16] mentioning 2020 22 passing through
[3:34:22] transfer provide evidence that are
[3:34:26] physically exposed to
[3:34:39] and I guess that leads on to a tendon.
[3:34:43] So
[3:34:50] one thing I or a few things I wanted to
[3:34:52] kind of clarify based on the original
[3:34:54] field that was submitted
[3:34:57] is the optics of the the flight travel
[3:35:00] and I just wanted to reiterate that my
[3:35:04] flight here was
[3:35:07] because of this
[3:35:09] similar medical crisis with my mother. I
[3:35:13] intentionally chosen to be with her to
[3:35:15] help support her. Um, luckily my
[3:35:20] employment allowed opportunity to work
[3:35:22] remotely. We were very flexible with
[3:35:24] that to that uh allowed me to continue
[3:35:28] my work with them and then to support
[3:35:31] her uh the to commit as much time. They
[3:35:36] were very flexible with understanding
[3:35:38] the situation
[3:35:40] to take the time that I needed to make
[3:35:43] sure that she was seen her getting the care that she needed when she needed
[3:35:47] and see her special needs.
[3:35:50] Um,
[3:35:52] moving on to
[3:35:55] day one in the addendum. So
[3:35:59] the fact that the utilities to the camera,
[3:36:09] we've kept those in my mother's name. Um
[3:36:11] this one in particular, you see this was
[3:36:14] in the name my father and um she had
[3:36:17] just kept it in his name since he
[3:36:20] passed. Uh so I think from the utility
[3:36:24] standpoint
[3:36:28] maybe it's my own opinion
[3:36:31] know the convenience you were still
[3:36:32] paying a bit. So just to make sure things are are square,
[3:36:40] uh we've started making efforts now that
[3:36:45] the the administration of trust is
[3:36:48] mostly settled. Uh just making sure that
[3:36:51] all paperwork is lining up to to be in
[3:36:54] my name. So utilities
[3:36:57] are all or in the process of being
[3:36:59] transitional to my name as mentioned
[3:37:04] tax filings
[3:37:07] from 2025.
[3:37:09] they are in names
[3:37:13] and um I can also
[3:37:18] u
[3:37:20] change the driver's license address and
[3:37:25] to the cabinet address
[3:37:28] and then change the voter registration
[3:37:31] that that's still pending but that is
[3:37:34] all moving to
[3:37:37] moving
[3:37:40] forward to
[3:37:43] establish based on what we discussed or
[3:37:45] what was discussed as per law in the
[3:37:47] first document to why that the camera's
[3:37:50] residence is near.
[3:37:56] I believe that's all I have.
[3:37:58] >> All right. Okay. To the assessor, uh
[3:38:02] it's your opportunity for
[3:38:03] cross-examination. Would you proceed?
[3:38:05] >> Yes. Uh, a couple questions. So, on the homeowners exemption form, claim
[3:38:14] form and the Proposition 19 parent to
[3:38:16] child form that you filled out for us.
[3:38:19] Uh, now, did you fill those out?
[3:38:21] >> We were working with our trust attorney
[3:38:25] at the time.
[3:38:26] >> Okay. So, your trust attorney filled it
[3:38:28] out.
[3:38:28] >> We were working through them and they
[3:38:32] have they submitted the paperwork on our
[3:38:34] behalf.
[3:38:34] >> Okay. [laughter]
[3:38:36] Why do you know why the May 5th, 2025
[3:38:39] date was entered as the move in date?
[3:38:43] >> There was some discussion with the
[3:38:46] attorney of that date and that was it
[3:38:50] was decided to be the format back then.
[3:38:54] >> Okay.
[3:38:57] So
[3:38:58] would I was just trying I don't know if
[3:39:01] I quite got the answer. I was just
[3:39:03] trying to get the clarification of what
[3:39:06] was the error that caused that May 5th
[3:39:08] date to be there.
