Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
i[t; <br />-4- <br />subject matter jurisdiction to address issues of exemption or <br />exclusion under G.S. S 105- 282.1(a)(5) or (c), or under S 105 -312, <br />and that the Commission erred in failing to exclude the listed <br />pollution abatement equipment. We disagree. <br />Section 105- 282.1(c) provides in pertinent part: <br />When an owner of property that may be eligible <br />for exemption or exclusion neither .lists the <br />property nor files an application for <br />exemption or exclusion, the assessor or the <br />Department of Revenue, as appropriate, shall <br />proceed to discover the property. if, upon <br />appeal, the owner demonstrates that the <br />property meets the conditions for exemption or <br />exclusion, the body hearing the appeal may <br />approve the'exemption or exclusion. . . . <br />(emphasis added) . In this case, however, appellant stipulated that <br />it had listed the equipment at issue. Thus, S 105- 282.1(c) does <br />not apply. Similarly,, G. S. S 105- 312(d) is not applicable because <br />it also deals with "discovered" rather than listed property. <br />Appellant argues, however, that its listing of the equipment <br />and failure to apply for exclusion under G.S. S 105- 275(8) in tax <br />year 1991 constituted a "clerical error" which it was entitled to <br />have corrected by the County Board of Commissioners pursuant to <br />G.S. S 105- 325(a)(4) so as to treat the property as "discovered." <br />Our research has revealed no definition of "clerical error" as <br />applied to G.S. S 105- 325(a)(4). However, this Court has <br />previously held that ."clerical errors" concern matters such as <br />transcription errors which are not material in nature. See In re <br />Nuzumr-Cross Chevrolet, 59 N.C. App. 332, 296 S.E.2d 29.9 (1982), <br />disc. rev. denied, 307 N.C. 576, 299 S.E.2d 645 (1983). See also <br />84 C.J.S. Taxation S 507 (noting that errors which affect the <br />