The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRES-2013-085 Resolution denying Property Tax Refund Request of Robert H. Pope //- .S -� 3 ,� e 26 � NORTH CAROLINA RES-2013-085 Attachment 8 • ORANGE COUNTY REFUND ItESOLUTION(Denial) Whereas,North Carolina General Sta.tutes lOS-381 allows for the refund of t�es when the Board of Cotmiy Commissionets determines that a taYpayer applying for the refund has a valid defense to t�e tax imposed;and Whereas,the properties Iisted in the at+ach�d"Refund Request"has been taxed ac�d the tax has been collected:and Whereas,as to the property listed in the Refund Request,the taxpayer has timely applied in writing for a refund of the tax imposed but has not presented a valid defense to the tax imposed as indicated on the Request for Property Ta7c Refunds. NOVi',THEREFORE,TT IS RESOLVED SY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COlYI1VIISSIONERS OF ORAN�E COITNTY T�AT the property ta�c refund recommended for denial are denie�. • Upon morion duly made and se nded,the fore ' g resolution w assed by the fo wing votes: . Ayes: Commissioners- ��.t/�.� � Notes: , � I,Donna Baker,Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for the County of Orange,North Carolina, DO HEREBY CERT7FY that the foregoing has been carefully copied from the recorded minutes o£the Board of Commissioners for said County at a regulaz meeting of said Board held on 1 v�• �� r,3 id record having been made in the Minute Book of the minutes of said Board, and is a true copy of so much of said proceedings of said Board as relates in any way to the passage of the resolution described in said proceedings. . s WITNESS m hand and the corporate seal of said County,this � day of y v � 4��Q ' �Q��t � E�F ` 'l��"� s-w�qi"��5 � ��ii'��"'- 52 1? °� � � � Cler t oar of Commissioners �4t t I QLat°``4 �. i; ' � 4 i Attachment 1 j ; Robert H. Pope, Jr. ; 608 Polk St. '�; Raleigh, NC 27604 ; August 12, 2013 Mr. T. Dwayne Brinson , Orange County Tax Administrator PO Box 8181 Hillsborough, NC 27278 Dear Mr. Brinson: � Re: Old PIN 9859110370 Old PIN 9849908775 July 18, 2013 Letter from Clerk, Board of Equalization and Review il Pursuant to North Carolina General Statute 105-381, I, Robert H. Pope,Jr. ("Taxpayer") am requesting a refund of$2945.87 for taxes paid on nonexistent or overvalued real estate for the years 2009, 2010, 2Q11 and 2012.; A brief summary of the relevant facts is as follows: In;2004,the Nor�th Carolina Department of Revenue ("DOR") directed the Orange CountyTax Administration ("ORTA") to make corrections regarding the square footage on the 1872 farmhouse located on the property reference by the PIN numbers above. Due to an unrelated reduction in the tax assessment for subsequent years,Taxpayer was unaware that such adjustment had not been made. Taxpayer continued to timely pay property tax bills despite the failure of OGTA to make the adjustments directed by DOR. Accordingly, Taxpayer requests relief under G.S. §105.381(a)(1) based on OGTA's failure to make the required adjustments, as directed by DOR. Taxpayer is filing claims for the period allowed under G.S. § 105.381(a)(3). Attached is a spread sheet showing the calculations for the above amount, inclusive of the applicable interest. Also attached is a copy of the general statute for your reference. Please feel free to contact me at(919) 621-1150 if you have questions or need additional information regarding this request. __ (� Since�rel , �~4 ,� \�.-� _-. ; �---��%�� %`��_...�. � Robert H. Pope,Jr. , � Attachments (3) . s � F cc: Walter Cates, Esq.,John Seibert, GPA , �' � � c 1 North Carolina General Statutes § 105-381 Taxpayer's remedies - Legal Research Page 1 of 2 € , 5 ,, , G f Search ` one��.�� t � � � b IRS Tax Dates �Law Chiid Sunport �Forms Tax Federal �PaV Income Tax ��' �-'�� North Carolina General Statutes § 105-381 Taxpayer's -- ,> US Supreme Court remedies IIS Taac Court ' � B08TCl Of P8t0rit i��=� I_��t:��..g>North Carolina LaWyer ,„ , , , , Appeals ��a��&.��;u�� s��r(�?� � , ;.,,, --- -- ��w� ;BloombergLaw.com �_�__� ��a Integrated Legal&Business Intelligence with 24/7 Support A�ci,o;t�S� ,� Arizona 1�� California (a)Statement ofDefense.Any taxpayer asserting a valid defense to the e�forcement of the collection of a tax ,�, Florida assessed upon his property shall proceed as hereinafter provided. � ' �'' i Georgia (I)For the purpose of this subsection,a valid defense shall include the following: ' Illinois Indiana a,A tax imposed through clerica(enor, M�. Massachusetts � _ Michigan b.An illegal taY; �' ay ��'�_-.�� Nevada , 7 New Jersey c.A taY levied for an illegal pucpose. � � New York � - North CaTOlina (2)If a tax has not been paid,the taxpayer may make a demand for the release of the tas claim by submitting to I Oregon the goveming body of the tuxing unit a written statement of his defense to payment or enforcement of the tax and Pennsylvania a request for release of the tax at any time prior to payment of the tax. Texas � Virginia (3)If a tax has been paid,the tazpayer,at any time within five yeacs after said tax first became due or within six �°''� �� Washington months from the date of payment of such tas,whichever is the later date,may make a demand for a refund of tUe tan paid by submitting to the goveming body of the taxing unit a written statement of his defense and a request �Ts�;�C�.�' for refund thereof. �� (b)Action of Goveming Body.Upon receiving a taacpayei s writteu statement of defense and request for release 1 USC-General or refund,tl�e goveming body of the taxing unit shall wit(vn 90 days after receipt of such request determine Provisions whether the taxpayer has a valid defense to the tax imposed or any part thereo£and shall either release or refund �'"' _ 2 USC-The that portion of the amount that is determined to be in excess of the correct tax liabiliTy or notify the taxpayer in --_ —__ Congress writing that no release or refund�vill be made.The goveming body may,by resolution,delegate its authority to 3 USC-The determine requests for a release or refund of tas of less than one hundred dollars($100.00)to the Finance officer, President manager,or attomey of tl�e taxing unit.A fina�ce officer,manager,or attorney to whom tl�is authority is 4 USC-Flag and delegated shall monthly report to the goveming body the actions taken by him on requests for release or refund. Seal All aetions taken by the governing body or finance officer,manager,or attomey on requests For release or refund 5 USC-GoV't shall be recorded in the minutes of the goveming body.If a release is granted or refund made,the tax collector Organization shall be credited with the amount released or refunded in his annual setdement. 6 USC-Domestic Security (c)Suit for Recovery of Property Ta�ces. 7 USC-AgriCUlture 8 USC-Aliens and (1)Request for Release before Payment.If within 90 days after receiving a ta>cpayer's request for release of an Nallonality unpaid tax claim under(a)above,the governing body of the taYing unit has failed to grant the release,l�as 9 USC-t�'bitration notified the taspayer that no release will be granted,or has taken no acrion on the renuest,the taspayer shall pay 10 USC-Armed the tax.He may then�vithin three years from the date of payment bring a civil action against the taxing unit for Forces the amount claimed. 