Pinecrest/Tupelo, L.P. v. Lee County Board of Supervisors
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2009-CA-00292-COA
3545 MITCHELL ROAD, LLC D/B/A TUPELO
TRACE APARTMENTS AND
PINECREST/TUPELO, L.P. D/B/A TUPELO
SENIORS APARTMENTS
APPELLANTS
v.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF LEE COUNTY,
MS AND MARK WEATHERS, LEE COUNTY
TAX ASSESSOR
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
TRIAL JUDGE:
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANTS:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEES:
NATURE OF THE CASE:
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION:
DISPOSITION:
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
APPELLEES
02/04/2009
HON. JAMES SETH ANDREW POUNDS
LEE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
JAMES L. MARTIN
GARY L. CARNATHAN
CIVIL - STATE BOARDS AND AGENCIES
AFFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE LEE
COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AFFIRMED: 06/29/2010
EN BANC.
KING, C.J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1.
Appellant 3545 Mitchell Road LLC d/b/a Tupelo Trace Apartments (Tupelo Trace)
and Appellant Pinecrest/Tupelo, L.P. d/b/a Tupelo Seniors Apartments (Pinecrest)
(collectively, the Appellants) appeal the judgment of the Lee County Circuit Court, which
affirmed the Lee County Board of Supervisors’ reassessment of the Appellants’ real property
and the resulting increase in ad valorem taxes. On appeal, the Appellants challenge whether
the Board properly reassessed and changed the amounts the Appellants owed in ad valorem
taxes for the Tupelo Trace and Pinecrest properties, and they seek a refund of their
overpayment of ad valorem taxes for 2007.1 Finding no error, this Court affirms.
FACTS
¶2.
Tupelo Trace owns and operates Tupelo Trace Apartments, and Pinecrest owns and
operates Tupelo Seniors Apartments. Both Tupelo Trace and Pinecrest are residential
apartment complexes consisting of 200 and 40 units, respectively and are designed to be
“affordable rental housing” properties, as that term is defined by Mississippi Code Annotated
section 27-35-50(4)(d)(i) (Rev. 2006). Section 27-35-50(4)(d) sets out the method to be used
to determine the “true value” of “affordable rental housing” for purposes of levying ad
valorem taxes. It provides that for tax purposes the value of “affordable rental housing” shall
be determined by the “actual net operating income attributable to the property, capitalized
at a market value capitalization rate prescribed by the State Tax Commission that reflects the
prevailing cost of capital for commercial real estate in the geographical market in which the
affordable rental housing is located adjusted for the enhanced risk that any recorded land use
regulations places on the net operating income from the property.” In order to receive this
benefit, the law requires that the property owner submit to the county tax assessor, by April
1 of each year, an accurate statement of the net operating income attributable to that property
for the prior year.
¶3.
The Appellants admit that in 2007, they failed to submit to the Lee County Tax
1
For clarity, we have combined both of the Appellants’ issues on appeal, as well as
the questions submitted within their brief, into one main issue.
2
Assessor the statements of the actual net operating income attributable to the properties for
the immediately preceding year, as required to qualify for the special valuation method for
assessing affordable rental housing property, as required by section 27-35-50(4)(d). The
Assessor, failing to notice that the Appellants had not submitted the required statements of
actual net operating income attributable to the properties, still assessed the properties using
the special valuation method, and submitted the 2007 Land Roll to the Board for approval
at its meeting held on July 3, 2007. The Assessor recommended to the Board the true value
of all real and personal property situated in Lee County, Mississippi, for 2007. The 2007
Land Roll included recommended true values for Tupelo Trace and Pinecrest in the sums of
$2,862,210 and $317,420, respectively. The Board accepted and adopted the 2007 Land Roll
at its meeting held on August 13, 2007. Tupelo Trace and Pinecrest were subsequently
assessed $43,529.98 and $4,843.67 in taxes, respectively.
¶4.
On or about September 25, 2007, the Appellants submitted a written request to the
Assessor asking for confirmation of the 2007 true values assessed to the apartment
complexes. The Assessor confirmed and represented to Tupelo Trace and Pinecrest that their
tax assessments would be based on a true value assessment of $2,862,210 and $317,420,
respectively.
¶5.
