Orange County NC Website
4 Property Tax Bulletin 13 <br /> refunded. The error at issue clearly is not a clerical error under the Ammons test.Nevertheless, <br /> is a refund justified because the resulting tax is illegal,in that the county taxed Tom for prop- <br /> erty(a finished third floor) that Tom has never owned? <br /> Many counties would answer yes, but this author disagrees.If valuation errors such as the <br /> one involving Tom's third floor are refundable under the illegal tax category,then the deadline <br /> for valuation appeals becomes irrelevant.Local governments would lose all certainty about the <br /> value of their tax bases and find it impossible to budget accurately. For this reason,the best <br /> interpretation of the illegal tax category is one that excludes valuation judgment errors.If a <br /> taxpayer wishes to contest the valuation of his or her property,he or she must do so through the <br /> board of equalization and review appeal process,not through the refund and release process.9 <br /> Listing errors must also be resolved during the initial appeal period to the board of equaliza- <br /> tion and review rather than through the refund and release process.For example, assume that <br /> Tom Taxpayer has listed a boat in Carolina County for several years.In November 2009 he sells <br /> the boat to his neighbor,Tina Taxpayer.In January 2010 Carolina County sends Tom a listing <br /> form that includes the boat. Tom signs and returns the form without carefully reading it. The <br /> county subsequently assesses the boat for taxation under Tom's name.When Tom receives the <br /> tax bill for the boat-,he promptly pays it. Six months later he realizes he has paid taxes on a boat <br /> he no longer owns and demands a refund from Carolina County. Tom is not entitled to a refund <br /> under G.S. 105-381 because the tax on the boat is not illegal: Carolina County is authorized to <br /> tax the boat because it still has situs in Carolina County on January 1,2010.Nor is Tom enti- <br /> tled to a refund under the clerical error category because the listing error does not satisfy the <br /> Ammons test.Tom's opportunity to contest the listing of the boat in his name ended when the <br /> valuation appeal period ended thirty days after he received notice of the boat's tax valuation to <br /> That said,refunds and releases are justified under GS 105-381's illegal tax category for taxes <br /> levied on property that does not exist or does not have situs in the taxing unit as of the listing <br /> date.Consider the example above,but assume instead that in mid-2009 Tom sold the boat to <br /> a resident of another county who promptly removed it from Carolina County.If Tom mistak- <br /> enly listed his boat for taxation in Carolina County for 2010,he would be entitled to a refund <br /> or a release of those taxes after providing evidence that the boat did not have situs in Carolina <br /> County on January 1, 2010. The same would be true if Tom's boat was destroyed by hurricane in <br /> mid-2009 and he mistakenly listed it for taxation for 2010.Tom would be entitled to a refund or <br /> release of the taxes on the boat if he could provide evidence that the boat no longer existed as of <br /> January 1,2010.11 <br /> 9.The same is true of taxability errors.As the Ammons case demonstrates,incorrect decisions by the <br /> assessor regarding applications for exemptions or exclusions do not justify refunds or releases.If a tax- <br /> payer believes that he or she is entitled to an exemption or exclusion,the taxpayer must take advantage of <br /> the application and appeal process in G.S. 105-282.1.The taxpayer cannot retroactively raise these issues <br /> using the refund and release process under G.S. 105-381. <br /> 10.G.S.105-317.1(c).Under G.S.105-306,the county is permitted to correct the listing error and pro- <br /> ceed as if it had been listed in Tina's name all along.This means that if Tom had never paid the taxes,he <br /> would no longer be considered the responsible taxpayer and could not be subject to enforced collection <br /> remedies.The same conclusions would be reached under G.S. 105-302 if the listing error concerned real <br /> property. <br /> 11.In contrast,this author believes that a refund or release is not justified under G.S. 105-381 when <br /> a business taxpayer lists a certain cost of personal property for taxation and then later seeks a refund or <br /> release of the related taxes on the grounds that the taxpayer included in that cost amount some personal <br /> ©2010 School of Government.The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill <br />