11 USC- �Z�Request for Refu�d.If within 90 days after receiving a taxpayer s request for refund under(a)above,the Banlcruptcy goveming body has failed to refund the full amount requested by the taxpayer,has notified the tvcpayer that no 12 USC-Banks and refund will be made,or has taken no action on the request,the taxpayer may bring a civil action against the Ba�g ta�cing unit for the amount claimed.Such action may be brought at any time within three years from the ' 13 USC-Census expiration of the period in which the governing body is required to ack � 14 USC-Coast Guard (d)Civil Acrions.Civil actions brought pursuant to subsection(c)above shall be brought in the appropriate 15 USC-CommetCe division of the general court of justice of the county in�vhich the taYing unit is located.If,upon the trial,it is 8nd Trade determined that the ta:c or any paR of it was illegal or levied for an illegal purpose,or excessive as the result of a 16 USC- clerical error,judgment shall be rendered therefor with interest thereon at six percent(6%)per annum,plus wsts, Conservation and the judgment shall be wllected as in other civil actions.(1901,c.558,s.30;Rev.,s.2855;C.S.,s.7979; 17 USC-CopyCights 1971,c.806,s.l;1973,a 564,s.3;1977,c.946,s.2;1985,a 150,s.1;1987,a 127.) `��`'� 18 USC-Crimes `� `��y; k 19USC-CllStOrilS SCCt10riS P �t»>t 1 �}- 1t.a��_s ' �� t ,C' 'E �� ta �t) _� �G t(�_ ?zC; 105-381 G�- F,,�i DUCl2S �.._._ 1i � �i31 ;!ft ��, '—y� <,.i It�} ._t;i?—.,t .I(.:5 ��¢ ii_ t3 _.}7 # '��_�.i_ �i�� f �.t,, 20 USC-Education '' 21 USC-Food and Lastmodi&ed.•February2l,2012 `-� '�l'-'"� � Drugs �,;�....� , t 22 USC-Foreign i Relations ��, ��@� �7�� -- -- 23 USC-Highways ` "� � i 24 USC-Hospitals www.TrigonTax.com (_ _______ � 25 USC-Indians We can help. Enrolled Agent. Experienced tax help. Call now. A�ci,a�zs t� 26 USC-Internal Revenue Code 27 USC- Intoacicating http://law.onecle.com/north-carolina/105-taxation/105-381.html 8/5/2013 I 6 I STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA BEFORE THE PROPERTY TAX COMMISSION COUNTY OF WAKE � ORDER � '' � � � � i The following property is under appeal to the Property Tax Comrnission from a decision j of the Orange County Baard of Equalizadon and Review:for zoo9. �; � Pursuant to this appeal,a representative of fihe 1'roperiy'�ax Coznmission has discussed the relevant issues of the appeal with the properry owner and the Orange County taxing officials. The Couniy taxing officials and the pxoperty owner reached an agreement satisfactory to both concerning the value of the subject property, and notified the Comrnission of the terms o£ � ;. , the agreement. ! Name: Robert H. Pope,Jr. -io PTC o82 ; �� Valuation Recornmended � . Description Under Appeal Valuation Tract#zoo4lg $ 94,0�9 $79,goo IT IS THE�EFORE ORDERED.AND DECREED that the Orange County taxing officials adjust tl�e valuation of the subject property as hexein provided and enter said adjusted i ' � valuation in the tax records of Orange County as of January i, 2009. Entered this 22nd day o£February, 2ozz. ��.� �,�� }�z!��',� � NORTH CAROLINA PROPERTY TAX COMMISSZON � ��1ft1l111// ��.'�.��'� `�� `�t�.�p.X Cp��i, � P ^ r � ``` � ..��n��`.�A-/�' � / . ,ti ��i id.SfATC a �r�/ �w ' ;tuQ: ° '°p�' �3.';N� i lian�R.Wilkes,Asszstant Dixector — a• � �; � � p '� . Local Goverument Di'vision ' ��a� , _ ��; �� • Property Tax Section ( � �� p�: �t �...,.�^ : ° � � � ��.��wx`"`i,.r� ��; � \ J i� U , �� •��.�� ti '',,'��«�1�,`````` \�/ � �- � Copies of this Order provided to; �� Ms. J'o Robez�son—Orange CountyAssessor � �0�� Mr.John L. Roberts— Orange County Attorney Mr. Robert H,Pope,Jr. � � . 608 k'olk Stxeet �� Raleigh, NC 2�604 � � � �� (t(c1�-- Sam� PCUP��' I ' 7 � � � � Over Taxed Real Estate ; � r � � 6% Int ; Old PIN Old Value New Value Yearlv Over Value Years � Compound Total � r 9859110370 $47,400 $41,300 $6,100 2009 $568.28 $192.21 $760.49 ( 2010 568.28 $149.16 $717.44 2011 568.28 $108.55 $678.83 2012 568.28 $70.24 $638.52 2013 $34.10 $34.10 9849908775 $1,179.80 2012 $109.91 $116.49 $6.59 Total 2 945.87 � � ` �, t°��'�� -�� j �,��r�s, i I � �' �� `� ��,.,� , i ; I ;� i � � r $ � ORANGE COUNTY NOTICE OF DECISION �{4�� ,`'f�,� � This notice was mailed on: July 18,2013 �7 �� r' r � �� ' �rt� �nti�� I. I: � f Robert H. Pope 608 Polk Street Raleigh, NC 27604 � i Dear Taxpayer: On June 20, 2013 the Orange County Board of Equalization and Review received evidence and heard testimony regarding your appeal. On �he uasis oi your evidence and/or testir�ony-and-in due consideration of a!! ap�licabl� _ _ laws,the Board made the following decision effective for tax year 2013: PARCEL IDENTIFICATION NUMBER(PIN): 9859019289 Description of Property: [X] Real [ ] Personal [ ] Both Pro ert address:6909 Efland-Cedar Grove Road p Y Assessed Valuation under appeal: $500,101 Decision of the Board: $448,701 �` You may appeal the Board's decision to the North Carolina Property Tax Commission (NCPTC). To appeal this decision,you must send one of the following to the Commission: • Form AV-14, Notice of Appeal and Application for Hearina,which is available online at http'//www dornc com/downloads/propertv.html. You must include a copy of this Notice of Decision with Fo�m AV-14. • A signed letter indicating that you wish to appeal this decision.You must include a copy of this Notice of Decision with Form AV-14.The Commission wiil then mail you Form AV-14,which you must complete and return to the Commission within 30 days from the date of the Commission's letter. Your notice of appeal(which is either the Form AV-14 or the signed letter that you mail to the NCPTC) must be received by the Commission within 30 days of the date of this Notice of Decision. Documents filed through the US Postal Service are considered received on the date of the US Postal Service postmark. lf the appeal bears postage affixed by_an interoffice postage meter,the�peal is considered _ _.___ — — - — --fiTed on t�d�e i�is rece►—`vec7in t e Commission's office. Failure to file your notice of appeal on time and failure to file Form AV-14 can both result in the dismissal of your appeal. Send your appeal documents to: North Carolina Property Tax Commission P.O.Box 871 Raleigh, NC 27602 (919)733-7711 In addition, you must also send a copy of your notice of appeal to the county tax administrator and to the counry attorney. Oran e Count Tax Office Oran e Count Attorne 's Office Attn: N Freeman Attn:J Galassi PO Box 8181 PO Box 8181 � Hillsborou h, NC 27278-8181 Hillsborou h, NC 27278-8181 i Taxpayers may prepare their notice of appeal to be filed with the Property Tax Commission.Attorneys licensed to ` practice law in this State may also prepare,sign and file the notice of appeal with the Property Tax Commission on � behalf of the taxpayers. However, a tax representative or agent is not permitted to prepare, sign or file the appeal 4 on behalf of the taxpayers. � Sincerel `� Y.�.;�"g�� Y� ,.�<< Clerk, Board of Equalization and Review �r-,�� ,�..