[3:39:11] >> I would say that
[3:39:16] we
[3:39:18] are
[3:39:21] that date
[3:39:22] was based on
[3:39:25] wish I had a copy of it but there was a
[3:39:29] uh
[3:39:29] >> a copy. Oh, okay. There was a form that
[3:39:33] I submitted with San Francisco County to
[3:39:37] inform them that my address was
[3:39:38] changing. And this was something that
[3:39:40] came up that the attorney had
[3:39:42] recommended that I update to change to
[3:39:45] say that I'm no longer a San Francisco
[3:39:47] resident as my primary. I remember
[3:39:50] submitting that form and I believe the
[3:39:53] date that that 5525 date was the date
[3:39:57] that I submit that form. So from my my
[3:40:00] point of view or from my understanding
[3:40:02] that that was the date that I
[3:40:08] >> Yeah, that that's the the background for
[3:40:11] that genesis.
[3:40:12] >> Okay. And I did have a question about
[3:40:15] the 2023 and 2024 tax returns. If Camaro was your primary residence,
[3:40:22] why did those reflect the San Francisco
[3:40:25] was the primary resident like primary
[3:40:28] county?
[3:40:28] >> Sure. Uh I mean I was I was still
[3:40:33] dealing with what had happened to my
[3:40:35] mother.
[3:40:36] There were things we need to take care
[3:40:38] of the trust. I I would just frame that
[3:40:40] as administrative lag. I the San
[3:40:44] Francisco address. I'm the majority
[3:40:47] owner, but my partner, she lives there.
[3:40:50] That's her permanent home. So, it was a
[3:40:53] safe address for me to use that I didn't
[3:40:54] have to think about.
[3:40:56] >> Okay. And I'm assuming you
[3:41:01] So, prior to the move, you worked and
[3:41:04] lived in San Francisco, right?
[3:41:06] >> And
[3:41:08] when did when did you notify work that
[3:41:11] your primary residence had changed?
[3:41:14] Uh because I'm a remote employee, I
[3:41:16] don't necessarily have I I have not
[3:41:19] updated that.
[3:41:20] >> Oh, you still have an update. Oh, sorry.
[3:41:23] Um
[3:41:26] Oh, my last question is
[3:41:31] I I was I was looking at your bank
[3:41:33] statements here briefly. I was looking
[3:41:35] at the dates that occurred after June
[3:41:38] 8th, 2023.
[3:41:40] I noticed
[3:41:42] there are some Camaro
[3:41:46] locations, but it's also intermixed with
[3:41:48] San Francisco
[3:41:50] as well as various other locations in
[3:41:54] Southern California. So, and I guess
[3:41:56] this also ties to the bank, I'm sorry,
[3:41:59] the uh flight records. Um why if your
[3:42:03] primary residence had changed and your
[3:42:05] and you're able to work remotely, right?
[3:42:07] Um, why were you continuing to go back
[3:42:11] to San [clears throat] Francisco for it
[3:42:13] looks like roughly two years? You kept
[3:42:16] habitually returning to San Francisco.
[3:42:19] >> So, I would have to go back to San
[3:42:20] Francisco for work engagements
[3:42:23] periodically. Um,
[3:42:27] I would also have to say that based on
[3:42:31] my experience with my my mother, there's no reason that I would give up
[3:42:38] in the
[3:42:40] my physician, my dental health, my
[3:42:44] optometrist, the care that I'm getting
[3:42:46] up there to drink it down here. So, I
[3:42:49] would go back to school as well.
[3:42:51] >> Oh, okay. So you're returning for work
[3:42:53] as as well as healthcare. Okay. Um I
[3:42:58] don't further questions see questions.
[3:43:18] » Yeah, that's all the questions we have.
[3:43:20] >> Oh, okay. Um, so tell me this. Um,
[3:43:26] on your attachment A1,
[3:43:29] um, where you have your arrival date and
[3:43:32] return dates,
[3:43:35] um, and and one column says primary
[3:43:38] evidence flight to back it up. Um, how
[3:43:41] many days
[3:43:43] cumulatively
[3:43:47] um, were there between 6823
[3:43:52] and
[3:43:54] excuse me, June 8th, 2024
[3:43:58] and May 5th, 2025.
