SB 1402 prescribes how taxpayers must apply for reductions to local property tax assessments and sets precise deadlines, notice responsibilities, and form requirements. It requires a verified written application on a State Board of Equalization form, limits application fees for many homeowners, and creates multiple exceptions that extend filing windows when notices are late or county practices fail to meet deadlines.
The bill matters because it reallocates administrative responsibilities — requiring county assessors, clerks, and the State Board of Equalization to coordinate notice timing and publicize filing periods — while also codifying practical rules (postmark acceptance, electronic filing standards, and a stipulated-error remedy) that will change how assessors and taxpayers pursue local equalization. Compliance officers and county tax officials need to update intake processes, forms, and calendaring if this measure becomes law.
At a Glance
What It Does
SB 1402 requires taxpayers to submit a verified, written application on a State Board of Equalization–prescribed form to seek reductions in local-roll assessments, establishes a default July 2–September 15 filing window with multiple exceptions, and bars application fees for homes valued under $2.5 million. It also imposes notice and certification duties on county assessors and clerks and permits electronically signed filings subject to county authentication methods.
Who It Affects
County assessors, county boards of supervisors and clerks, tax collectors, the State Board of Equalization, residential property owners (particularly those with homes under $2.5M), and practitioners who file assessment appeals on behalf of clients. Counties that miss notice deadlines face expanded filing periods and extra administrative work.
Why It Matters
The bill tightens procedural prerequisites that determine whether an appeal is heard, effectively gating access by form, filing period, and authentication method. It centralizes some rulemaking with the State Board of Equalization and creates county-level duties that could shift workload and costs to local governments while expanding protections for taxpayers who do not timely receive assessor notices.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB 1402 starts by saying a taxpayer (or an authorized agent) cannot get a reduction on the local roll unless they file a verified, written application showing the facts supporting a lower value and providing the applicant’s opinion of full value — and it requires the State Board of Equalization to prescribe the actual form. It also stops assessors, tax collectors, or auditors from charging a fee for that form when the home’s value is under $2.5 million, which removes a common small-fee barrier for many homeowners.
The bill fixes a primary filing window from July 2 to September 15 and makes clear that timely postmarks count. If a taxpayer didn’t receive the assessor’s Section 619 notice at least 15 days before the deadline, SB 1402 lets them file within 60 days of getting the notice or the tax bill, whichever comes first, provided they sign an affidavit under penalty of perjury that the notice was late.
For counties that fail to provide the required notices by August 1, the bill extends the filing deadline to November 30 for all affected assessees in that county; it requires assessors to tell county clerks by April 1 whether they will provide the notice, and it obliges clerks to certify and inform the State Board whether the county’s deadline is September 15 or November 30.SB 1402 preserves a narrow remedy where the assessor and taxpayer can stipulate to an error caused by assessor judgment and file within 12 months, and it authorizes boards of supervisors to adopt a resolution allowing some taxpayers to file within 60 days of receiving the assessor’s response to a March 15 reassessment request — but only if several enumerated conditions are satisfied. The bill also mandates that the application form warn applicants that written findings from local equalization hearings are available only upon request and at the requester’s expense, prescribes precise signature block language to establish standing, and allows counties to accept electronically filed applications with authenticated electronic signatures under county-approved methods.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill prohibits counties from charging an application fee for assessment-change petitions for homes valued under $2,500,000.
The default application window is July 2–September 15, but the filing period extends to November 30 for all property in any county where the assessor does not provide the Section 619 notice by August 1.
County assessors must notify the county clerk and tax collector by April 1 whether they will provide the required August 1 notice, and the county clerk must certify the county’s final filing deadline to the State Board of Equalization.
If a taxpayer did not receive the Section 619 notice at least 15 days before the filing deadline, the taxpayer may file within 60 days of receiving the notice or the tax bill (whichever is earlier) with a perjury affidavit that the notice was untimely.
Counties may accept electronically filed applications with electronic signatures only if the signature is accompanied by the prescribed certification and authenticated using a county-board-approved method (for example, clerk-assigned personal identification numbers).
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Verified written application and fee exemption for many homeowners
Subdivision (a) makes the application form the gatekeeper: a verified, written application showing facts and the applicant’s opinion of full value is required to obtain a reduction. It gives the State Board of Equalization the rulemaking role to prescribe the form and explicitly bans assessors, tax collectors, or auditors from charging an application fee for homes valued under $2.5 million, which reduces a direct cost barrier for many residential appeals.
Primary filing window, postmark rule, and late-notice exceptions
Subdivision (b) lays out the principal July 2–September 15 filing period and treats mailed applications postmarked by September 15 as timely. It creates a 60-day filing extension when the taxpayer didn’t receive the Section 619 notice at least 15 days before the deadline, but requires a sworn affidavit that the notice was untimely. The subsection further sets an alternate county-level rule moving the deadline to November 30 where assessors fail to deliver the August 1 notices, and prescribes administrative steps (April 1 assessor notice to clerk, clerk certification, State Board listing) to operationalize that calendar shift. It also resolves weekend/holiday timing by accepting next-business-day postmarks and treating early county closures as legal holidays.
