In this post, we do our best to list and link to selected North Carolina property tax decisions which we believe to be key to the area. We also try to provide a brief description of what we think the case says. Our goal is to regularly update this post as we become aware of new decisions worthly of inclusion. If any of our readers are aware of a case that should be on this list but is missing, let us know in the comments or through the "Contact Us" tab and we will consider adding it.
- 411-417 West Fourth Street (F.W. Woolworth Company, Lessee), 282 N.C. 71, 191 S.E.2d 692 (1972)(Holding that the right to a hearing by and relief from the County Board of Equalization and Review is not limited to the owner in fee simple of the assessed property or to other taxpayers seeking a higher value upon that property).
- AMP, Inc., 287 N.C. 547, 215 S.E.2d 752(1975)(Holding that ad valorem tax assessments are presumed to be correct, and that a taxpayer may rebut this presumption by producing competent material and substantial evidence that tends to show that (1) the taxing jurisdiction used an arbitrary or illegal mthod of valuation and (2) the assessment substantially exceeded the true value in money of the property).
- IMB Credit Corp., 186 N.C.App. 223, 650 S.E.2d 828 (2007)(Clarifying that the taxpayer has the initial burden of production - not persuasion - to offer competent, material and substantial evidence that tends to show the taxing jurisdiction's appraisal relies on illegal or arbitrary valuation methods and substantially overstates true value).
- Louisiana Pacific Corporation, No. COA10-500 (December 7, 2010)(Holding that where a taxpayer does not meet the requirement of North Carolina General Statute Section 105-290(e) by filing a notice of appeal to the Property Tax Commission within thirty days of a local Board of Equalization and Review Decision, the Property Tax Commission lacks subject matter jurisdiction to decide the taxpayer's appeal. This is so regardless of any equitable considerations, including whether taxpayer was ever given an opportunity to be heard before the Board of Equalization and Review prior to its decision).
- Perry-Griffin Foundation, 108 N.C.App. 383, 424 S.E.2d 212 (1989)(Holding that legal restraints upon alienation of property should be considered when determining the market value of said property for ad valorem tax purposes).
- Property of Pine Raleigh Corporation, 258 N.C. 398, 128 S.E.2d 855 (1963)(Holding that a taxpayer's failure to appeal an assessment in the first year of a revaluation schedule does not preclude its appeal in later years of that revaluation schedule).
- S. Ry. Co., 313 N.C. 177, 328 S.E.2d 235 (1985)(Holding that once the taxpayer successfully rebuts the presumption of correctness of an ad valorem tax assessment, the burden of production and persuasion shifts to the taxing jurisdiction to prove that its methods would in fact produce true values).
- Thetford Properties, 87 PTC 94, Unpublished Final Decision of the NC Property Tax Commission (1989) (Holding that (1) allocated values in bulk sales do not necessarily reflect market value where the properties where not marketed to the public and where there is no evidence to show that the allocation reflected market value; and (2) voluntary restrictions placed upon property should not be considered when determining the market value of said property for ad valorem tax purposes).
Image Copyright Bohman. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic License.