Later, the Assessor discovered that the Appellants had failed to submit statements of
the actual net operating income attributable to the properties for the immediately preceding
year to the Assessors’s office on or before April 1, 2007, as required by section 27-3550(4)(d). The Assessor then reassessed the subject properties using the ordinary method of
valuation, rather than the special income-capitalization approach, which resulted in higher
3
true-values for both properties than the original assessments. On or about November 8, 2007,
the Assessor changed the 2007 true value assessment for Tupelo Trace and Pinecrest to
$8,896,620 and $951,073, respectively.
As a result, the Appellants were assessed
$135,304.25 and $14,512.90, respectively, in taxes for 2007. The Appellants each paid their
respective amount on or about January 17, 2008.
¶6.
Due to the initial lack of notice to the Appellants regarding the increase in their
assessments, on July 28, 2008, the Board, on its own motion, rescinded the increase for
assessments for the Appellants’ properties, and it asked the Board’s clerk to notify the
Appellants of the increases. The clerk notified the Appellants of the increases by letter,
which advised the Appellants that if they objected to such increase, an objection must be
filed no later than 10:00 a.m. on August 18, 2008. The Appellants submitted a written
objection to the Board on August 6, 2008, objecting to the increase in the true value of their
properties.
However, the Appellants still failed to submit the statement of actual net
operating income for the prior year as required by section 27-35-50(4)(d). On August 22,
2008, after reviewing sections 27-35-145 (Rev. 2006), 27-35-147 (Rev. 2006), and 27-3550(4)(d) of the Mississippi Code Annotated, the Board issued an order denying the
Appellants’ objections. The Appellants subsequently appealed to the Lee County Circuit
Court on August 28, 2008.
¶7.
By agreement of the parties, the case was tried on a written stipulation of facts, with
exhibits, on January 16, 2009. On February 4, 2009, the circuit court entered an order
denying the Appellants’ appeal. Aggrieved, the Appellants now turn to this Court, seeking
relief.
4
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶8.
The Mississippi Supreme Court has held that a review of whether appellants are
entitled to an exemption presents a question of law, since the question “turns on both the
construction of the statutory language and application of it to the facts of the instant case.”
Hattiesburg Area Senior Servs., Inc. v. Lamar County, 633 So. 2d 440, 444 (Miss. 1994).
Since both of the parties in the case before us agreed to a stipulation of facts, this case
involves no dispute of fact. For questions of law, this Court conducts a de novo review of
the lower court’s decision. Univ. of Miss. Med. Ctr. v. Hughes, 765 So. 2d 528, 532 (¶13)
(Miss. 2000).
DISCUSSION
¶9.
The Appellants argue that the circuit court erred in finding that the Board properly
reassessed and increased the amount of ad valorem taxes owed on the subject properties,
Tupelo Trace and Pinecrest. The Appellants also argue that the circuit court erred in finding
that the Board properly changed the 2007 Land Roll assessments for the properties pursuant
to section 27-35-147.
¶10.
Section 27-35-50 of the Mississippi Code Annotated mandates that in order to assess
most types of real property for purposes of ad valorem taxation, the Assessor must determine
the true value of the property by using one or a combination of three approaches: incomecapitalization approach to value, the cost approach to value, or the market-data approach to
value. See Miss. Code Ann. § 27-35-50(2) (Rev. 2006). In the present case, the Appellants’
properties fall under the “affordable rental housing,” which is defined as:
residential housing consisting of one or more rental units, the construction
5
and/or rental of which is subject to Section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code
(26 USC 42), the Home Investment Partnership Program under the
Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act (42 USC 12741 et seq.),
the Federal Home Loan Banks Affordable Housing Program established
pursuant to the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act
(FIRREA) of 1989 (Public Law 101-73), or any other federal, state or similar
program intended to provide affordable housing to persons of low or moderate
income and the occupancy and maximum rental rates of such housing are
restricted based on the income of the persons occupying such housing.
Miss. Code Ann. § 27-35-50(4)(d)(i).2 Pursuant to section 27-35-50(4)(d), such property
must be appraised using only a specified income-capitalization approach developed by the
Mississippi State Tax Commission, which provides a lower rate of ad valorem taxation for
the property owner.3 In order to be assessed under this formula and receive a lower tax rate
for a given year, the owner of the affordable rental housing must, on or before April 1,
provide the county tax assessor with a statement of the actual net operating income for the
previous year. Miss. Code Ann. § 27-35-50(4)(d).