[3:44:07] Excuse me. Excuse me. I'm so sorry. How
[3:44:09] many cumulative days were there between
[3:44:12] when you lost your mother
[3:44:15] on in 2023 to the one year
[3:44:19] uh time frame after that June 8th of
[3:44:23] 2024? How many cumulative days were
[3:44:27] there during that period of time?
[3:44:39] I think just looking at the cumulative
[3:44:40] dates here. All I'm doing is tracking
[3:44:42] the the cumulative because it's a
[3:44:45] aggregated column. I'm just taking
[3:44:49] >> you have 649 there. But that starts
[3:44:52] before you lost your mother.
[3:44:56] >> It's 696 [laughter]
[3:44:57] minus 292, right?
[3:45:00] >> Okay. What do you get approximately?
[3:45:02] That's 204 days.
[3:45:04] >> 204 days you were staying
[3:45:07] >> and a year is 365,
[3:45:10] >> right? 204. Okay. Now, um so it was 204
[3:45:17] cumulative
[3:45:20] during that one-year period that you had
[3:45:24] were there. Now, um after June 8th,
[3:45:29] 2024,
[3:45:33] um
[3:45:36] until you took ownership from your
[3:45:40] uh sibling,
[3:45:42] which was
[3:45:46] 71625.
[3:45:49] >> Yes.
[3:45:49] >> Did Did you live there then?
[3:45:51] >> Yes.
[3:45:52] continue to be resident in the Cumbria.
[3:45:56] I need to take care of.
[3:45:57] >> So,
[3:45:59] um are you stating that your residency
[3:46:01] began
[3:46:03] um
[3:46:05] for sake of discussion for this for this
[3:46:08] purpose? Um
[3:46:10] when you lost your mom within a year
[3:46:12] when you lost your mother?
[3:46:14] >> No, I'm I'm stating that I was already I
[3:46:18] made the decision to to move there.
[3:46:20] >> Yeah. a year before.
[3:46:22] >> So it was actually you're saying before.
[3:46:25] >> Yeah. So but you're saying also that
[3:46:28] therefore within that one year you stay
[3:46:31] you were there. Did you continue to uh
[3:46:34] ha have that as your
[3:46:38] uh primary place of residence thereafter
[3:46:43] continuously or did it did it stop and
[3:46:47] >> it's been
[3:46:48] >> Oh it's been continuous.
[3:46:49] >> Yes. as far as physical precedents.
[3:46:51] Yeah, obviously not the the tax
[3:46:53] property.
[3:46:55] >> Okay. So
[3:46:58] then
[3:47:05] from
[3:47:07] June 8th to 2024,
[3:47:12] do you have from June 8th, 2024 until
[3:47:14] the date you uh took ownership uh from your sibling your siblings
[3:47:22] ownership portion?
[3:47:24] Have you any idea how many cumulative
[3:47:26] days you were there during that period?
[3:47:29] >> I think we can use the same table to say
[3:47:33] this is approximately 68 2024, right? So
[3:47:37] that's
[3:47:39] and then we're talking about July the
[3:47:42] 164
[3:47:44] >> to July. Yeah.
[3:47:47] So that was two two years almost 700
[3:47:53] over 700
[3:47:57] » days
[3:47:58] >> and that is 191 days before you were
[3:48:01] >> you you were there 191 days.
[3:48:07] So during that second period there after
[3:48:10] the one year you weren't there
[3:48:16] for the greater portion of time you were
[3:48:18] back in San Francisco. Is that right?
[3:48:22] >> For what period are we talking about
[3:48:24] right now?
[3:48:25] >> Talking about after that one year after
[3:48:27] you lost your mother
[3:48:30] until you took ownership.
[3:48:34] It sounds like the number of days that
[3:48:36] you're stating it's 19. You said 191
[3:48:39] days.
[3:48:40] >> Uh 191 from 2025 to 2024.
[3:48:44] >> Okay. So, but that period of time would
[3:48:46] have over 700 days in it, right? Two
[3:48:49] years.
