Your feedback ensures we stay focused on the facts that matter to you most—take our survey.
California Proposition 58, Tax Assessments on Real Estate Transfers Within Families Amendment (1986)
| California Proposition 58 | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Election date November 4, 1986 | |
| Topic Taxes and Property | |
Status Approved | |
| Type Constitutional amendment | Origin State legislature |
California Proposition 58 was on the ballot as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment in California on November 4, 1986. It was approved.
A "yes" vote supported amending the state constitution to not require property tax re-assessments when real property is transferred between spouses and between parents and children. |
A "no" vote opposed amending the state constitution to not require property tax re-assessments when real property is transferred between spouses and between parents and children. |
Election results
|
California Proposition 58 |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
|
|
5,109,645 | 75.72% | ||
| No | 1,638,812 | 24.28% | ||
Text of measure
Ballot title
The ballot title for Proposition 58 was as follows:
| “ | Taxation. Family Transfers. | ” |
Ballot summary
The ballot summary for this measure was:
| “ | State Constitution Article XIII A. enacted as Proposition 13 in 1978, with certain exceptions, places a limitation on real property taxes equal to 1 percent of its full cash value listed on the 1975-1976 tax bill. Property may be reassessed on "purchase" or other "change of ownership." This measure amends Article XIII A to provide the terms "purchase" and "change of ownership" do not include the purchase or transfer of (1) real property between spouses and (2) the principal residence and the first $1,000,000 of other real property between parents and children. Summary of Legislative Analyst's estimate of state and local fiscal impact: Measure would reduce local property tax revenues. Cities, counties, and special districts would lose an estimated $17 million in 1987-88, $37 million in 1988-89, and increasing amounts in future years. Remaining losses would be to school and community college districts. Increased state aid from the State General Fund would offset these losses, resulting in an estimated loss to the General Fund of $11 million in 1987-88, $23 million in 1988-89, and increasing amounts in future years. | ” |
Full Text
The full text of this measure is available here.
Fiscal impact
The fiscal estimate provided by the California Legislative Analyst's Office said:[1]
| “ |
The provisions preventing the reassessment of real property transferred between spouses, and between parents and their children under the limited circumstances provided for by existing law, would have no fiscal effect. This is because existing statutory law prevents reassessment in these cases. The provisions which prevent reassessment of property transferred between parents and their children under circumstances not covered by existing law, however, would reduce local property tax revenues. The scope of the revenue losses would depend on actions taken by the Legislature in defining the terms used in the measure. If these terms were defined broadly, revenues would fall by an estimated $28 million in 1987-88, $60 million in 1988-89, and increasing amounts in subsequent years. Of these amounts, cities, counties and special districts would lose $17 million in 1987-88, $37 million in 1988-89, and increasing amounts in each subsequent year. The remainder of the losses would affect school districts and community college districts. Under existing law, higher state aid would offset these losses. We estimate that the State General Fund cost for the increased aid would amount to $11 million in 1987-88, $23 million in 1988-89, and increasing amounts in each subsequent year.[2] |
” |
Path to the ballot
A two-thirds vote was needed in each chamber of the California State Legislature to refer the constitutional amendment to the ballot for voter consideration.
See also
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ University of California, "Voter Guide," accessed August 26, 2021
- ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
 |
State of California Sacramento (capital) |
|---|---|
| Elections |
What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2025 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures |
| Government |
Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy |
