BILL ANALYSIS |
C.S.H.B. 2687 |
By: Rodriguez, Eddie |
Ways & Means |
Committee Report (Substituted) |
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
According to interested parties, the attorney general recently issued an opinion indicating that the governing body of a taxing unit has no role in the transfer of its property tax liens nor is it empowered to deny the transfer of a tax lien under certain conditions. The parties contend that, because the tax lien exists in favor of the taxing unit, the taxing unit should be in control of its liens and that decisions related to the lien's transfer should not be determined by the person against whom the lien is placed. The parties further suggest that a taxing entity's approval of a tax lien transfer prevents a taxpayer from being subjected to business practices that could result in foreclosure or the breach of the terms of the mortgage loan. C.S.H.B. 2687 seeks to grant the governing body of a taxing unit a measure of control over the transfer of tax liens.
|
||||||||||
RULEMAKING AUTHORITY
It is the committee's opinion that this bill does not expressly grant any additional rulemaking authority to a state officer, department, agency, or institution.
|
||||||||||
ANALYSIS
C.S.H.B. 2687 amends the Tax Code to require the governing body of a taxing unit, within 15 days of any action taken by the governing body pursuant to the transfer of a tax lien on property to the person who pays the taxes on behalf of the property owner for taxes that are delinquent at the time of payment or for taxes that are not delinquent at the time of payment under certain conditions, to send written notification of the action to the tax assessor-collector who collects taxes for the taxing unit. The bill authorizes the governing body of a taxing unit to prohibit, in the manner required by law for official action by the governing body, such a transfer of tax liens that exist in favor of the taxing unit.
|
||||||||||
EFFECTIVE DATE
January 1, 2014.
|
||||||||||
COMPARISON OF ORIGINAL AND SUBSTITUTE
While C.S.H.B. 2687 may differ from the original in minor or nonsubstantive ways, the following comparison is organized and highlighted in a manner that indicates the substantial differences between the introduced and committee substitute versions of the bill.
|
||||||||||
|