[3:48:50] >> Over two years.
[3:48:51] >> We're we're looking at the difference
[3:48:52] between
[3:48:55] specific years, right? That the days.
[3:48:58] >> Yeah.
[3:48:59] >> Right.
[3:49:00] >> Okay. So the number of days that
[3:49:03] accumulated from
[3:49:05] >> June 24th June 8th 2024
[3:49:09] until when you took ownership
[3:49:12] with from your siblings 50%.
[3:49:15] >> Yes.
[3:49:16] >> How many how many days in that not
[3:49:19] cumulative from the beginning of your
[3:49:21] chart but how many days during that
[3:49:23] period
[3:49:25] >> that was the roughly 191
[3:49:27] >> 191. That's cool. But then that period
[3:49:29] of time is over 700 days. Correct.
[3:49:33] It's over two years
[3:49:34] >> if we're talking about the start being
[3:49:36] >> No, I'm talking about
[3:49:39] uh after June 8th, 2024,
[3:49:42] right? To the date you took ownership,
[3:49:46] which was 2025. Excuse me. That was like
[3:49:50] 365 days, would you say? About
[3:49:53] >> sure.
[3:49:53] >> 24 365. So you you were there 191 days
[3:49:59] uh during that period of time.
[3:50:01] >> Correct.
[3:50:01] >> Right. So that's a little bit um what
[3:50:06] percentage would you say that is of the
[3:50:08] per that period of time?
[3:50:11] >> 23.
[3:50:12] >> Twothirds of the time.
[3:50:14] >> 2/3.
[3:50:16] Okay.
[3:50:19] I I don't have any other questions.
[3:50:21] Um,
[3:50:25] does does the assessor have any other
[3:50:28] questions or any other
[3:50:31] >> I just a quick follow up to the math you
[3:50:33] were just speaking to is about
[3:50:35] >> 52%.
[3:50:38] >> Yes.
[3:50:39] >> How did How did you mathematically do
[3:50:41] that?
[3:50:42] >> I did the 190.
[3:50:45] >> You used 191.
[3:50:46] >> Oh, 191. Uh, [clears throat] I did 190.
[3:50:49] My apologies.
[3:50:50] >> That's okay. That's close enough.
[3:50:51] >> Um, so I just did that divided by 365.
[3:50:55] Uh, and that comes Yeah, it still comes
[3:50:57] out to about 52% of the year.
[3:50:59] >> 52%.
[3:51:01] Okay.
[3:51:02] >> Okay. Thank you.
[3:51:05] >> All right. Um, let's see here.
[3:51:13] Just just a matter of clarification for
[3:51:16] the assessor. Um then
[3:51:22] if they file the homeowners exclusion
[3:51:27] after one year
[3:51:31] then am I correct um in your
[3:51:35] understanding and I'm going to ask you
[3:51:36] also that the rule allows the homeowners
[3:51:40] exclusion to be um
[3:51:46] available prospectively but is that
[3:51:48] providing that they uh took residency
[3:51:55] within the one year?
[3:51:56] >> Yes, that is the requirement they have
[3:51:58] to
[3:51:59] >> Okay. Yeah. Okay. So, they have Okay,
[3:52:02] got it. Okay. to add to add to that role
[3:52:05] play. If based on the evidence the
[3:52:08] hearing officer Cohen were to grant the
[3:52:11] exclusion then according to prop 19 it
[3:52:14] would be based on the date of filing
[3:52:17] which is July 21st 2025. So
[3:52:21] perspectively
[3:52:22] the earliest prop 19 can be applied as
[3:52:25] 1125.
[3:52:26] >> Okay
[3:52:28] >> just for added clarification.
[3:52:30] >> Okay. Okay. Well, let's see. Then it's
[3:52:33] time for closing arguments
[3:52:36] and the party that has the
[3:52:40] uh burden of proof presents their
[3:52:44] closing arguments last.
