LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for MUNINET Archives


MUNINET Archives

MUNINET Archives


MUNINET@LIST.UVM.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

MUNINET Home

MUNINET Home

MUNINET  August 2000

MUNINET August 2000

Subject:

Re: Fw: Should BCA Decisions Include Notice of Appellant's Right

From:

John Howland <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Vermont Municipal Government Discussion Network <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 21 Aug 2000 17:19:15 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (234 lines)

Hi again...

I don't think we really disagree, as to law or as to vehicle. It's just that
whenever I read that time-honored prose about the danger of confusing the
citizens, I get an allergic reaction.

And if that's NOT part of your reasoning -- well, you must realize that
mentioning it in the course of your argument could be, shall we say,
confusing to the citizens.

John

------Original Message------
From: Charles Merriman <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: August 21, 2000 7:13:14 PM GMT
Subject: Re: Fw: Should BCA Decisions Include Notice of Appellant's Right


Hi John:

I re-read my message in light of your note.  It is inaccurate to suggest
that my message contained the reasoning you imply.  Obviously, a town should
never hold back information from its citizens (and noncitizens) regarding
tax options or any other matter of public record.  But that is not the issue
here. The issue is first, whether towns are legally required to provide such
notice in BCA decisions. Second, if there is no legal requirement to do so,
whether Towns should include such notice in BCA decisions anyway.

A BCA decision simply does not threaten to deprive the recipient of a
property right.  Therefore, the due process issues that were addressed in
the Blanchard case do not apply and BCA notices do not need to include
abatement information.

Should Towns include the information anyway?  They certainly can if they
wish.  But at best, they would be performing an empty service for the
recipient.  As I pointed out in my previous note, many BCA decisions are
rendered before the Town has issued tax bills. Informing a recipient of
his/her right to seek abatement on a liability that has not attached is
illogical.  The taxpayer couldn't act on the notice until after the tax bill
issued.  A notice which essentially tells recipients, 'don't forget,
somewhere down the line you may want to seek abatement' is, frankly, inane.

As you're probably aware, the abatement statute (24 VSA 1535) is extremely
narrow in scope.  The Board of Abatement may abate taxes in the following
cases and NO others: (1) taxpayer died insolvent, (2) taxpayer was removed
from the state, (3) taxpayer is unable to pay his/her taxes, (4) taxes
contain manifest error or mistake, (5) taxed property was destroyed or lost,
(6) taxpayer who is eligible for the Veteran's exemption missed the deadline
on that exemption, (7) the tax is a use change tax and taxpayer is an apple
farmer enrolled in current use who had to sell off some of his farm to keep
the remainder of the farm solvent, and (8) the tax is a use change tax and
taxpayer is subject to the tax because of the death or permanent physical
incapacity of the farmer.

I am willing to wager that there are very few taxpayers in any given town
who could meet the jurisdictional requirements of the Board of Abatement.
Notwithstanding one's expertise at wordsmithing, including notice of
abatement rights in BCA decisions is more likely to raise false expectations
among taxpayers than provide meaningful notice to persons who could benefit
from section 1535.  If a Town wishes to provide meaningful notice, it ought
to find a meaningful vehicle for providing the notice.  BCA decisions are
not the correct vehicle.


Charles Merriman

----- Original Message -----
From: John Howland <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, August 18, 2000 6:25 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: Should BCA Decisions Include Notice of Appellant's Right


