Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
dw SNreq <br /> 019 ' <br /> �rf <br /> JAMES G.MARTIN •��� <br /> GOVERNOR <br /> STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA <br /> DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE <br /> P.O.BOX 25000 <br /> HELEN a <br /> POWERS RALEIGH.N.C.27640 <br /> SECRETARY <br /> January 9, 1986 <br /> MEMORANDUM <br /> TO; Tax Supervisors <br /> FROM: D. R. Holbrook, Director Ag4, qq , <br /> Ad Valorem Tax Division <br /> SUBJECT; 1984-1985 Railroad Equalization Suit <br /> • <br /> The railroad companies operating in North Carolina have recently filed an equalization <br /> suit in the U.S. District Court in Raleigh for 1984 and 1985. As in the suits <br /> filed for 1980, 1981 and 1982/83, the railroads are seeking reductions in our <br /> allocations of their property to the named counties based solely on the level <br /> of assessment of real estate. The 1984 ratios used by the railroads in the <br /> suit are taken from the sales ratio studies we conducted for the Tax Study <br /> Committee for 1984. Except for four counties, the 1985 ratios are the 1984 <br /> figures adjusted for the 3.57% increase in the cost of living index for 1984. <br /> The 1985 ratios for the other four counties will be determined by sales ratio <br /> studies. <br /> The Department of Revenue does not intend to object to the use of these ratios <br /> for establishing the level of assessment of real estate; however, no county <br /> is required to accept these figures. Any county may challenge the real estate <br /> figures by intervening in the suit. The ratios for your county are set forth <br /> later in this letter. If you would like to discuss the matter before deciding <br /> whether to intervene, you may call Bob Underhill, Johnny Bailey or me. <br /> Even if you do accept the figures for real estate, you may still contest the <br /> reduction requested on the grounds that the complaint fails to give any consideration <br /> to personal property. You will also need to intervene in the suit to pursue <br /> this argument. The personal property issue is involved in the 1981 suit which <br /> is now being considered by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond. <br /> A decision is expected in that case within the next sixty days, and that should <br /> give us some guidance in dealing with the personal property question in the <br /> suits for 1982/83 and 1984/85. <br /> (Over) <br /> An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer <br />