� `�� ,�at' �oy�6 9 � � I' k Attachment 2 u sz �+�rfh �nti°�� ORANGE COUNTY TAX OFFICE � ASSESSMENT DIVISION i 228 S CHURTON STREET,SUITE 200 I; PO BOX 8181 HILLSBOROUGH,NORTH CAROLINA 27278 Telephone(919)245-2100 Fax(919)644-3091 T.Dwane Brinson,Tax Administrator Lee Harris,Deputy Tax Assessor September 23,2013 Robert H.Pope 608 Polk Street Raleigh,NC 27604 RE: Refund request for PIN 9859019289(fortnerly PINs 9859110370 and 9849908775) Dear Mr.Pope: This letter is in reference to your correspondence dated August 12,2013 requesting a refund of overpayment of taxes paid for the 2009,2010,2011,and 2012 tax years as a result of your property value being lowered for the 2013 tax year. ; E In your coirespondence,you reference a direction from the Department of Revenue for the Orange County Tax ' Office to make coirections regarding the square footage on your 1872 farmhouse,and you also included an excerpt from a Properly Tax Commission decision on an unrelated parcel,PIN 9857393767. Our office has both searched our records and contacted The North Carolina Property Tax Commission and we could find no evidence of a direction from the Property Tax Commission to change the square footage for the referenced property. Furthermore, the current assessed value for PIN 9857393767 correlates with the recommended valuation contained in the excerpt you provided for that property. As North Carolina General Statute 105-381 allows for the refund of taxes under very limited circumstances,your circumstance falls under a category that statutorily is not refundable. Instead,the proper step is to correct the value far the current tax year and future years. We endeavar to find a way to legally make a refund when possible. Sometimes we are not successful. Refunds have to be approved by the Board of County Commissioners. If the commissioners were to make a refund not authorized by the statutes,those commissioners become personally liable for an improper refund. Due to this liability,we are always careful and diligent in determining the legality of each refund request. On the basis of our findings,a refund is not authorized under NC GS 105-381and could not be recommended to the county commissioners for approval. ( If I can provide any further explanation or assistance of any kind,please do not hesitate to contact me, j Sincerely, � ( i I I Roger Gunn i Chief Appraiser Phone: 919-245-2118 Email: ��nn��z?a��eca��c,�av , 10 Attachment 3 I' I i. , �. � Robert H. Pope, Jr. ��' 608 Polk St. Raleigh, NC 27604 September 30, 2013 Mr. Roger Gunn, Chief Appraiser Orange County Tax Office PO Box 8181 Hillsborough, NC 27278 Dear Mr. Gunn: I am in possession of a letter and attached ORDER from Mr. David B. Baker, Director Property Tax Division,to Mr.lohn T. Smith,Jr. referencing Appeal of Robert Harris Pope Orange County-04 PTC 394 dated March 22, 2005. It states"Please take the necessary action to correct the County's records in accordance with the ORDER." The ORDER states: "IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND DECREED that the Orange County taxing officials adjust the valuation of the subject property as herein provided and enter said adjusted valuation in the tax records of Orange County as of January 1, 2004." To avoid civil litigation,you are requested to provide full refund to me at the above address by November 12, 2013 as requested in my letter of August 12, 2013 pursuant to North Carolina General i Statute 105-381(d). � i �_ .. � S�ncerely,,� � `�� - a --' ; � ��,�'�,� � E� ' — �� ,�� ,�,�:��, �,-'� .� , h ' � ,_� a � ��=—�°--�' � Robert H. Pope,Jr. , � CC: Walter Cates, Esq.,John Seibert, CPA, David B. Baker (, , , � � �`��e ��"'M� 11 � f �' „ 5z Attachment 4 � $�rrJ �a<�� I ORANGE COUNTY TAX OFFICE �!, ASSESSMENT DIVISION + r 228 S CHURTON STREET,SUITE 200 � PO BOX 8181 HILLSBOROUGH,NORTH CAROLINA 27278 �i Telephone(919) 245-2100 Fax(919) 644-3091 � ., T.Dwane Brinson,Tax Administrator j Lee Harris,Deputy Tax Assessor il I I October 17, 2013 Robert H. Pope 608 Polk Street Raleigh, NC 27604 � � RE: Refund Request for PIN 9859-01-9289 (formerly PINs 9859-11-0370 and 9849-90-8775) � I !, Mr. Pope: Thank you for contacting us regarding Parcel Identification Number(PIN) 9859-01-9289. The Board of Equalization and Review heard your appeal for the 2013 tax year and subsequently lowered the county's tax assessment for the current year. Your request for refund of 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012 tax years has been received and will be taken before the Board of County Commissioners on November 5, 2013. ,I� e 's Office was able to research and (ocate the Pro ert Tax Commission PTC � Our County Attorn y p Y ( ) , Consent Order referenced in your September 30, 2013 letter to the tax office. The Consent Order is evidence that the parties involved at the time agreed to a value of$218,032 (market value) and $80,994 (present-use value). As agreed upon at that time, "the necessary action to correct the County's records '� �, in accordance with the Order" was taken and fulfilled by the tax office. Official records show the tax assessment was reduced in 2004 to comply with values referenced in the Order. Moreover, the Orange County Finance Department issued a refund check of$148.75 (RL#29589 and check#202124) on April 15, 2005 as a result of the agreed-upon reduced tax assessment for 2004. Unfortunately,the Order does not reference a revised or suggested square footage mandated by the Property Tax Commission or Department of Revenue. Rather, it references the holistic and controlling property value agreed upon ; by the parties involved. ; i i 12 ( Orange County met its obligation to comply with Consent Order 04 PTC394 by adjusting the 2004 tax assessments of said property to$218,032 (market value) and $80,994 (present-use value). In addition, � Orange County held general countywide revaluations in both 2005 and 2009,years neither in which this � property's value was appealed. � � E Please allow me to submit this to the Orange County Board of Commissioners and respond once our governing body has taken official action on the request, I will provide the commissioners with all the documentation you have provided to date along with the evidence we have in our file, Respectfully, �— T. Dwane Brinson, CAE, MBA, MPA Orange County Tax Administrator , � 4 � i I � � E E 13 �: , �. � STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA BEFORE THE PROPERTY TAX COMMISSION � �. COUNTY OF WAKE I ORDER The following property is under appeal to the Property Tax Commission from a decision of the Orange County Boaz�d of Equalization and Review for 2004. Pursuant to this appeal, a representative of the Property Tax Commission has visited the property and has discussed the relevant issues of the appeal with the property owner and the Orange County taxing officials. �. Following this review, the County taxing officials and the property owner reached an agreement satisfactory to both concerning the value of the subject property; and notified the Commission of the terms of the agreement. Name: Robert Harris Pope- 04 PTC 394 � Valuation Recommended Description Under Appeal Valuation 9859-11-0370 ' Market Value $ 233,424 $ 218,032 Present Use Value $ 96,386 $ 80,994 TT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND DECREED that the Orange County ta.�ring officials adjust the valuation of the subject property as herein provided and enter said adjusted valuation in the tax records of Orange County as of January 1,2004. � Entered this 22nd day of March,2005. . ; NORTH CAROLINA PROFERTY TAX COMMISSTON p �;� I 4 ;<° r�,�� ; �% ' � �� i i � ! `;J�� f `.