If you just bought a house, it may be a good time to check the accuracy of your property tax assessment, experts say. 

Your property tax assessment is the way officials determine the value of your property for tax purposes. Inaccuracies about your home that factor into that formula could mean that you’re overpaying.

If it’s inaccurate, you likely have most of the essential documents you need to appeal, as part of your recent home purchase, according to Sal Cataldo, a real estate lawyer and partner at O’Doherty & Cataldo in Sayville, New York. 

The title report, for instance, is going to tell you the age of the house, Cataldo said. You might have a home inspection report on hand that details the property’s flaws, as well as an appraisal and your mortgage, which show the value of the house and the comparable value in the neighborhood. 

“You’ve gotten a wealth of information about your house, whether you realize it or not,” Cataldo said. 

More from Personal Finance:
House Republican bill calls for bigger child tax credit
College majors with the best and worst job prospects
Here’s how to save on groceries amid food price inflation

A home sale will typically trigger a property tax reassessment because the property is changing hands, with the new market value applied to the assessment. But the specific rules of when the new value is applied and the frequency of reassessments will depend on your area. 

Here’s why it may be valuable to add reviewing your property tax assessment to your to-do list as a newly minted homeowner:

In addition to your mortgage payment, home insurance and maintenance costs, property taxes are another factor to consider as you assess your housing expenses.

In recent years, property taxes have climbed because of rising home values and tax rates.

The median property tax bill in the U.S. in 2024 was $3,500, up 2.8% from $3,349 in 2023, according to an April report by Realtor. 

How much you pay varies widely depending on where you live, and some areas see higher bills and price hikes.

As of 2023, the median property tax for homeowners in New York City was $9,937, LendingTree found in a recent report. The city ranks first among the metropolitan areas with the highest median property taxes. Rounding out the top three are San Jose, California and San Francisco, where homeowners paid a median $9,554 and $8,156, respectively.

NTUF estimates 30% to 60% of taxable property in the U.S. is over-assessed, based on reports from individual state tax assessors.

Success in the appeal can lead to savings for several years as the change becomes the basis for the next assessment, said Sepp. While some state or local governments reassess annually, others have less-frequent cycles with gaps of several years. Some have no set schedule at all.

Over 40% of homeowners across the U.S. could potentially save $100 or more per year by protesting their assessment value, with median savings of $539 a year, per Realtor.com estimates.

If you own mutual funds, year-end payouts can trigger a surprise tax bill — even when you haven’t sold the underlying investment. But some lawmakers want to change that.

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, this week introduced a bill, known as the Generate Retirement Ownership Through Long-Term Holding, or GROWTH, Act. If enacted, the bill would defer reinvested mutual fund capital gains taxes until investors sell their shares.

Bipartisan House lawmakers introduced a similar bill in March.

When you own mutual funds in a pre-tax 401(k) or individual retirement account, growth is tax-deferred. But if you hold assets in a brokerage account, capital gains distributions and dividends incur yearly taxes.

More from Personal Finance:
What the House GOP budget bill means for your money
Tax bill includes $1,000 baby bonus in ‘Trump Accounts’
House GOP tax bill passes ‘SALT’ deduction cap of $40,000 

Depending on performance, some mutual funds can spit off substantial gains during the fourth quarter. In 2024, some paid double-digit distributions, Morningstar estimated.

These payouts are subject to long-term capital gains taxes of 0%, 15% or 20%, depending on your taxable income. Some higher earners also pay an extra 3.8% surcharge on investment earnings.

About $7 trillion of long-term mutual fund assets held outside of retirement accounts could be impacted by the legislation, according to the Investment Company Institute, which represents the asset management industry.

In a statement Wednesday, Cornyn described the mutual fund proposal as a “no-brainer” that would “help provide parity with other investment options.”

If enacted, the proposal would “incentivize Americans to save and invest for their long-term goals” without the stress of an “unexpected tax bill,” Eric Pan, president and CEO of the Investment Company Institute, said in a statement following the bill’s introduction.

However, it’s unclear whether the bill will advance amid competing priorities. Lawmakers are wrestling over President Donald Trump‘s multi-trillion-dollar tax and spending package, which passed in the House on Thursday, and could face hurdles in the Senate.

The U.S. Department of the Treasury has also asked Congress to raise the debt ceiling before August to avert a government shutdown.

You can avoid mutual fund payouts by switching to similar exchange-traded funds, or ETFs, which typically disburse less income, Tommy Lucas, a certified financial planner and enrolled agent at Moisand Fitzgerald Tamayo in Orlando, Florida, previously told CNBC.

Of course, the trade could also trigger taxes if the mutual fund has embedded gains, which may require some planning, he said.

Alternatively, investors could opt to keep mutual funds in tax-deferred accounts, such as pre-tax 401(k)s or IRAs.

The multitrillion-dollar tax and spending package passed by the House of Representatives on Thursday includes historic spending cuts to Medicaid health coverage and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP.

Now, it is up to the Senate to consider the changes — and to perhaps propose its own.

As it stands, the legislation — called the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” — would slash Medicaid spending by roughly $700 billion and SNAP, formerly known as food stamps, by about $300 billion.

“Bottom line is, a lot of people will lose benefits, including people who are entitled to these benefits and who are not the target population of this bill,” said Jennifer Wagner, director of Medicaid eligibility enrollment at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

More from Personal Finance:
How the House Republican tax bill favors the rich
Tax bill includes $1,000 baby bonus in ‘Trump Accounts’
Food stamps face ‘biggest cut in the program’s history’

The cuts to Medicaid and SNAP — the largest in the programs’ histories — come as the reconciliation bill would add roughly $3 trillion to the nation’s debt including interest over the next decade, estimates the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.

To help pay for a variety of tax perks included in the bill, House Republicans have targeted Medicaid and SNAP for savings.

“We don’t want any waste, fraud or abuse,” President Donald Trump said Tuesday on Newsmax when asked about prospective Medicaid changes. “Other than that, we’re leaving it.”

Likewise, some Republican leaders have pointed to rooting out abuse of SNAP benefits.

One way House Republicans are seeking to curb the programs’ spending is through new work requirements.

Notably, the proposal also calls for states to conduct more frequent eligibility redeterminations for adults who are eligible for Medicaid through Affordable Care Act expansions. Starting Dec. 31, 2026, states will be required to conduct redeterminations every six months, compared to current requirements that require eligibility reviews within 12 months of changes in a beneficiary’s circumstances, according to KFF.

The increased frequency of the redeterminations are “likely to have a big impact,” Tolbert said.

Ultimately, the work requirements may make it difficult for people to access the health coverage they need, she said.

“What this may end up doing is having the opposite of the intended effect,” Tolbert said. “They may lose access to the very treatments and services that are enabling them to work.”

The proposal would extend those requirements to individuals ages 55 to 64, as well as households with children, unless they are under age seven. In addition, states would also be limited in the flexibility they may provide with waivers of the work requirements or discretionary exemptions, according to the Urban Institute.

In addition, federal funding cuts would make it so states would have to contribute more toward benefits and administration of the program.

Ultimately, those changes could take away food assistance for millions, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.