Agenda - 09-15-2009 - 4e - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Mr. John Smith Page 5 July 2, 2009 appraisal one in recognition of their true value in money in their restricted condition. The taxes plus interest, penalties and costs for these parcels coming out of the use value program are due for the year the property is disqualified from the use value program (2004) and the three prior years (2003, 2002, 2001). N.C. Gen. Stat. § 105-277.4(c) The deferred tax bill became due and payable when the property failed to meet the present use value requirements, Id., and should be collected. The failure of the tax assessor's office to levy the taxes on these parcels in 2004 and to create a deferred tax bill when they were disqualified from the use value program was a tax abstract clerical error and an immateriality pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 105-394. See Northampton County Drainage Dist. Number One v. Bailey, 92 N.C. App. 68, 373 S.E.2d 560 {1988), rev'd on other grounds, 326 N.C. 742, 392 S.E.2d 352 (1990}, modified on other grounds, 326 N.C. 742, 392 S.E.2d 352 {1990}. This clerical error had the effect of these parcels being valued at amounts inconsistent with their restricted use. This error can be corrected by discovering the value of these parcels for the years 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009 as described above pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 105-312. That tax, if any, should be collected. This "discovery" together with the tax bill consistent with it will provide the taxpayer with a valid defense to the collection of the tax already assessed against these parcels for the years in which they-were assessed incorrectly because of the clerical error. The timely request for release/refund made by or on behalf of the taxpayer (already received) provides the Board of County Commissioners with a basis for a release or refund, pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 105-381, of the amount of the erroneous tax. The documentation of this subdivision from preliminary plan approval to final plat approval, including the recording of documents necessary to accomplish the preliminary plan approval requirements, was not done correctly and the errors were not caught in the final plat review process. These errors created the property tax problems that you are being asked to resolve. I have not determined whether documentation after September 20, 2004 has corrected the errors. Documents in my file indicate there may be documentation problems with Phase B of Mill Creek II, Section II also. For example the plat of Phase B recorded on September 5, 2008 at Plat Book 104, Page 75 of the Orange County Registry contains an unsigned and therefore ineffective CERTIFICATE OF OWNERSHIP AND DEDICATION. With a copy of this letter to the Planning Director, I am requesting his assistance in seeing that all is properly documented with this subdivision. F:\Lisa\letters\~ohn Smith Itr re Walker Mill Creek prop.doc