Agenda 8-d - Refund Request – Sports Endeavors, Inc.

Browse Search

C! Redevelopment Commission of High Point y Guilford County and City of High Point While the end ruling of this case provides little to no relevance to the refund request from SEI, the case does provide significant insight as to the responsibility of a taxpayer in seeking an entitled exemption or exclusion. The Redevelopment Commission of High Point (hereinafter "Commission ") believed its property was exempt under Article V, Section 5 of the North Carolina Constitution, which in pertinent part provides: "Property belonging to the State or to municipal corporations, shall be exempt from taxation." The property was taxed due to its use as a private business enterprise even though its ownership may have qualified as an entitled exemption from taxation. The details of this case provide that even a governmental entity must properly identify and seek clarity that any property subject to possible exemption is classified as such within the tax records. Moreover, it illuminates the difference between an exemption or exclusion that requires no application versus an automatic exemption. Many classifications of property require no application for exemption, but that should not be taken as being automatically exempt from taxation. North Carolina taxpayers have a duty to disclose and properly identify any and all property that could be subject to exemption, regardless of an application requirement. North Carolina General Statute (NCGS) 105 -282.1 & Wesleyan Case This statute states that every owner of property claiming exemption or exclusion from property taxes has the burden of establishing that the property is entitled to the exemption. Granted, NCGS 105 -282.1 (1)a states that no application is required for the subject equipment to be entitled to its exemption. The Wesleyan Case provides direction to counties that, while NCGS 105- 282.1(1) requires no application for property to be entitled to the exemption, it does not apply to a taxpayer's timely listed property. SEI timely listed its property, allegedly taxable and non - taxable property together under one heading. Therefore, the entitlement is surrendered. Moreover, the Wesleyan Case provides additional applicable information. Within the opinion, the following is stated: "Taxpayer here listed its property during the 1982 listing period, ~vhich end on March 2, 1982. The property was therefore included in the tax base relied upon by the Tax Supervisor when he submitted projected revenues to the County Manager prior to 30 April as required by G. S. 159 -10. The Board of County Commissioners was required to adopt a budget ordinance making appropriations and levying taxes upon this tax base not later than 1 July. G.S. 159- 13(a). By the time the Taxpayer applied for exempt status on 30 June, the County's budget ordinance was established. Alloyving removal of a taxpayer's listed property from the tax base after the listing period has closed and the county has relied upon this tax base in projecting revenues and property a budget would clearly jeopardize the county's budget. "