Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
12 <br />appellant is overruled. <br />We also reject appellant's contention that its 1992 <br />certificate from DEHNR excluding pollution abatement equipment from <br />taxation applies retroactively to the contested equipment. Section <br />105- 275(8) provides that pollution abatement equipment shall be <br />exempted or excluded from taxation if it is properly certified by <br />the DEHNR, or other appropriate body, and if the certificate is <br />furnished to the tax supervisor of the county in which the property <br />is situated. G.S. S 105 -286 makes clear that, unless otherwise <br />provided, the value of tangible personal property is to be <br />determined annually as of 1 January. it is undisputed that <br />neither of the requirements of G.S. S 105 - 275(8) was met with <br />respect to the equipment at issue in tax year 1991. Moreover, <br />appellant's primary argument for its contention rests largely on a <br />claim of "tardiness" by DEHNR, even though the record shows that <br />DEHNR issued an exemption certificate eleven days after appellant's <br />application in December 1992. <br />For the foregoing reasons, the contested pollution abatement <br />equipment cannot be treated as "discovered" property entitling <br />appellant to an exemption for taxes already paid. To the contrary, <br />we agree with the County that appellant is, in actuality, seeking <br />a refund for taxes paid on the equipment. <br />Section 105 -380 of the General Statutes prohibits the <br />governing body of a taxing unit "from releasing, refunding, or <br />compromising all or any portion of the taxes levied against any <br />property within its jurisdiction except as expressly provided in <br />