¶11.
In the present case, the Assessor did not discover the Appellants’ failure to submit the
required information to the Assessor’s office on or before April 1, 2007, in accordance with
section 27-35-50(4)(d), until after the Board had approved the assessment rolls. At the
February 8, 2008, Board meeting, the Assessor presented his recommendation to change the
2007 assessment of the Appellants’ properties from $2,862,210 and $317,420 to $8,896,620
and $951,073, respectively. This increased amount reflected the Assessor’s application of
the ordinary valuation approach in establishing the true value of the properties, instead of
2
Both parties stipulate that the Appellants’ properties fall under the “affordable rental
housing” category defined in section 27-35-50(4)(d)(i).
3
The Legislature amended 27-35-50 in 2005 to add (4)(d).
6
the specialized approach available to property owners meeting the requirements of section
27-35-50(4)(d).
¶12.
The Appellants agree that the Assessor and the Board have the authority to change an
assessment after it has become final. However, the Appellants claim that this authority is not
without limitations. Specifically, the Appellants claim that the Board’s power to change,
cancel, or decrease an assessment after the assessment roll becomes final is limited to the
fourteen enumerated circumstances found in Mississippi Code Annotated section 27-35-143
(Rev. 2006). The Appellants argue that the present situation does not fall under any of the
fourteen circumstances in section 27-35-143. Therefore, they claim that the increase in the
assessments of their properties was unlawful and should be rescinded.
¶13.
However, we note that section 27-35-143(11) authorizes changes in assessments by
the Board where lands have been assessed and incorrectly classified. We also note that
section 27-35-147(4) provides that a board of supervisors may increase an assessment after
an assessment roll has been adopted “[w]hen lands or improvements thereon have been listed
as exempt from taxation, but were subject to assessment and taxation on the preceding tax
lien date.”
¶14.
The appellants argue the special methodology of establishing a true value for
affordable rental housing in section 27-35-50(4)(d) is not tantamount to an exemption; they
contend that the powers to exempt and the powers to determine special modes of valuation
are separate and complimentary. However, this Court agrees with and affirms the circuit
court’s finding that section 27-35-50(4)(d) is an exemption because it provides a lower tax
rate to the owners of affordable rental housing, versus a higher tax rate for owners of the
7
same type property used in a different manner. We note that such an exemption is similar
to the favorable treatment found in the homestead exemption in Mississippi Code Annotated
section 27-33-3 (Rev. 2006). The homestead exemption is not a complete exclusion from
taxation; rather, it is a reduction in the amount of ad valorem taxes owed by the property
owner. Miss. Code Ann. § 27-33-3.
¶15.
We note that laws which grant tax exemptions are to be strictly construed against the
exemption. Better Living Servs., Inc. v. Bolivar County, 587 So. 2d 914, 917 (Miss. 1991)
(citing Bd. of Supervisors., Warren County v. Vicksburg Hosp., 173 Miss. 805, 816, 163 So.
382, 385 (1935)). Since section 27-35-50 is an exemption statute, we find that the Assessor
and Board were correct in utilizing sections 27-35-147(4) and 27-35-143(11) to correct the
wrongfully classified property and to reassess the properties and increase the amounts owed
in taxes by the Appellants. This issue is without merit.
¶16. THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF LEE COUNTY IS
AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO THE
APPELLANTS.
LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., ISHEE, CARLTON AND MAXWELL, JJ.,
CONCUR. ROBERTS, J., DISSENTS WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION
JOINED BY GRIFFIS, J. IRVING AND BARNES, JJ., NOT PARTICIPATING.
ROBERTS, J., DISSENTING:
¶17.
The majority affirms the judgment of the Lee County Circuit Court on the basis that
the Lee County Board of Supervisors was statutorily authorized to increase the tax liability
of both Tupelo Trace Apartments and Pinecrest Apartments (collectively the Appellants).
According to the majority, the Board was authorized to do so because the tax-liabilityvaluation method applicable to affordable rental housing as set forth by Mississippi Code
8
Annotated section 27-35-50(4)(d) (Rev. 2006) is the legal equivalent of a tax exemption.
With utmost respect for the majority, I cannot agree with the majority’s conclusion.
Therefore, I dissent.
¶18.
