The court had apparently accepted the Board's interpretation of article XIII A. Following the trial and pending this appeal the case of Pope v. State Bd. of Equalization (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 1132 [ 194 Cal.Rptr. 883], was decided. It held ( passim) that under article XIII A, the date of completion of new construction is "the date the property or portion thereof is available for use."
The valuation of new construction is addressed by several sections of the Revenue and Taxation Code. (See generally Pope v. State Bd. of Equalization (1983) 146 Cal. App.3d 1132, 1135–1136, 194 Cal.Rptr. 883 (Pope) [observing the Legislature passed legislation to address concept of "newly constructed property" after voters adopted Proposition 13].) First, under section 51, if a portion of real property has been destroyed or removed, including "by voluntary action by the taxpayer," the base-year value of the property going forward "does not include that portion of the previous base[-]year value … that was attributable to any portion of the property that has been destroyed or removed."
Section 12.26, subdivision E.1 further provides that "no building erected or structurally altered shall be occupied or used until a certificate of occupancy shall have been issued . . . ." A certificate of occupancy is issued only when a structure is completed in conformity with the Los Angeles Municipal Code. ( Pope v. State Bd. of Equalization (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 1132, 1139 [ 194 Cal.Rptr. 883].) 2. Underlying Proceedings
The trial court was, at this point in its discussion, obviously using a round number estimate for the construction costs. Finally, as the Board correctly points out, the cost method used by the assessor was also reasonable because it was consistent with section 71 regarding how to determine base year value for new construction as more fully expounded by California Code of Regulations, title 18, section 463. California Code of Regulations, title 18, section 463, which implements section 71 (see, e.g., Ellis v. County of Calaveras, supra, 245 Cal.App.4th at p. 72; Pope v. State Bd. of Equalization (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 1132), provides that the "taxable value on the total property shall be determined by adding the full value of new construction to the taxable value of preexisting property ...." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 18, § 463, subd. (a).)
An agency's interpretation of its own regulations merits due deference; nonetheless the ultimate interpretation and legality of a statute or regulation are questions of law for courts to resolve. (Pope v. State Bd. of Equalization (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 1132, 1137, 194 Cal.Rptr. 883.) For, though the Assessors' Handbook “ ‘is considered an authoritative expression of official State Board staff opinions and given weight by the courts' ” (Seibold v. County of Los Angeles (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 674, 686, fn. 6, 192 Cal.Rptr.3d 575), it “ ‘do [es] not possess the force of law’ ” (SHC Half Moon Bay v. County of San Mateo (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 471, 485, 171 Cal.Rptr.3d 893).
A certificate of occupancy is issued only when a structure is completed in conformity with building code regulations. (L.A. Mun. Code, § 12.26(E)(1)(a); Carter, at p. 1044; Pope v. State Bd. of Equalization (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 1132, 1139.) Thus, beyond the securing of appropriate permits authorizing construction, the building must be properly constructed in order for a certificate of occupancy to issue.