��.,,` ..r �� 0�' ,�'.F David B.Baker,Director ' Property Ta1c Division * * * * * ARCHIVED TAX BILL NUMBER INQUIRY * * * * * i ' ' 11 : 13 : 47 13 AUG 2013 14 � Attachment 5 ( � [31LL N0 : 200449723 � � . s TOWNSHIP 2 RATE CODE : 16 � ACCOUNT N0 : 270218 � PARCEL : 220858 1 ROBERT HARRIS POPE P99/139 26 . . 3 OTHER BILL(S) E; NA:N�E �...w,.,.,, ..wP,��,E, yRO,BE��,.HARR I S OTHER B I LL(S) ; EVALUATION REAL $80 , 994��°a PERSONAL=$0 � TOTAL� DUE : 0 . 00 ��„ ��Q � TOTAL TAXES : 771 . 88 TOTAL FEES : 27 . 00 DEF-TAX TAX . . . ORIGINAL. . . . LEVY PENALTY PRE-CERT POST-CERT CODE LEVY PENALTY DUE DUE INTEREST INTEREST GO 712 . 75 0 . 00 0 . 00 0 . 00 0 . 00 0 . 00 FI 59 . 13 0 . 00 0 . 00 0 . 00 0 . 00 0 . 00 XWR 27 . 00 0 . 00 0 . 00 0 . 00 0 . 00 0 . 00 TRANSACTIONS CR#3r, $�798 88 CRDB71 03/31 /05 y ` RL#(29589) y.yyr$ 146�. 6_8 �J FT070 03/30/05 � DB#2 $945 . 56 CRDB71 03/30/05 01 /04/2005 $945 . 56 AMP265 253170143 00007000000204 5050 HIT RETURN FOR NEXT INQUIRY, OR "Q" TO EXIT : 8/13/2013 11 : 01 : 36 AM HOSTACCESS - Session f �Y�� ` ��°� ��"�8 4 � � � t t f�" � �°��E�� €r�� G�. � ( ; i i i I I � NCPTS Bill Detail Page 1 of 1 ' 15 I � � �' NCPTS � �; Billing Bills 8 ( NFREEMAN I Search Type Bill# Go �, r 0 Warkflow Admin Options Help i, NCPTS->Billing->Bill Search Results->Bill D,etail(� i; .- -. -- ------ - - _ _ ! Acrobat(PD�)file - i' i Export i: �Old 00200449723 r =-- ; ;Bill#: �4� _ Interest Recalc I; Release Bill Prorate Eill Print �Bill#: 0000270218-2004-2004- -_--- - 0000-00 REG Pay Bill Void Bill �Bill pA�p Retumed NA � ,Status: Mail: 1 ; Notes Present-10/03/2010 Taxpayer Info ��g o _ - ----� __—�� ._-_� __-- -r=�--- --= -_�- --_-=—_=-�-_----==t-- ---- __-_- Owner ID Ownership Owner Ownership Group Send Relief � Id Number Name Mailing Address Type Order* °/o Number Mail Eligibility � POPE, 608 POLK ST � 282511 ROBERT RALEIGH NC PRIMARY YES NO �-- --- HARRIS---27604 — -- -- — -- ---- i t Property Info ��, o Bill Info C�g o_ Value($) Adj Value($) Source Type/System:REI PROPERTY TAX I( Real: 80,994 0 Abstract#: 0000270218-2004-2004-0000 Deferred: 0 0 Bill Date: �07/01/200 Created By: MIGRATED Use: 80,994 0 Interest Begin Date: 01/06I2005 Final Payment Date:03/3112005 Pefsonal: 0 0 Bill Due Date: 09/01/2004 Exempt: � 0� 0 Total Value: 80,994� 0 ___ Tax Amount C�� rg o � # Lender: Parcel#: 9859110370 Months Description Original Billed($)Current Due($) Description:1 ROBERT HARRIS POPE P99/139 Tax&Fees 945.56�C� 0.00 Situs: 6909 EFLAND CEDAR GROVE RD CEDAR Interest 0.00 I GROVE,NC 27231 Collection Fees 0.00 � Property Details C� o Expenses o.00 � _ — Total 945.56 0.00 Payment History �'� o Transaction Summary �� o Transaction Detail History C?'� o Flag .� Link IDs t� Agents (�; Notes � Change History � Owner History � Flag: • Apply Flag Remove Flag I � , Flags � � � i � Notes Present ' ' � ---_ __ _ � z �,� ' �yy�� 4€g;��;'� ��`� � 2�2 i .`� � ��=�t� '�� 5q- Il-0�� ; s � g � � http://lawrence/NCPTS/Billing/Bi1lDetail.aspx?BillPk=491775&FromBillSummary=true 8/13/2013 � Attachment 6 y` y `� � 16 ( r € � - Coates' Canons: NC Local Government Law Blog - http://canons.sog.unc.edu - i, , � When Does An Appraisal Error Justify a Refund? ' Posted By Chris McLauQhlin On February 14, 2013 @ 9:49 PM In Finance &Tax � S Comments Which of these appraisal errors justifies a property tax refund? 1. Taxpayer is taxed for property that did not have a taxable situs in the jurisdiction. 2. Taxpayer is taxed for a house that burned the prior December. 3. Taxpayer has vacant land but is taxed for the land plus a house. 4. Taxpayer has an unfinished attic but was taxed for a finished attic. Finish was never verified by appraiser. 5. Taxpayer has a 1,500 square-foot house but the assessor appraised it at 1,750 square feet based on the size of similar houses in the same neighborhood. Most property tax professionals would agree that a refund is justified in situations i, 2 and 3. So do I. But situations 4 and 5 are tougher nuts to crack. Property tax refunds and releases are governed by G,S, 105-381 �1�, which limits them to circumstances in which the tax either was levied due to clerical error or was illegal. While those terms are not defined by the statute, they've been analyzed several times our state courts. The most detailed of these opinions came from the N.C. Court of Appeals when it analyzed the meaning of the term ��clerical error" in the 1997 case Ammons v. Wake Countv �2�. As I discussed in this 2010 post �3�, the court concluded that to qualify as a clerical error the mistake must be that one produces an unintended result and is apparent from the face of the documents, such as a transcri,ption mistake (for example, recording 5,200 square feet instead of 2,500 square feet.) The term "clerical error" does not include errors in judgment or law on such issues as market value, quality of construction, or eligibility for a property tax exclusion. These types of non-clerical errors must be resolved through the annual appeal process and may not be corrected retroactively under G.S. 105-381. Applying the Ammons analysis to the five situations above, I don't think any qualifies for a refund due to clerical error. In each situation, the appraisal was that intended by the assessor. None of the situations involved an unintended appraisal—in each instance the assessor produced an appraisal that he/she thought was appropriate at the time. But clerical error is only one of two justifications for a property tax refund. Might any of the five situations above qualify as"illegal taxes"? i Here's our court defines that term: "[G.S. 105-381] and our case law recognize a distinction between an erroneous tax and an illegal tax or invalid tax. An illegal or invalid tax results when the taxing body seeks to impose a tax without authority, as in cases where it is �; asserted that the rate is unconstitutional or that the subject is exempt from taxation." _ � RedevelopmentComm. V. Guilford County, 274 N.C. 585 (1968). ,; I I think it's clear that situations 1 and 2 would constitute illegal taxes because the taxing unit had no authority to tax property not in its jurisdiction (situation 1) or that did not exist as of January 1 (situation 2). Similarly, situation 3 seems to be an illegal tax because a taxing f unit has no authority to tax property that never existed. In contrast, situations 4 and 5 involve property that did exist in the taxing unit's jurisdiction as of the listing date but that received inflated appraisals. Is a tax on non-existent market value illegal and subject to a refund under G.S. 105-381? .q �� `�� ;�.