Stipulation remedy for assessor-acknowledged valuation errors
Subdivision (c) permits an application to be filed within 12 months after notice when the assessor and the taxpayer stipulate an error that arose from the assessor’s exercise of judgment and they file a written stipulation of full cash value and assessed value under Section 1607. This preserves a negotiated pathway outside the standard filing window but limits it to errors the assessor concedes as judgment calls.
Board of supervisors resolution for 60‑day filing after reassessment responses
Subdivision (d) allows boards of supervisors, upon recommendation, to adopt a resolution permitting taxpayers to file within 60 days of the assessor’s mailed response to a reassessment request, but only when a set of six conditions are met — including that the initial request was on board-prescribed forms, submitted by the prior March 15, that the assessor’s response was mailed on or after September 1, and that the application is filed by December 31 with a copy of the assessor’s response attached. This creates a narrowly tailored safety valve for late reassessment answers while placing firm temporal and procedural limits on its use.
Disclosure on form about written findings and waiver of right
Subdivision (e) requires the prescribed application form to include a notice that written findings from a local equalization hearing will be supplied only upon written request and at the requester’s expense, and warns that failing to request them constitutes a waiver. That shifts costs for obtaining formal findings to the requester and forces an affirmative choice at intake.
Signature-block certification of status and perjury language
Subdivision (f) standardizes the signature block, requiring a perjury certification and precise language establishing who may sign — the owner, a person with a direct economic interest, an authorized agent, or a California-licensed attorney retained and authorized to file. This narrows ambiguity on standing and makes misrepresentation in filings explicitly punishable under perjury statutes.
Standards for accepting electronically filed applications
Subdivision (g) authorizes county clerks to accept electronically filed applications with electronic signatures only if the filing otherwise complies, the signature is accompanied by the required perjury certification, and the county board of supervisors approves an authentication method. By leaving the authentication method to county approval (examples include clerk-assigned PINs), the bill allows flexibility but creates potential variability in electronic-signature security across counties.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Finance across all five countries.
Explore Finance in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Owners of residential property valued under $2.5 million — they are barred from being charged an application fee, lowering the cost of filing an assessment appeal and likely increasing access for middle-income homeowners.
- Taxpayers who do not receive timely Section 619 notices — the 60-day filing window and the affidavit remedy provide an extra layer of procedural protection and reduce the risk of forfeiting appeal rights due to late notice.
- Property owners in counties that fail to issue the required August 1 notices — they gain an extended, county-wide filing period to November 30, standardizing relief for entire counties rather than case-by-case.
- Attorneys and agents who represent taxpayers — the standardized signature block and acceptance of authenticated electronic filings (where implemented) clarify standing and can streamline remote filings.
- State Board of Equalization — gains a concrete administrative role to prescribe the application form and maintain a statewide listing of county filing periods, centralizing information for practitioners and taxpayers.
Who Bears the Cost
- County assessors — must meet notice-timing obligations, notify clerks by April 1, prepare and mail Section 619 notices on schedule, and face increased challenges and potential appeals when deadlines slip.
- County clerks and tax collectors — must certify county filing deadlines, communicate with the State Board of Equalization, and process extended filing periods and potentially higher appeal volumes, with little in-bill funding for that work.
- Counties that miss the August 1 notice deadline — face an administrative surge from an extended November 30 deadline and the operational burden of processing late-filed applications and related disputes.
- Owners of higher-value residential properties (above $2.5M) — remain subject to application fees, creating a differential cost outcome tied to property valuation.
- Local governments and boards of supervisors — if they choose to adopt the optional resolution in subdivision (d), they must administer additional procedural checks (verifying timely form submission, mailing dates, and attaching assessor responses), which imposes staff time and tracking burdens.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
SB 1402 pits administrative finality and roll-closing certainty against taxpayer due process: extending and exceptionizing filing windows protects property owners who did not get timely or accurate notice, but it shifts timing uncertainty and additional administrative costs to county offices and introduces the potential for inconsistent treatment across counties and between taxpayers.
SB 1402 balances taxpayer protections against procedural finality, but it leaves several operational questions unresolved. The bill delegates form design and a statewide listing to the State Board of Equalization but does not provide implementation funding or set timelines for the SBOE’s work; counties must rely on that form and the listing to operate consistently.
The electronic-signature provision permits county discretion in authentication methods, which promotes local flexibility but risks uneven security and inconsistent acceptance standards across counties — a single taxpayer could be treated differently depending on local choices.
The statute’s fee exemption applies to “homes valued at less than $2,500,000,” but the bill does not define whether that valuation reference is assessed value, full cash value, or another metric; that ambiguity could spark disputes at intake about eligibility for the fee prohibition. Likewise, the affidavit mechanism for late notices depends on taxpayer attestations of nonreceipt; counties will need procedures to verify such claims without creating invasive checks or arbitrary denials.
Finally, by creating county-level extensions (to November 30) and optional supervisor resolutions, the bill substitutes a patchwork of county outcomes for a single statewide rule — improving fairness where notice practices fail but undermining uniformity and predictability for statewide filers and practitioners.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.