The facts of this case are undisputed. During the Board’s meeting on July 3, 2007,
the Lee County Tax Assessor submitted Lee County’s 2007 Land Roll. The 2007 Land Roll
included recommended true values for the Appellants’ properties. In determining the true
values of the Appellants’ properties, the Assessor apparently used the same figures that were
used to determine the true value of the Appellants’ properties for the 2006 fiscal year. That
is, the Assessor never requested updated net income operating expenses from the Appellants
in an effort to determine the 2007 true value of the Appellants’ properties. Consequently,
the Appellants were unaware that they were obligated to provide updated net income
operating expenses. It appears that the Assessor was, likewise, unaware that it was necessary
to obtain updated net income operating expenses.
¶19.
During the Board’s August 13, 2007, meeting the Board met to equalize the tax roll.
As a result, the Board accepted and adopted the Assessor’s 2007 Land Roll. On September
25, 2007, the Appellants submitted a written request to the Assessor, asking him to confirm
the 2007 true values that applied to their properties. The Assessor responded and confirmed
the true value of the Appellants’ 2007 tax assessments as approximately $2,860,000 and
$320,000.
¶20.
However, on November 8, 2007, after the Board had finally approved the tax rolls,
the Assessor unilaterally determined that it was necessary to increase the 2007 true values
of the Appellants’ properties. The Assessor never notified the Appellants of his intent to
9
increase their 2007 true value assessments to approximately $8,900,000 and $950,000. On
January 17, 2008, the Appellants paid their newly determined 2007 ad valorem taxes of
$135,304.25 and $14,512.90.
Under the Assessor’s prior true value assessment, the
Appellants would have had 2007 ad valorem tax liabilities of $43,529.98 and $4,843.67.
Under the revised true values, the Appellants’ tax burden increased a total of $101,443.50
– which is $91,774.27 and $9,669.23, respectively.
¶21.
The only issue is whether the Board was authorized to reassess the Appellants’ ad
valorem tax liability for the 2007 fiscal year after it and the Mississippi State Tax
Commission had accepted and adopted the tax rolls for 2007. As the majority discusses,
once a Board has accepted and adopted an Assessor’s recommendation, that Board may only
reassess tax liability under certain limited circumstances. According to the majority, the
Board was authorized to reassess the Appellants’ 2007 state ad valorem tax liability pursuant
to Mississippi Code Annotated section 27-35-143(11) (Rev. 2006) and/or Mississippi Code
Annotated section 27-35-147(4) (Rev. 2006).
¶22.
Section 27-35-143(11) – titled “Change of assessment in certain cases” – provides as
follows:
The board of supervisors of each county shall have power, upon application
of the party interested, or by the assessor on behalf of such party, or otherwise
as prescribed in Sections 27-35-145 through 27-35-149, to change, cancel or
decrease an assessment in the manner herein provided at any time after the
assessment roll containing such assessment has been finally approved by the
State Tax Commission, and prior to the last Monday in August next, under the
following circumstances and no other:
....
11. When lands have been assessed and incorrectly classified;
10
or when buildings and improvements have been assessed which
were not on the land[] at the preceding tax lien date; or where
the buildings and improvements at the preceding tax lien date[]
were exempt from assessment and taxation.
There was no evidence that the apartments had been incorrectly classified. They were, in
fact, classified correctly by the Board. The undisputed evidence is that the Assessor merely
reassessed the Appellants’ ad valorem tax liabilities pursuant to the “ordinary method of
valuation” rather than the “special income-capitalization approach.” It is true that the
Appellants failed to provide the necessary information on a timely basis. However, the
Appellants were unaware of any such obligation, and neither the Assessor nor the Board was
aware that the Appellants were required to provide that information. Furthermore, neither
the Assessor nor the Board requested the necessary information before final approval of the
tax rolls. The failure to provide necessary documentation is not included among any of the
circumstances in which a board may modify a taxpayer’s ad valorem tax liability as set forth
in section 27-35-143. In my opinion, an incorrect valuation calculation is not the equivalent
of incorrect classification of property.
¶23.
Additionally, the majority finds that the Board was authorized to reassess the
Appellants’ 2007 ad valorem tax liability based on section 27-35-147(4), which provides as
follows:
The board of supervisors, upon its own motion, or upon notice from the tax
assessor, the state tax commission, or other officer authorized to assess, or
have assessed property escaping taxation, shall have power, at any time in the
current year that an assessment roll is in force, to increase an assessment
subject to approval as hereinafter provided, or to assess property or persons
omitted from such roll or rolls under the following circumstances:
....