� � r �' � �.._ �,,,;b,�� r;�� . � __ . � � 17 � I � Not normally. In Kinro, Inc. v. Randolph County, 108 N.C. App. 334 (1992), the court of ( appeals concluded without analysis that"over assessed values of personal property"do not j constitute an illegal tax. If the taxpayers in situations 4 and 5 were complaining only of ( market value errors—let's say they thought that the assessor ignored relevant sales of comparable properties—clearly they would not be entitled to refunds. Market value judgments may be challenged only during the appeal process for the current tax year. But that's not really the case in situations 4 and 5. The taxpayers don't claim that the assessor simply made a poor estimate of what the properties would have sold for on January 1. Instead, the taxpayers claim that the assessor appraised and taxed physical property features (a finished attic, additional square feet) that did not exist in the taxing unit's jurisdiction as of the listing date (and in fact never existed at all). That sounds pretty darn similar to situations 1,2, and 3, doesn't it? If refunds are justified in the first three situations of non-existent property, aren't they also justified in the last two? I think the best answer is no. A valuation error cannot justify a refund as an illegal tax even if that error was caused by the valuation of property features that never existed. Very few appraisals are based on actual physical inspections of the property at issue. Instead, assessors rely on the mass appraisal process which requires countless judgment calls about specific physical features and their market value. If we open up every one of those judgment calls to retroactive review for five years under G.S. 105-381, we would do serious harm to finality of our (ocal government tax bases. And without that finality, budgeting for local governments would become far more difficult than it already is. No doubt, some valuation errors make compelling arguments for refunds. Consider an example similar to situation 5 above, but assume that instead of mistakenly appraising a 1,500 square-foot house as 1,700 square feet the assessor appraises it at 5,000 square feet. Is a refund justified when the judgment error is so egregious? Despite the size of the error, I still don't think it qualifies as an illegal tax because at the end of the day it was a judgment error. And once you start refunding any judgment error, you open the door for countless retroactive appraisal reviews. But my veteran assessor SOG colleague Ken Joyner thinks when an appraisal error is so large—appraising a house at more than 3 times its actual square footage, for example—the result must have been unintended. If so, then a refund would be justified under the clerical error criterion even if we conclude that it was not an illegal tax. In other words, any truly egregious appraisal error must have been unintended and therefore should be eligible for a refund. Similarly, a county could adopt a rule of reason: if an appraisal error is large enough, then a refund is justified. For example, a county might adopt a policy under which appraisal errors of greater than 10%justify a refund, but errors smaller than that do not. Both suggestions sound reasonable. But neither the Machinery Act nor property tax case law � from state courts make any distinction for refunds based on the size of the error involved. If an error truly was clerical, as Ken suggests a huge error likely would be, then clearly a refund is justified. But if the error was truly one of judgment, then I don't think a refund is justified regardless of how big the error was. ' Remember that the General Assembly sets policy, not mere mortals such as you and me. I can't in good faith recommend a policy, no matter how reasonable, if it contradicts the black- � letter statutory law. Unless and until the law is changed or we get more guidance from the i courts, my advice remains the same: local governments should construe the refund provisions in G.S..105-381 very narrowly. Taxpayers can use the appeal process to correct erroneous value judgments for the current tax year going forward, but they cannot attack those judgments retroactively. y� r v 18 (Hat tip to my friend Lee Harris of Orange County for raising this interesting issue. Lee's wise � counsel has been invaluable during my time at the SOG.) � � Y Article printed from Coates' Canons: NC Local Government Law Blog; http://canons.sog.unc.edu URL to article: http://canons.sog.unc.edu/?p=6994 ' URLs in this post: [1] G.S. 105-381: http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/statutes/statutelookup.pl? statute=105-381 [2] Ammons v. Wake County: http://www.aoc.state.nc.us/www/public/coa/opinions/1997/960574-i.htm [3] 2010 post: http://canons.sog.unc.edu/?p=1861 Copyright O 2012 School of Government at the University of North Carolina. All rights reserved. i i I — _ — _ �P,:" �7 �. ° '' Attachment 7 � #j�ii' � ''F � �. ? � � _ � _ �� y� - � � � - - i �( '` �, l� -- -- - - -- � "£�� t PROPERTY TAX BULLETIN N0. 153 �APRIL 2010 ` Refunds and Releases Christopher B.McLaughlin Few issues carry a greater potential for conflict between taxpayers and tax offices than do requests for refunds or waivers of property taxes. This is true in large part because the Machin- ery Act allows refunds and waivers only under two very limited circumstances.Unless the disputed tax is imposed due to clerical error or is illegal,the Machinery Act prohibits the refund of a tax payment or the waiver—called a"release"in the Machinery Act—of an unpaid tax obligation. Contrary to what many taxpayers believe,the refund and release process is not the venue for a re-examination of a property's value or taxable status.Although some governing boards desire to be more forgiving on these issues,they do so at their peril:board members who approve refunds or releases that violate the Machinery Act can be held personally responsible for the lost taxes.l 1.Who may approve refunds and releases? 1he governing board, always. The local government's manager, attorney, or finance officer, some- times.But the tax collector,never. G.S. Section 105-381(b) of the North Carolina General Statutes (hereinafter G,S.) gives the governing board primary responsibility for approving refund and release requests. For refunds and releases of less than$100,the board may delegate this responsibility to the manager, attor- ney, or fiiiance of�'icer,who must then report monthly to the board on the actions tal<en. Con- spicuously absent from this list is the tax collector. In practice some tax collectors grant small refunds or releases and then seel<approval from the board,but this is a risl<y approach. Once a refund or release is approved by the board or its delegate,the tax collector should be credited with that amount in the next annual settlement.2 � � 4 �.�V r�, Y�,,,g�.�� t`"� .d f r ��`��d`��6 c b � "k` � I � ? , �,�- ��a�`�''a`'',�,. c,�,. �.�u � I � I Christopher B.McLaughlin is a School of Government faculty member who specializes in local taxation. I 1.N.C.GErr.ST�.T. (hereinafter G.S,)§105-380(c), f 2. G.S, 105-381(b). 1 O 2010 Schoot of Government.The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill d � 'yi �0 i 2 PropertyTax Bulletin C � � 2.When are refunds and releases authorized? �' ,, Technically, refunds and releases are authorized in three situations:when a tax is (1) imposed a through clerical error, (2) illegal, or(3)levied for an illegal purpose.3 However,because reasons 2 ' and 3 overlap substantially, if not entirely,in practice there are only two situations that justify a �I refund:when a tax is imposed due to clerical error or is illegal. � Clerical Error � � The General Assembly has not defined the term"clerical error,"but state courts have. In 1997, ' the North Carolina Court of Appeals tacicled this issue in Ammons v,Walce County.'