Under California's famous Proposition 13, a change in ownership of real property triggers a reappraisal and reassessment of the property for property tax purposes.  Section 60 of the Revenue & Taxation Code defines a "change in ownership" as "a transfer of a present interest in real property, including the beneficial use thereof, the value of which is substantially equal to the value of the fee interest".  Section 62(a) identifies various transfers as being excluded from the definition of a "change-in-ownership".   Included on that list is "Any transfer between . . .  legal entities . . . that results solely in a change in the method of holding title to the real property and in which proportional ownership interests of the transferors and transferees, whether represented by stock, partnership interest, or otherwise, in each and every piece of real property transferred, remain the same after the transfer".  

A tale of many reversals . . .

In Prang v. Amen, 2020 Cal. App. LEXIS 1153, the Court of Appeal was called upon to consider whether "stock" refers solely to voting stock or to non-voting stock as well.  The case involved a corporation that transferred its real property to a trust.  The trust owned all of the corporation's voting stock, but several others owned the corporation's non-voting stock.  The County Assessor found that a transfer had occurred for purposes of Proposition 13 because the property was now owned by the trust and some of the owners of the non-voting stock were not beneficiaries of the trust.  The trust appealed and the Assessment Appeals Board reversed, finding that only the voting stock should be considered and thus there had been no change in ownership.  Not to be deterred, the Assessor sought relief in the Superior Court which  granted the Assessor's petition to vacate the Board's decision.

In a 2-1 decision, the Court of Appeal affirmed the Superior Court's decision (finding that a change in ownership had occurred).  Interestingly, the State Board of Equalization filed an amicus brief arguing that "stock" is an ambiguous term because there are many categories of stock.  Justice Lamar W. Baker dissented, arguing that the majority's holding will engender unpredictable and, in some cases, unfair consequences.