| |
||||||||||||||||||
| |
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||
| |
|
|||||||||||||||||
![]() |
![]() |
|
||||||||||||||||
| |
||||||||||||||||||
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Are San Francisco Real Property Transfer Tax Rates Heading for a Hike?Supervisors Peskin and McGoldrick propose rise SF Realtors
State law requires tax increases affecting real property to appear on the ballot and to be approved by a two- thirds vote of the electorate for passage. It is not known at this time whether either or both of the proposals will appear on the municipal ballot in November. To provide a basis for comparison, set forth below are the current transfer tax rates, as well as those proposed by Supervisors Peskin and McGoldrick. Changes to the transfer tax ordinance currently in effect are underlined. Current Rate Structure: · Over $100 and less than or equal to $250,000 = .50% · More than $250,000 and less than $1 million = .68% · Equal to or more than $1 million = .75%
Proposed Rate Structure (McGoldrick): · Over $100 and less than or equal to $250,000 = .50% · More than $250,000 and less than $1 million = .68% · Equal to or more than $1 million but less than $1.25 million = 1% · Equal to or more than $1.25 million but less than $1.75 million = 1.25% · Equal to or more than $1.75 million but less than $2 million = 1.5% · Equal to or more than $2 million = 1.75%
Proposed Rate Structure (Peskin): · Over $100 and less than or equal to $250,000 = .50% · More than $250,000 and less than $1 million = .68% · Equal to or more than $1 million and less than $2 million = .75% · Equal to or more than $2 million = 1.5% · (Tax Reduced on Transfers of Residential Property by Up to One Third If, After January 1, 2009, Transferor Has Installed Active Solar System or Made Seismic Retrofitting Improvements or Improvements Utilizing Earthquake Hazard Mitigation Technologies) · (Clarifies Application of Tax to Transfers of
Ownership Interests in Legal Entities that Own Real The Association's board of directors has voted to vigorously oppose all proposed increases in the city's real property transfer tax as an unwarranted financial burden on buyers and sellers of real property in the city. Daly Introduces Two Ordinances Aimed at Rental Property Owners Supervisor Chris Daly has introduced two proposed
ordinances that, if passed, will affect rental property
owners. One would prohibit owner move in evictions
for households with children under the age of 18 and
amend the definition of disability so that it is the same
as the definition of disability in the relocation section of
the city's rent ordinance. The other would amend the Although the Association has not developed positions on the two proposed ordinances, it is a virtual certainty that it will oppose further restrictions on owner move in evictions. Amendment of Payroll Expense Tax Ordinance Sought to "Clarify" Tax Liability of "Pass through Entities" Supervisor Aaron Peskin has introduced a proposed ordinance to "clarify" the tax liability of "pass through entities", including partnerships, Subchapter S corporations, limited liability companies, limited liability partnerships and other persons and entities not subject to Federal income tax. While the Association has not yet studied the
proposed ordinance in detail, its purpose seems Earlier this year, Mayor Gavin Newsom announced
that the City and County of San Francisco was facing a
budget of $338 million. Under the city Charter,
however, the mayor is required to present a balanced
budget to the Board of Supervisors--which he did two
weeks ago. But, in his budget message, the mayor
warned that the city's fiscal forecast was so bleak that
hundreds of city workers could be laid off and city
services slashed in the near future. With the city's According to Deputy City Controller Monique Zmuda, the city doesn't have a revenue problem. "Even though the economy has been good, city expenditures are growing at a faster rate than our revenues." So, to keep up, the city needs to raise tax rates and fees-a lot of them! Several weeks ago, we reported that the Department
of Building Inspection was increasing fees for
services, including the fee for reports of residential
record. Similar fee increases are expected from other But for the payroll expense tax ordinance to be amended will require the approval of voters. The most likely time for the amendment to be presented to voters is this November. What is not known is whether the weakened state of the national economy will be a factor in voters' view of the amendment. But the fact that the amendment involves a tax on business and will not affect the average voter will make it difficult to beat.
Daly Introduces Ordinance Placing Two-Unit Buildings in Condominium Conversion Lottery Some of our readers may remember an article we wrote for these pages several weeks ago, entitled The World According to entitled Beyond Chron. Beyond Chron provides coverage of political and cultural issues on line. It is published by the San Francisco- based Tenderloin Housing Clinic. Clinic Director Randy Shaw is the paper's editor. The article quoted information appearing in Beyond Chron suggesting that a legislative battle could be looming over a provision in the city's conversion ordinance that exempts owner-occupied two-unit buildings from the condominium lottery. The reason according to Beyond Chron: " San Francisco 's skyrocketing condominium conversions." Last week, what was merely a possibility became a reality. Supervisor Chris Daly introduced a proposed ordinance that would place two-unit buildings in the condominium lottery and exempt two-unit buildings that are owner occupied as of August 1, 2008. The full text of the proposed ordinance appears below. Under city law, ordinances must undergo a 30-day waiting period before they may be heard in committee. This is to allow interested parties an opportunity to study ordinances and take positions on them; so the first hearing on Supervisor Daly's proposed ordinance will not occur until early July, at the earliest. ARTICLE 7 SEC. 1359. PARCEL MAP. (a) The requirements of Subsection (c) of Section 1356 of this Code shall apply to Parcel Maps. (b) The Parcel Map shall conform to the requirements of Chapter 2, Article 3 of SMA and to the Subdivision Regulations regarding detailed format and contents. (c) In the case of Conversions where a Tentative Map
is not required, the requirements of Section 1314 and
the requirements of Article 9 on Conversions shall
apply, provided that hearings as provided in Sections
1313 and 1332 shall not be required, and the 10- (d) In addition to the requirements of Subsection (c),
the owners of record of a two-unit building conversion
that qualify for the exemption from Article 9 must certify
under penalty of perjury and the Department must
verify with the Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Board, (e) If the owners of record cannot satisfy the requirements of Subsection (d), then the owners of record shall comply with Article 9, including its Section 1396.1(g)(3), prior to submitting an application for Conversion. (f) If the Department determines that an applicant has knowingly provided false material information under Subsection (d) above, the Department shall immediately deny the application, or if the applicant has submitted an application for conversion, shall immediately deny the application for conversion. Moreover, the Department, the Director, or other authorized person or entity may also enforce the provisions of this Subsection under Section 1304 or any other applicable provision of law as warranted. |
|
| |
||
| Home | About Andrew | Buyers | Sellers | Investors | Properties | Resources | Contact |
||
|
Copyright
2004-2006 Andrew Roth Real Estate. All Rights Reserved. |
Andrew
Roth Real Estate 4040 24th Street San Francisco, CA 94114 415.695.7707 web@rothrealestate.net |
|