� In this ;� case, the taxpayer asl<ed the assessor if his forest land qualified for present-use value(PUV) tax deferrals for the 1993 tax year. The assessor answered no and the taxpayer did not apply for the � i PUV program. One year later,the taxpayer ignored the assessor's opinion and applied for a PUV � deferral. The assessor denied the application,but the taxpayer won his appeal to the board of � equalization and review and was granted PUV status for the 1994 tax year. The taxpayer then 1 requested a refund for the 1993 taxes he would have been able to defer had the assessor provided accurate advice about the property's eligibility for the PUV program.After the board of county commissioners denied the refund request,the taxpayer turned to the courts.The superior court , ruled that the assessor's incorrect advice did not constitute a clerical error under G.S. 105-381 � and dismissed the taxpayer's claim. The court of appeals affirmed this decision,which became � final when the North Carolina Supreme Court declined to hear the taxpayer's appeal. According to the court of appeals, to qualify as a clerical error under G.S. 105-381 the tax office's error"must ordinarily be apparent on the face of the instrument,""must be capable of being corrected by reference to the record only,"and must produce an unintended result. Prime examples are transcription errors, such as when an additional zero is added to tax valuation or when two numbers are transposed on a tax bill. The definition of clerical error adopted in Ammons excludes a factual or judgment error by an appraiser,which must be addressed during the assessment appeal period and not in a refund and release request. For example, assume that in 2007 an appraiser values a lal<efront lot with the understanding that it is buildable.Three years later,the taxpayer applies for a building permit and is denied based on the size and slope of the lot. lhe taxpayer immediately asl<s the tax office for a retroactive decrease in the tax value of the lot and a tax refund,based on the fact that the lot was never buildable.Applying the Ammons test,this error does not justify a refund under G.S. 105-381 because it is a judgment error and not a clerical error. First,the error is apparent and correctable only through an examination of the property and a decision by the county inspections department,not by reference to the appraisal documents, Second,the error has not caused an unintended result.In 2007,the appraiser intended to value the house as a buildable lot, and it was so valued.The judgment error by the appraiser can be corrected under G.S. 105- 287(a)(2)for current and future tax years,but it does not justify a retroactive change to the tax . value or a refund for past years under G.S. 105-381. For a terrific analysis of the Ammons case and its definition of clerical error, please see William A. Campbell's Property Tax Bulletin No. 111.5 3.G.S, 105-381(a)(1). 4,490 S.E.2d 569,127 N.C.App.426(1997),cert,denied,500 S,E.2d 84,347 N.C.670(1998). � 5.William A, Campbell,`Ammons u Wake County:5ome Light on Clerical Errors," Property Tax Bulletin No.111 (October 1997),available online at www.sog.unc.edu/pubs/electronicversions/pdfs/ ` ptblll.pdf, E O 2010 School of Government.The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill € � � 21 � Refunds and Releases � I s i ! Can a clerical error by the taxpayer ever justify a refund or a release?No. Based on the lan- € � guage in G.S. 105-381, a refund or release is justified only if the tax is"imposed through clerical error"and only the government can impose a tax. Consider the situation in which Tina Taxpayer forgets that her mortgage company is escrow- ing her property tax payments and mal<es a payment to the tax office. Can Tina's payment be refunded based on the fact that her mortgage company will pay the tax bill later in the year with the escrowed funds?No. Even though Tina's error may be a clerical one,it does not sat- isfy G.S. 105-381 because the tax on her home was not imposed due to her error. Tina's refund request should be directed to her mortgage company, not to the tax office. Similarly, a refund is not justified if a taxpayer mistal<enly pays the taxes on property that he or she sold to another taxpayer at some point after the listing period, The taxpayer may have made a clerical error when he or she wrote the wrong parcel number on the payment checl<,but that does not mean the taxes on that parcel were imposed due to clerical error.The taxpayer's remedy, if any,would be from the new owner of the property,not the tax office. Illegal Taxes Taxes that are either illegal or leviecl for an illegal purpose may be released or refunded under G.S. 105-181. Situations in which refunds may occur include: l. Double taxation,when the same property is taxed more than once; 2. Situs mistal<es,when a taxing unit taxes property that has no situs in the unit's jurisdiction; 3. Procedural defects,when a taxing unit levies a tax without a required ordinance or referendum;6 4. Excess taxation,when a taxing unit levies a tax in excess of the applicable cap on that tax;'and 5. Improper purposes,when a taxing unit levies a tax for a purpose not permitted by the General Assembly.$ This author believes some local governments inapp'ropriately shoehorn valuation errors and/ or judgment errors into the illegal tax category and authorize refunds for matters that should be resolved during the valuation appeal process. For example, consider the situation in which the assessor's office incorrectly assumes during a reappraisal that Tom Taxpayer's house has a finished third floor. Two years later, Tom dem- onstrates to the assessor that his house has never had a finished third floor. Tom asl<s that his assessment be reduced retroactively and that his excess tax payment for the past two years be 6.For example,county and municipal property taxes must be included in the government's annual budget ordinance.G.S. 159-13.Rural fire district taxes require a petition signed by 35 percent of the affected landowners and voter referendum in the proposed district, G.S.69-25,1. 7.For example,with some exceptions general county and municipal property tax rates are capped at $1.50. G.S. 153A-149; G.S. 160A-209.Rural fire district tax rates are capped at either 10 cents or 15 cents, depending on the language of the authorizing referendum. G.S.69-25.