Once again, a "tax lightning" bill failed to clear the state Legislature.

"Tax lightning" refers to a major increase in a homeowner's assessed property value, immediately after the home is bought, to reflect the current market rate. Until a home changes hands, state law prevents the county assessor from increasing its taxable value by more than 3 percent each year.

Several district courts around New Mexico have ruled in favor of homeowners who sued the state over "tax lightning," saying the current law is unfair because recent homebuyers pay significantly more taxes than neighbors who have owned their homes longer.

However, advocates of changing the law have been unable to get proposed changes through the New Mexico Legislature, despite pressure from court challenges seeking to alter the rules.

Senate Bill 145, sponsored by Sen. Tim Eichenberg, D-Albuquerque, sought to ease the inequities among homeowners created by the 2000 law that caps annual increases in home values for tax purposes until the property changes hands.

Eichenberg's bill passed the Senate -- but not until a few days before the end of the 2012 legislative session last week. It quietly died in a House committee, meeting the same ultimate fate that has befallen similar attempts to change the law.

SB 145 would have extended the 3 percent cap on property-value increases to newly purchased properties. It would have recalculated the values as if those homes also had been protected by the 3 percent cap on increases.

House Speaker Ben Luján, D-Nambé, sponsored the 2000 law that created the 3 percent annual cap. The law was prompted by longtime homeowners in Santa Fe County who were seeing their property taxes soar during the real-estate boom here in the 1980s and '90s.

Luján, who voted against a similar Eichenberg bill in 2011, told The New Mexican last year that the bill would help only about 25 percent of taxpayers who purchased their homes after 2004 -- and would hurt the other 75 percent because their taxes likely would increase once the adjustments are made. He said there are more taxpayers in his northern Santa Fe County district who benefit from the current law because property in rural areas tends to change hands less frequently.

The state Legislative Council Service estimated the loss in revenue from SB 145, had it become law, would have been between $10 million and $20 million. A report by the Legislative Education Study Committee said the loss of revenue would have hurt the ability of school districts to generate property-tax revenues, decreasing bonding capacity.

Nancy Udell and her husband, James Atwood -- both of whom are retired lawyers -- last year filed a lawsuit seeking a refund for part of the property taxes they paid last year and a reassessment of their home, claiming the 2000 law is unconstitutional.

Udell on Monday called that a "piggy-back" lawsuit that has been consolidated with numerous similar suits in Bernalillo County. The state Court of Appeals heard arguments in the case late last year but has yet to make a decision.

"One way or another, the Supreme Court will decide this," Udell said.

Santa Fe County Assessor Domingo Martinez said Monday that he didn't oppose Eichenberg's bill. "It was better than doing nothing," he said.

But he said the part of the bill requiring assessors to recalculate property taxes to retroactively apply the 3 percent cap to everyone would have been burdensome for his and other assessors' offices.

If the state Supreme Court throws out the current 3 percent caps for those who bought their homes before the law went into effect, it would be a nasty shock for many who have been protected by the caps, Martinez said. Even though Santa Fe property values started to slide after 2007, property values had increased so much that the tax would be much higher on most such homes.

"Whenever you fool around with property values, it's not going to be fair and equitable," Martinez said.

Contact Steve Terrell at 986-3037 or sterrell@sfnewmexican.com. Read his political blog at roundhouseroundup.com.