Agenda - 06-05-2018 8-d - Refund Request – Sports Endeavors, Inc.

Browse Search

3 It is alleged that SEI listed non- taxable software beginning with its 2013 property tax listing all the way through 2017. In the request for refund, it is interpreted that SEI commingled taxable and non - taxable property in its listing under the item "SAP ". SEI filed no appeal, discussed no issues and paid the tax due on the property voluntarily and without objection or compulsion. In addition, a professional business auditing firm that has long been contracted with Orange County to perform random audit assignments of accounts listing business personal property greater than $100,000 conducted an audit of SEI. This audit occurred in 2014, the first year the new law took effect. As identified by SEI, the professional auditor assigned to this account found no non - taxable equipment on the schedules. Moreover, SEI agreed completely to the findings and outcome of the audit including all equipment as listed for the 2014 tax year. Legality Based on North Carolina law, both statutory and case law, and a review of this case as it relates to such, I believe there to be issues with this refund request that prevent the Board of Commissioners from granting the request. Statutory language and supporting case law are provided below. Identified cases have been summarized here, but a complete copy of each is provided as an exhibit. Weyerhaeuser Co v. 0-aven County This case, while not directly on point, is instructive in several aspects of the SEI request. Craven County commenced a discovery process and discovered property for prior years. Pollution abatement equipment was part of the discovery. Under G.S. 105- 282.1(c) the county allowed the exemption on the pollution abatement equipment. The taxpayer realized after the discovery was issued that it had listed and paid taxes on other pollution abatement equipment. The taxpayer made application for exemption for prior years and the county denied the application. The North Carolina Property Tax Commission upheld the county's decision and the Court of Appeals agreed. The Court stated "In this case, however, appellant stipulated that it had listed the equipment at issue. Thus G.S. 105- 282.1(c) does not apply." This case makes two issues clear: 1) A late application for exemption can only be approved if filed during the calendar year in which the taxes are due. 2) Property that is listed by the owner cannot be exempted for prior years under G.S. 105- 282.1(c). The case goes further to clearly state: "Moreover, our Supreme Court has held that taxes paid voluntarily and without objection or compulsion cannot be recovered, even though the tax be levied unlawfully ". As stated earlier in this memorandum, SEI indeed paid its taxes voluntarily and without objection or compulsion. As such, the taxes cannot be recovered.