�k. 8,G.S. 153A-149 and G.S. 160A-2091ist the approved purposes for general county and municipal prop- i erty taxes. Special service district taxes may be used only for the provision of additional services in those districts such as beach erosion control,sewer systems,fire protection(counties only),and downtown revitalization projects(municipalities only). G.S. 153A-301;G.S. 160A-536.Rural fire district taxes may be used only for the provision of fire protection services in these districts.G.S.69-25.4. O 2010 School of Government.The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill � 22 ` 4 Property Tax Bulletin 4 ; refunded. The error at issue clearly is not a clerical error under the Ammons test.Nevertheless, !f is a refund justified because the resulting tax is illegal, in that the county taxed Tom for prop- i erty(a finished third floor) that Tom has never owned? Many counties would answer yes, but this author disagrees.If valuation errors such as the one involving Tom's third floor are refundable under the illegal tax category, then the deadline for valuation appeals becomes irrelevant. Local governments would lose all certainty about the value of their tax bases and find it impossible to budget accurately. For this reason, the best interpretation of the illegal tax category is one that excludes valuation judgment errors. If a taxpayer wishes to contest the valuation of his or her property,he or she must do so through the board of equalization and review appeal process,not through the refund and release process 9 Listing errors must also be resolved during the initial appeal period to the board of equaliza- tion and review rather than through the refund and release process.For example, assume that Tom Taxpayer has listed a boat in Carolina County for several years.In November 2009 he sells the boat to his neighbor, Tina Taxpayer.In January 2010 Carolina County sends Tom a listing form that includes the boat. Tom signs and returns the form without carefully reading it. The county subsequently assesses the boat for taxation under Tom's name. When Tom receives the tax bill for the boat-, he promptly pays it. Six months later he realizes he has paid taxes on a boat he no longer owns and demands a refund from Carolina County.Tom is not entitled to a refund under G.5. 105-381 because the tax on the boat is not illegal: Carolina County is authorized to tax the boat because it still has situs in Carolina County on January 1, 2010,Nor is Tom enti- tled to a refund under the clerical error category because the listing error does not satisfy the Atnmons test. Tom's opportunity to contest the listing of the boat in his name ended when the valuation appeal period ended thirty days after he received notice of the boat's tax valuation.lo That said, refunds and releases are justified under GS 105-381's illegal tax category for taxes levied on property that does not exist or does not have situs in the taxing unit as of the listing date. Consider the example above,but assume instead that in mid-2009 Tom sold the boat to a resident of another county who promptly removed it from Carolina County. If Tom mistalc- enly listed his boat for taxation in Carolina County for 2010, he would be entitled to a refund or a release of those taxes after providing evidence that the boat did not have situs in Carolina County on January 1, 2010. 1he same would be true if Tom's boat was destroyed by hurricane in mid-2009 and he mistal<enly listed it for taxation for 2010. Tom would be entitled to a refund or release of the taxes on the boat if he could provide evidence that the boat no longer existed as of January 1, 2010.11 9.1he same is true of taxability errors.As the Ammons case demonstrates,incorrect decisions by the assessor regarding applications for exemptions or exclusions do not justify refunds or releases.If a tax- payer believes that he or she is entitled to an exemption or exclusion,the taxpayer must talce advantage of � the application and appeal process in G.S.105-282.1.The taxpayer cannot retroactively raise these issues using the refund and release process under G.S. 105-381. 10. G.S, 105-317.1(c).Urider G,S. 105-306,the county is permitted to correct the listing error and pro- ceed as if it had been listed in Tina's name all along.This ineans that if Toin had never paid the taxes,he would no longer be considered the responsible taxpayer and could not be subject to enforced collection I remedies,1he same conclusions would be reached under G.S. 105-302 if the listing error concerned real i property. � 11.In contrast,this author believes that a refund or release is not justified under G.S. 105-381 when � a business taxpayer lists a certain cost of personal property for taxation and then later seel<s a refund or release of the related taxes on the grounds that the taxpayer included in that cost amount some personal O 2010 School of Government.The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 1 23 G Refunds and Releases I 3.Which taxes must be released or refunded under G.S. 105-381? 1he Machiner Act defines the term"tax"as "the rinci al amount of an tax cost enal- , , Y P P Y P ties and interest imposed upon property tax or dog license tax:'12 This definition means that G.S. 105-381 controls the refund or release of all property taxes,including special service district taxes and rural fire district taxes. G.S, 105-381 does not control the refund or release of other local taxes, such as privilege license taxes and occupancy taxes,nor does it control the refund or release of costs and fees,such as special assessments and nuisance abatement costs, that by statute are collectible as property taxes. See Question 7 for details on the refund and release of other taxes and fees. 4. Does G.S. 105-381 govern the refund or release of interest? Yes.Because the term"taxes"as used in GS 105-381 includes interest,any refund or release of interest must conform to the restrictions in that statute. Only when interest is levied illegally or added due to a clerical error can it be released or refunded. For example,if the tax office miscal- culates the interest owed by a taxpayer,that interest charge could be refunded or released under G.S, 105-381. What if the taxpayer claims that he or she was charged interest only because the tax of�ice failed to send a tax bill in a timely fashion or sent an inaccurate tax bill?The North Carolina Supreme Court answered this question in the negative when it decided In re Morgan two years ago.13 In this case,the taxpayer listed her house with the Henderson County assessor but the house was never assessed or taxed due to tax office error. Eight years later the tax office learned of its mistalce and sent retroactive tax bills,plus interest,for each year the house had escaped taxation.The taxpayer contested both the principal taxes and the interest. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the county, approving not only the principal taxes but also the addition of inter- est to the tardy tax bills. The court's decision relied on G.S, 105-348,which provides taxpayers with notice of their taxes regardless of when or if they receive tax bilis,and G.S. 105-394,which forgives minor defects—"immaterial irregularities"in the language of the statute—during the taxation process.l`�Although the taxpayer in Morgan did not seelc a release under G,S. 105-381, the result would be the same had she done so.Morgan malces clear that it is legal for interest to accrue on taxes billed after the delinquency date due to tax of�ice error.A release is, therefore, not justified under G.S. 105-381, property that was disposed of prior to January 1.1his relatively common situation involves a dispute over the valuation of the taxpayer's aggregate personal property as opposed to a dispute over the existence of taxable property,Accordingly,the taxpayer's opportunity to contest the issue should be through the list- ing and appraisal appeal period,not through the refund and release process. 12. G.S.105-273(15). 