[3:52:46] >> So, the assessor accept the burden. So,
[3:52:48] >> Okay. So, it's time for your closing
[3:52:50] arguments. So, it's time for you to
[3:52:53] explain why your evidence
[3:52:56] uh would outweigh the assessor's
[3:52:59] evidence and make you entitled to the uh
[3:53:02] parent child exclusion.
[3:53:18] So in
[3:53:19] I think in in retrospect
[3:53:22] um we were trusting the trust attorney that
[3:53:28] we were working with to be guiding us
[3:53:30] and doing the right thing. So we had no
[3:53:33] questions when those were submitted and
[3:53:35] we were
[3:53:37] really expecting that the prop 19 was we
[3:53:42] were very shocked to find that it was
[3:53:46] after it was rejected and the reason and
[3:53:50] it was at that time the more I looked
[3:53:52] into it I saw the need
[3:53:56] that they just
[3:54:00] that made any sense to even submit the
[3:54:02] form.
[3:54:04] Um
[3:54:12] I feel that I
[3:54:16] have provided evidence of my physical
[3:54:18] presence at the Camaro home uh
[3:54:22] throughout taking care of my mother
[3:54:24] through natur taking care of the house.
[3:54:27] Um, I understand that there are legal
[3:54:34] uh
[3:54:36] definitions
[3:54:37] of what qualifies
[3:54:40] and
[3:54:44] I I guess I felt that there was
[3:54:50] some flexibility in time to establish
[3:54:52] those. That is the the reason for the
[3:54:55] administrative lag. It was not made
[3:54:58] apparent to me uh at the time when we
[3:55:01] were having discussions with the trust
[3:55:02] attorney about executing or working
[3:55:06] toward Prop 19.
[3:55:08] I would in retrospect think that those
[3:55:10] would have come up. They did not.
[3:55:16] So, I've done my best to to correct that
[3:55:19] to make sure that at least at at this
[3:55:21] point on paper that everything is square
[3:55:24] with the county. Um but my primary
[3:55:27] residence is I think that is
[3:55:31] for land.
[3:55:32] >> Okay. Assessor please.
[3:55:37] » Um I feel like uh through this
[3:55:40] presentation that I provided I
[3:55:43] demonstrated that the California law
[3:55:45] requires principal residency established
[3:55:48] within a year of the change in
[3:55:50] ownership. And it even provides us with
[3:55:54] documents that we can accept to prove
[3:55:56] this after the fact if we don't receive
[3:55:58] a timely homeowners exemption. And just
[3:56:01] due to none of those document, none of
[3:56:04] the official documents being provided
[3:56:06] and
[3:56:07] uh documents where a legal professional
[3:56:10] was consulted provided by the applicant
[3:56:13] support this uh a move in date that is
[3:56:16] too late to qualify for the exemption.
[3:56:18] that that is what uh the assessor's
[3:56:21] office has to use to establish uh
[3:56:24] whether they qualify for a exclusion and
[3:56:26] change of ownership and uh we can't
[3:56:29] grant that with the documentation
[3:56:30] [clears throat] provided.
[3:56:33] >> I'll I'll add a little bit. Um I'll just
[3:56:36] speak from the two annotations that we
[3:56:39] that are in our presentation that deal
[3:56:41] with principal residents. Um, I'll
[3:56:45] reiterate it's a it states it's a
[3:56:47] question of fact. It's a person's true
[3:56:49] fixed permanent home and principal
[3:56:52] establishment which he or she whenever
[3:56:54] absent intends to return. Um, so
[3:56:58] it also states the documents we've
[3:57:01] already mentioned uh vehicle
[3:57:03] registration, voter registration, bank
[3:57:05] accounts, state income tax filings
[3:57:08] um and driver's license.
