|
-
<br /> ; , n
<br /> 4r •
<br /> § 105-$2¢ § 105-325 CH, 105. TAXATION § 105-325 j
<br /> lization and review to an order of the county board shall Judicial review of the State Board's
<br /> er the provisions of appeal to the State Property Tax Corn- (now Property Tax Commission) admin-
<br /> er the p 105-277,o- mission. In turn, a taxpayer who is un- istrative decisions is always available.
<br /> ber 312 a the board of satisfied with the decision of the Prop- In re Reeves Broadcasting Corp., 273
<br /> erty Tax Commission shall appeal to the N.C.571, 160 S.E.2d 728(1968i.
<br /> n and review may North Carolina Court of Appeals, and When a judicial review is sought in
<br /> and review entered then to the North Carolina Supreme the superior court on the record made
<br />[05-322, or 105-312 Court. Johnston v. Gaston County, — before the State Board (now Property
<br /> mission. To N.C.App.—,323 S.E.2d 381(1984),
<br /> mss days perfect Valuation by Property Tax Corn- Tax Commission), findings court is variance
<br /> Y after the mission Is Final and Conclusive. — with findings make of the at eaBoard
<br /> e notice of its deci- This section contemplates that valua- wtth the findings of the State Board
<br /> t written notice of tion fixed by the State Board(now Prop- (new Property Tax Commission) which
<br /> of appeal with the erty Tax Commission)shall be final and are supported ey use that and the exclu-
<br /> conclusive the Property conclusive where no error of law or tial evidence because that is the exclu
<br />>ert Tax Commis- abuse of discretion is alleged. Belk's sive function of the State Board of As-
<br /> with
<br /> Dep't Store v.Guilford County,222 N.C. sion). I t snow Property Tax Commis,
<br /> 5-290(b). 441,23 S.E.2d 897(1943),citing Wade v. 273 In 571,Reeves Broadcasting(196 Corp.,
<br /> ber of the board 73 N.C.571,160 S.E.2d 728(1968),
<br /> and Of Commissioners of Craven County, 74
<br />:he board of county N.C.81(1876). Administrative Remedies Must
<br /> of G.S. 105-287, The State Board (now Property Tax First Be Exhausted.e The legislature
<br /> Property Tax Corn Commission) has full authority, not- has provided adequate means whereby
<br /> appellants shall, withstanding irregularities at the the individual taxpayer may contest not
<br /> county level,to determine the valuation only the valuation which the county
<br /> ioners has entered and enter it accordingly.Such valuation Commissioners have placed upon his own
<br />, written notice of so fixed is final and conclusive unless property but the entire tax list or assess-
<br /> 3f appeal with the error of law or abuse of discretion is ment roll, and he must exhaust this ad-
<br /> with the Property shown.In re Reeves Broadcasting Corp., ministrative remedy before he can resort
<br /> Brty Tax Commis- 273 N.C.571,160 S.E.2d 728(1968). to the courts. King v.Baldwin,276 N.C.
<br /> 5-290(b). The legislature's intent is that the 316,172 S.E.2d 12(1970).
<br /> hall be deemed to agency designated to hear appeals in all The superior court has no authority to
<br /> matters pertaining to tax valuations issue mandamus commanding the corn-
<br />' the Commission, should also be the one empowered to missioners to revalue all real property
<br /> s. 1; 1973,e. 476, make the final valuation. The State in the county at its true value in money,
<br /> Board of Assessment(now Property Tax since taxpayers must first exhaust the
<br /> Commission)—unlike the courts--has statutory administrative remedies in
<br /> the staff,the specialized knowledge and the county board of equalization and re-
<br /> expertise necessary to make informed view and in the State Board of Assess-
<br /> decisions upon questions relating to the ment (now Property Tax Commission)
<br /> valuation and assessment of property. before they can resort to the superior
<br /> King v. Baldwin, 276 N.C. 316, 172 court. King v. Baldwin, 276 N.C. 316,
<br /> S.E.2d 12(1970). 172 S.E.2d 12(1970).
<br /> rder and appeal to the Established Fact of Common Applied in In re King, 281 N.C. 533,
<br />'roperty Tax Commis- Knowledge Must Be Considered. — 189 S.E.2d 158(1972).
<br /> laintiffs may resort to The Property Tax Commission is neither Quoted in In re Certain Tobacco, 52
<br /> to obtain judicial re- required nor permitted to shut its eyes N.C.App.299,278 S.E.2d 575(1981).
<br /> sw or abuse of discre- to an established fact of common knowl- Cited in In re Bosley, 29 N.C. App.
<br /> Board (now Property edge. In re Valuation of Property Lo- 468. 224 S.E.2d 686 (19761: In re
<br /> King v. Baldwin,276 cated at 411-417 W.Fourth St.,282 N.C. Barham. 70 N.C. App. 236, 319 S.E.2d
<br /> d 12(1970), 71,191 S.E,2d 692(1972). 657(1984),
<br /> aw provides two eve-
<br /> taxpayer may seek
<br /> ust property tax as- § 105-325. Powers of board of county commis-
<br /> trative review fol- sioners to change abstracts and tax
<br /> view in the Court of
<br /> t judicial review in records after board of equalization and
<br /> court. Administra- review has adjourned.
<br /> the county board of
<br /> review. The county (a) After the board of equalization and review has finished its
<br /> on to ,;ear any tae• work and the changes it effected or ordered have been entered on
<br /> iplaint as to the list- the abstracts and tax records as required by G.S. 105-323, the board
<br /> his or others'prop- of county commissioners shall not authorize any changes to be
<br /> vho wishes to except made on the abstracts and tax records except as follows:
<br /> 653
<br />
|