11
(4) When lands or improvements thereon have been listed as
exempt from taxation, but were subject to assessment and
taxation on the preceding tax lien date.
¶24.
The majority concludes that the “special income-capitalization approach” applicable
to taxation of affordable rental housing “is an exemption because it provides for a lower tax
rate to the owners of affordable rental housing, versus a higher tax rate for owners of the
same type property used in a different manner.” Respectfully, I interpret the majority
opinion as defining an exemption as any taxation-calculation methodology or any other
mechanism that results in a lower tax liability than the equivalent of the absolute maximum
taxation rate allowable by law. I do not agree.
¶25.
The term “exemption” is not defined by any Mississippi law. However, it is not an
unfamiliar term. “In taxation, an exemption is an amount allowed as a deduction from
adjusted gross income in arriving at taxable income.” Black’s Law Dictionary 572 (6th ed.
1990). Here, the Assessor did not first deduct a particular portion of the Appellants’ adjusted
gross income before calculating their 2007 ad valorem tax liabilities. Instead, he initially
calculated their value pursuant to the “special income-capitalization approach” – apparently
based on 2006 financial data – which resulted in tax liabilities of $43,529.98 and $4,843.67
and subsequently calculated their value pursuant to the “ordinary method of valuation,”
which resulted in tax liabilities of $135,304.25 and $14,512.90. Using a different formula
to calculate taxable value is not the legal equivalent of an “exemption.”
¶26.
Furthermore, the Mississippi Legislature has listed all general ad valorem tax
exemptions in Mississippi Code Annotated section 27-31-1 through -117 (Rev. 2006). The
12
Legislature did not include the “special income-capitalization approach” for determining the
tax liability of affordable rental housing within its listing of general exemptions. The
Legislature also detailed all provisions regarding the homestead exemption to ad valorem
taxation within Mississippi Code Annotated section 27-33-1 through -79 (Rev. 2006).
Again, the Legislature omitted any mention of the “special income-capitalization approach”
for determining the tax liability of affordable rental housing in the laws regarding the
homestead exemption. I collegially disagree that any formulaic approach that results in a
lower tax assessment amounts to an “exemption.”
¶27.
According to the majority’s logic, in each instance where the Mississippi Code
provides less than the absolute maximum level of taxation, that in and of itself is an
exemption regardless whether it is included in the provisions specifically classified as general
exemptions or the homestead exemption. In other words, if a board finds that a taxpayer or
a taxpaying entity could have been assessed at a higher rate under any circumstances, that
board is authorized to reassess that tax liability because that taxpayer or taxpaying entity has
received the benefit of an exemption – even if the Legislature has not included the means that
resulted in a lower tax rate among the laws that apply to exemptions. In effect, the majority
finds that the Legislature has failed to correctly classify what it considers exemptions,
because whether something qualifies as an exemption depends solely on whether a provision
in any Mississippi law creates a lower tax liability.
¶28.
The majority bolsters its conclusion by finding that using the “special income-
capitalization approach” rather than the “ordinary method of valuation” is an exemption
because it “is similar to the favorable treatment found in the homestead exemption . . .
13
[which] is not a complete exclusion from taxation, but rather a reduction in the amount of ad
valorem taxes owed by the property owner.” With respect for the majority, I disagree.
¶29.
The homestead exemption is a specified deduction from the assessed value of a
qualifying dwelling. See Miss. Code Ann. § 27-33-3(1) (Rev. 2006). That is not what
occurred in this case. Furthermore, section 27-35-147(4) only applies if it is determined that
“lands or improvements thereon have been listed as exempt from taxation, but were subject
to assessment and taxation on the preceding tax lien date.” None of the Appellants’
properties were ever “listed as exempt from taxation.” Instead, the Assessor assessed all of
the Appellants’ properties, but he used the “special income-capitalization approach” to
establish value instead of the “ordinary method of valuation” to establish value.
¶30.
In its brief, the Board notes that the American Heritage Dictionary, 474 (2d College
Ed.) defines exemption as “the state of being free from an obligation or duty required of
others.” Additionally, the Board cited Clement v. Stone, 195 Miss. 774, 791, 15 So. 2d 517,
522 (1943) for the concept that a property tax exemption is a “grant of immunity from tax
upon property which persons generally are obligated to pay.” However, that is an extreme
oversimplification of the supreme court’s decision in Clement.