[3:57:10] uh in reviewing the flight
[3:57:16] pattern that's not necessarily part of
[3:57:18] the documentation, but um it does
[3:57:20] contain both residences, San Francisco
[3:57:22] and Camaro. We find that um not
[3:57:25] definitive proof. He did habitually
[3:57:28] returning to a San Francisco address. Uh
[3:57:32] the bank accounts that we also found
[3:57:34] were not definitive as well because you
[3:57:35] do see both locations showing up. Camrio
[3:57:39] and San Francisco are on the bank
[3:57:41] accounts as well. So we did not find
[3:57:43] that as definitive proof. The one thing
[3:57:45] we saw that was definitive in our book
[3:57:48] was the uh state income tax filings
[3:57:51] where 23 and 24 both reported San
[3:57:54] Francisco as the primary residence
[3:57:56] county and then 25 is the first year we
[3:57:59] see Ventur County show up. Also, the
[3:58:02] typical
[3:58:05] um the typical measures people take when
[3:58:08] changing primary residences appear to
[3:58:10] all have occurred at 2025 as far as
[3:58:13] changing mailing addresses, notifying
[3:58:17] your place of work, bank account, any
[3:58:19] all those other normal items that people
[3:58:22] update their
[3:58:24] uh primary residence. Based on the
[3:58:26] testimony today, it sounded like all
[3:58:28] that began occurring in 2025 and is
[3:58:31] still occurring today. So, based on the
[3:58:34] totality of evidence, we didn't have
[3:58:36] enough evidence to show primary
[3:58:37] residence uh within one year of the
[3:58:40] changing.
[3:58:42] Thank you.
[3:58:43] >> Okay, good. [clears throat]
[3:58:45] And that's going to close this case and
[3:58:49] um I can give you a decision now. Um it you know it was very both parties
[3:58:57] presented uh very good cases and it is
[3:59:00] not an easy decision but as the property
[3:59:04] tax rules and the annotations state it's
[3:59:07] a factual determination on I'm the
[3:59:09] finder of fact here. Um and one thing I
[3:59:14] do want to say is that um the
[3:59:19] my understanding is is that
[3:59:22] uh once the exclusion is granted if it
[3:59:26] is granted based upon the uh residency
[3:59:31] or the homeowner's exclusion
[3:59:33] uh then if um if there's a change in
[3:59:37] that where the child who received the
[3:59:41] exclusion no longer is staying or living
[3:59:45] at the family home as their principal
[3:59:50] residence then at that time the
[3:59:52] exclusion can be removed and should be
[3:59:55] by law. So it has to be the uh physical
[3:59:59] place of residence during the whole time
[4:00:01] that the exclusion is granted. But as
[4:00:05] far as granting the exclusion, um I
[4:00:09] believe that the homeowners exclusion
[4:00:12] should be granted.
[4:00:14] Uh I mean the uh parent child exclusion
[4:00:17] should be granted and that's based on
[4:00:19] the physical president presence evidence
[4:00:22] that's been u presented today by the
[4:00:26] applicant.
[4:00:27] um and and moreover more the number of
[4:00:31] days that he was in the residence within
[4:00:37] one year of the date of death of his
[4:00:40] mother. Um so based upon my factf
[4:00:43] finding and the preponderance of the
[4:00:46] evidence the credibility of the
[4:00:49] testifying applicant um just to
[4:00:52] reiterate the exclusion shall be granted
[4:00:56] the parent child exclusion.
[4:01:02] » Thank you Cargus.
[4:01:04] And so it's with that being said, um do
[4:01:09] we still need a evaluation hearing for
[4:01:12] the next one if if the
[4:01:15] applicants 19 will be approved?
[4:01:17] >> Yeah. So um
[4:01:20] I don't believe evaluation hearing would
[4:01:22] be necessary since we're granting it. it
[4:01:24] would be 100% granted and therefore the
[4:01:29] uh June 8th 2023 date would no longer
[4:01:33] need a reassessment.
[4:01:34] >> Okay. So we can cancel the the tovoid
[4:01:38] having you come back in in uh October or
[4:01:42] on the record cancel the the uh
[4:01:45] bifurcated hearing for October 26 2026.
[4:01:49] >> Okay.
[4:01:51] And that's that's the end of the agenda.
[4:01:53] >> That concludes the hearing. can journ at
[4:01:54] any F101.
[4:01:56] >> This hearing is now a journal
[4:01:59] for free.