This bill provides for a 'property tax recovery fee' on the rental of construction, industrial, maritime, or mining equipment that is rented without a driver or operator. While the definition in subsection (a) and the internal references are all to a 'fee', subsection (f) states that this charge is a tax.

The 'fee' is in the amount of 1.5% of the total rental charge (minus some exclusions) and applies to lease agreements which are either: 1) 365 days or less; or 2) for an open or unspecified period of time. The 'fee' is purportedly to pay the lessor's (rental company's) property tax liability on rental equipment. However, if the lessor collects more than the amount of that property tax liability, the excess amount plus any interest, goes to the state and not to local government. The 'fee' commences January 1, 2018, and ceases December 31, 2022.

This bill would expand the property tax exemption for property owned by charitable organizations. Presently, buildings on such property must be "exclusively" used for charitable purposes. This bill would remove that exclusivity requirement, meaning that such buildings could be used for other purposes, including income-generating activities. As originally introduced, this bill would expand the property tax exemption only for homes for the mentally disabled. 

This legislation alters various provisions regarding private restrictive covenants on land, including dictating circumstances under which control of such development may transfer to the unit/lot owners for failures on the part of the developer (for example, failure to pay property taxes for two or more years). 

The text of this bill was added to SB 46. 

As amended by the author before the Senate Finance Committee, this bill would prohibit the placement on property tax bills of nontax-related fees and assessments, unless that fee or assessment is established via the creation of a special tax district. Regardless of method of establishment of such fees, however, this bill would prohibit the filing of liens against property for nonpayment of fees or assessments -- only unpaid property taxes could result in a lien. As a result, this bill would indirectly repeal existing law authorizing the filing of liens for unpaid sanitation and water fees/bills.

While the bill’s author maintains that placing such fees on property tax bills exposes the property owner to potential liens and losing of their homes due to unpaid fees, examples of that happening have not been provided. 

In contrast, placing fees on property tax bills provides convenience to citizens, lowers counties’ administrative costs, and results in higher collection rates. Because experience has shown that billing fees separately can significantly impact collections, counties could be faced with either raising fees for those who do pay in order to continue providing vital services, or shift those fees to property taxes. In addition, for those counties that currently do include fees on property tax bills, separating those billings will likely result in substantial administrative costs. More importantly, the loss of the ability to file liens would mean that counties would have to sue citizens for unpaid fees or raise fees on those citizens who do pay their bills.

ACCG believes that the decision on whether to bill separately or collectively for taxes and fees is best left to local officials, who are better positioned to respond to the specific desires of their citizens.

 As amended in the Senate Finance Committee, the above subject was removed and replaced with unrelated language exempting non-profit organizations from the $5 transporation surcharge for hotel/motel stays.

This bill entitles a veteran who gets a final determination of disability letter containing a retroactive period of eligibility to get a refund of those ad valorem taxes paid that would otherwise have been exempt had the disabled status been in effect during the retroactive period, up to a maximum of three years under OCGA 48-5-380.

The text of this bill was added to HB 196. 

This bill changes the criteria that a tax assessor is required to apply in determining fair market value of property receiving certain income tax credits for ad valorem tax purposes. It is an effort to circumvent a recent court decision and limit the consideration of low income housing tax credits.

The text of this bill was added to HB 196. 

This bill, in its substitute form, changes the definition of fair market value for ad valorem tax purposes by requiring the consideration of actual income and expense data if supplied by the owner.

The text of this bill was added to HB 196. 

The text of this bill was added to HB 329 and adopted, effective July 1, 2019. This bill would make several changes to the calculation and distribution of title ad valorem tax (TAVT). Rather than the current law which provides for annual adjustment of the state/local split based on prior year collections, local governments will continue to collect ad valorem taxes on pre-2013 vehicles. TAVT proceeds be split between the state and local governments on a 65/35 (state/local) basis. The local share would be distributed as follows: 1) for vehicles registered in unincorporated areas, 51% of the local proceeds would be paid to the county and 49% to the school system; and 2) for vehicles registered in incorporated areas, 49% would be paid to the school system, 28% to the county, and 23% to the city. There are also provisions to accommodate MARTA in the three counties in which MARTA sales tax is collected. 

As adopted, the formula for calculating TAVT on used cars is unchanged. The TAVT rate for out-of-state registrations is lowered from 7% to 3%. Certain minor changes are also included, such as no longer charging full TAVT when a vehicle is retitled as a result of a divorce from one spouse to the other.

As introduced, this bill provides for the comprehensive revision of the distribution of state and local TAVT proceeds. First, during a four-year phase in period, counties (and other local governments) first receive proceeds based upon the 2012 tax year ad valorem collections minus the amount of ad valorem tax collected in the current month. During that phase-in period, the remaining amount is split between the state and local governments on a graduated scale that shifts more money to the local governments. Following the phase in period, all vehicle ad valorem taxes and TAVT proceeds are split 30 percent to the state and 70 percent to local government. During the phase in period, the distribution of local TAVT proceeds among counties, schools, and cities remains the same as at present. Under a proposed substitute to the original bill, beginning in 2022 the county/schools/cities split would be at the average percentages those entities received from 2018 through 2021. More information is available here. 

As passed by the Senate Finance Committee, the above changes to the state/local distribution of TAVT was removed from the bill. As ultimately approved by both the Senate and House, HB 340 only changes the formula for calculation of TAVT on leased vehicles.