¶31.
In Clement, the supreme court stated as follows:
exemption from taxation has two meanings, one broad and the other narrow.
In the broad sense whenever a tax is laid on property which does not apply to
all property within the jurisdiction of the taxing authorities, the property not
taxed may be said to be exempted . . . . In its narrower sense an exemption
from taxation is the grant of immunity to particular persons or corporations or
to persons or corporations of a particular class from a tax upon property or an
excise which persons or corporations generally within the same taxing district
are obligated to pay.
14
Id. (citation omitted). Thus, the supreme court did not solely define “exemption” as the
Board suggests. In fact, the supreme court refused to find that there had been an exemption
in Clement. Id. In so doing, the supreme court stated that “no exemption from taxation will
be created by implication.” Id. (citation omitted). Contrary to the supreme court’s decision
in Clement, the majority finds, through implication, that the “special income-capitalization
approach” that applies to affordable rental housing is actually an exemption – despite the fact
that the Legislature does not consider it to be an exemption.
¶32.
To summarize this case, in 2005, the Legislature amended Mississippi Code
Annotated section 27-35-50(4)(d) and specified that tax assessors were to determine the true
value of affordable rental housing by using the appraisal procedure set forth in the State Tax
Commission’s land appraisal manuals. As the majority noted, the Legislature further
specified that a tax assessor shall determine the true value of affordable rental housing by
calculating as follows:
actual net operating income attributable to the property, capitalized at a market
value capitalization rate prescribed by the State Tax Commission that reflects
the prevailing cost of capital for commercial real estate in the geographical
market in which the affordable rental housing is located[,] adjusted for the
enhanced risk that any recorded land use regulations place on the net operating
income from the property.
Miss. Code Ann. § 27-35-50(4)(d). The Appellants were required to provide the Assessor
– on or before April 1, 2007 – with an accurate statement of their actual net operating
income attributable to their respective properties for the previous year. Id. The Appellants
provided the Assessor with the necessary information to determine their tax liability for
2006. It appears that the Appellants were unaware of their continuing obligation to provide
15
the necessary information on an annual basis. The Assessor apparently was also unaware of
the Appellants’ annual obligation, because he never notified the Appellants of their
obligation or requested any additional information.
¶33.
When the Board met to equalize the land roll during August 2007, the Board was fully
authorized to correct any errors in those assessments. Miss. Code Ann. § 27-35-87 (Rev.
2006). Had the Board been aware of the Assessor’s oversight, the Board would have been
authorized to order the Appellants to produce “books . . . and such other papers as [would]
fully inform [it] as to the true value of the property to be assessed” at the August meeting in
which the Board sat as an “equalization board.” Miss. Code Ann. § 27-35-97 (Rev. 2006).
Had the Board requested that information and if the Appellants had failed to comply with that
demand, the Appellants would have been precluded from objecting to any resulting
assessment. Id. However, it is undisputed that the Board did not correct the Assessor’s
oversight. Afterward, the Board and the State Tax Commission finally approved Lee
County’s 2007 assessment rolls. See Miss. Code Ann. § 27-31-105 (Rev. 2006); § 27-35113 (Rev. 2006). Based on the record, the Appellants’ properties were properly valued
pursuant to the “special income-capitalization approach” for affordable rental housing in
2006 and again in 2008. It was only during 2007 that the Board sought to collect an
additional $100,000 in ad valorem taxes from the Appellants.
¶34.
I cannot find that the circumstances that occurred in this case fall within any statutory
provision in which modification of an assessment is authorized after final approval of the tax
rolls by the Board and the State Tax Commission. Furthermore, I cannot agree with the
majority’s logic that the Appellants’ properties were improperly classified or that any
16
taxation rate other than the maximum taxation rate allowable by law amounts to an
“exemption.” I would find that the circuit court erred when it held that the Board was
authorized to reassess and substantially increase the Appellants’ 2007 ad valorem tax
liabilities. Accordingly, I would reverse the judgment of the circuit court and render
judgment for the Appellants in the amount of their overpayment of ad valorem taxes for
2007.
GRIFFIS, J., JOINS THIS OPINION.
17
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.