13.362 N.C. 339,661 S.E.2d 733(2008). � 14.For more on Morgan and the immaterial irregularity provisions,please see Christopher B. McLaughlin and Stan C.Duncan,"Discovery,Immaterial Irregularity,and the Morgan Decision,"Prop- i erty Tax Bulletin No. 147(March 2009),available online at www,sog.unc.edu/pubs/electronicversions/ i pdfs/ptb147.pdf. O 2010 School of Government.'Ihe University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 24 I 6 PropertyTax Bulletin f � � � 5. How many years of taxes can be released or refunded? � iEE, Different rules apply depending on whether the taxpayer seel<s a refund of paid taxes or a release � �i of unpaid taxes. Refunds are limited to the later of(1) five years from the tax's original due date � and(2) six months from the date the taxes are paid.Releases of unpaid taxes may be granted at any time. For example, assume that Carolina County improperly levies taxes for 2005-9 on a boat that Tina Taxpayer 1<eeps permanently moored in Ocean County. These taxes are illegal and justify relief under G.S. 105-381,If Tina has never paid the boat taxes to Carolina County,she can obtain a release of the taxes and interest at any time. She can asl<for a release immediately upon discovering the mistal<e in 2010 or wait years to submit her request; either way, Tina will be entitled to a full release as long as the taxes have not been paid. If Tina has been paying the Carolina County taxes punctually each year,then the refund rules apply. Tina can obtain a refund for all taxes that were originally due within five years of her refund request.Her 2005 taxes were due on September 1, 2005; as long as she requests a refund before September 2,2010, she is entitled to a refund of the 2005 taxes and all subsequent taxes, If Tina submits her request after September 1,2010,she cannot obtain a refund of the 2005 taxes. 1he six months from payment provision will apply if Tina learns of the Carolina County taxes in 2010 and pays in full for the years 2005-9 on June 1, 2010, In this case, six months from the date of payment(December l,2010)will be later than five years from the tax's original due date (September 1, 2010). Tina will, therefore,have until December 1, 2010,to request a refund of the 2005 taxes. 6. If the governing board denies a request for a refund or release,does the taxpayer have the right to appeal that decision? Yes.If the governing board denies the taxpayer's request or fails to act on the request within ninety days, the taxpayer has the right to bring a civil action in state court within three years.ls The taxpayer must pay the disputed taxes before initiating a lawsuit if the request is for a release. If the taxpayer prevails, the taxing jurisdiction must refund the disputed taxes plus six percent interest, as well as all costs and attorneys'fees incurred by the taxpayer. 7. Does G.S. 105-381 govern the refund or release of other taxes or fees collected by a local government? No.In addition to property taxes,local governments are authorized to levy a variety of taxes on activities ranging from owning a pet to selling alcohol to renting cars.All of these taxes may be collected using Machinery Act remedies of attachment, garnishment, and levy.16 However, none of the authorizing statutes for these various taxes specifically incorporates the Machin- '; ery Act refund and release provisions.Local governments are,therefore,free to develop their ; own refund and release policies for taxes other than property taxes or can choose to adopt ; 15,G.S. 105-381(c). 16.G,S. 153A-147(counties)and G.S. 160A-207(municipalities). O 2010 School of Government.The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill � k E 25 � Refunds and Releases � y f �f 1 the Machinery Act approach.Regardless of the chosen method,local governments would be � wise to adopt formal refund and release policies for all of their various taxes in order to avoid ; controversy. The same approach holds true for local government costs and fees that may be collected using Machinery Act enforced collection remedies for delinquent property taxes, These include special assessments,public nuisance abatement costs, and solid waste fees.l' Lilce the taxes discussed above, the authorizing statutes for these fees and costs do not specifically incorporate the Machinery Act refund and release provisions.As a result,local governments are free to craft their own refund and release provisions for most of the fees and costs they collect.The only exceptions are special assessments,which are governed by their own amendment procedures.l$ 17.For special assessments for the cost of public worlcs projects such as water and sewer system extensions,see G.S. 153A-195(counties)and G.5. 160A-228 (municipalities).For mowing,trash collec- tion,or other costs incurred abating public nuisances on private property,see G.S, 153A-140(counties) and G.S, 160A-193(municipalities).For solid waste fees included on property tax bills,see G.S, 153A-293 (counties)and G,S, 160A-314.1(b) (municipalities). 18. G.S. 153A-198(counties)and G.S. 160A-231(municipalities)permit special assessments to be modified only in cases of"irregularity, omission,error or lacl<of jurisdiction:' i � � O 2010 School of Government.The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill This bulletin is published and posted online by the School of Government to address issues of interest to government officials.This publication is for educational and informational use and inay be used for those purposes without perinission. Use of this publication for commercial purposes or tvithout acknowledgment of its source is prohibited. To browse a compiete catalog of School of Government publications,please visit the School's website at wwwsog.unc.edu or contact the Publications Division,School of Government,CB#3330 I<napp-Sanders Building,UNC Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill,NC 27599-3330;e-mail sales@sog.unc.edu;telephone 919,966,4ll9;or fax 919.962.2707. 26 NORTH CAROLINA RES-2013-085 Attachment 8 ORANGE COUNTY REFUND RESOLUTION(Denial) Whereas,North Carolina General Statutes 105-381 allows for the refund of taxes when the Board of County Commissioners determines that a taxpayer applying for the refund has a valid defense to the taY imposed; and Whereas,the properties listed in the attached"Refund Request"has been taYed and the taY has been collected: and Whereas,as to the property listed in the Refund Request,the taYpayer has timely applied in writing for a refund of the taY imposed but has not presented a valid defense to the taY imposed as indicated on the Request for Property TaY Refunds. NOW,THEREFORE,IT IS RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF ORANGE COUNTY THAT the property taY refund recommended for denial are denied. Upon motion duly made and seconded,the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votes: Ayes: Commissioners Notes: I,Donna Baker,Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for the County of Orange,North Carolina, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing has been carefully copied from the recorded minutes of the Board of Commissioners for said County at a regular meeting of said Board held on ,said record having been made in the Minute Book of the minutes of said Board, and is a true copy of so much of said proceedings of said Board as relates in any way to the passage of the resolution described in said proceedings. WITNESS my hand and the corporate seal of said County,this day of Clerk to the Board of Commissioners