> As both an old tax assessor and former English teacher, I'm uncomfortable
> with any line of reasoning that concludes that we should refrain from
> telling the citizens something about their tax options because we might
> confuse them.
>
> Seems to me that the English language offers sufficient resources to allow
> us to keep folks fully informed -- we just have to be careful to do it
> right.
>
> Perhaps it would be useful here to differentiate between what public
> officials are legally REQUIRED to do and what else we OUGHT to do anyway,
> without any legal requirement.
>
> I'd come down on the side of full (and carefully worded) disclosure about
a
> taxpayer's options at every step of the way.
>
> John Howland Jr.
> Burlington
>
> ------Original Message------
> From: Charles Merriman <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: August 18, 2000 5:40:20 PM GMT
> Subject: Fw:      Should BCA Decisions Include Notice of Appellant's Right
>
>
>
> Hi Listers, Selectboard Members, JPs, Town Clerks and others interested in
> BCA tax appeal procedures:
>
> As many of you know, a recent superior court decision held in the context
of
> a delinquent tax sale that towns must give taxpayers adequate notice of
> their right to request abatement of taxes and the procedure for doing so
> before selling the taxpayer's property.  In the words of the court, a ". .
> .Town must provide [a property owner] with an adequate notice of her right
> to apply for tax abatement, before the Town can validly acquire her
property
> by means of a tax sale."  Town of Windsor v. Blanchard, Docket Number
> S528-11-99 Wrcv (April 4, 2000).
>
> The question has come up whether BCA decisions should also notify
appellants
> of their right to apply for tax abatement.  In my opinion, the court's
> reasoning in the Blanchard case -- a tax sale case --- does not apply to
BCA
> decisions.  I also believe that adding this additional information to your
> BCA decisions, while not wrong, is unnecessary and may prove confusing.
> Therefore, I recommend that you not include notice and explanation of the
> taxpayer's right to seek tax abatement in your BCA decisions.
>
> The Blanchard case addressed the process required by law when the
government
> seeks to deprive an individual of a property interest through a tax sale.
> (Protections against the deprivation of property without due process of
law
> are contained in the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution and
> Chapter I, Article 10 of the Vermont Constitution.)  By comparison, most
BCA
> cases address the proper assessed value that should be applied to a
> property.  BCA decisions do not threaten to deprive anyone of a property
> interest. Therefore, the constitutional imperative that the government
> provide notice of one's right to seek abatement before depriving a person
of
> property is not at issue in assessment appeals and the analysis supporting
> the superior court's decision does not really apply to BCA decisions.
There
> are rather extensive procedural rights that apply by statute to assessment
> appeals; i.e., the right to receive notice, the right to be heard, the
right
> to a reasoned and timely decision, the right to be inspected by a
committee
> of the BCA, the right to appeal, etc.  In my view, the BCA meets its due
> process obligations when it fulfills these statutory mandates.  In my
view,
> BCAs do not have to apprise taxpayers of their right to seek abatement
also.
>
> Having said all that, I suspect that some BCAs will consider erring on the
> side of caution by including abatement information in their decision
notices
> anyway. Is there any harm in doing that?  Perhaps not.  However before you
> do so, you may want to consider the confusion likely to arise from
including
> this information in a BCA decision.
>
> As you know, Boards of Abatement do not have authority to abate or
otherwise
> alter assessments.  They do, under a narrow set of circumstances, have the
> authority to "abate in whole or in part taxes, interest, and collection
fees
> accruing to the town . . ." 24 VSA 1535.  Accrue means "to come into
> existence as a claim that is legally enforceable." The American Heritage
> College Dictionary, 9 (3rd ed. 1997).  Since there is often no tax that
has
> accrued at the time the BCA sends out its decision (indeed no issued tax
> bill to abate), the Board of Abatement can't really hear the taxpayer's
> request and would have to dismiss the request.
>
> Therefore, at its best, including abatement information in a BCA decision
is
> only a "heads up" to the taxpayer that sometime down the line, after the
tax
> bill has issued and after the taxpayer has exhausted his/her appeal
rights,
> the taxpayer may seek abatement for the tax that has accrued.  Including
an
> explanation of an inchoate right in a BCA decision regarding a
non-existent
> tax bill probably will create confusion for the taxpayer.
>
> For example, imagine that a taxpayer mistakenly interprets the notice to
> mean that there is a third avenue of appeal from the BCA -- the Board of
> Abatement.  Since appearing before the Board of Abatement costs nothing,
and
> since appeals to superior court cost $150 and appeals to the state
> appraisers cost $30, the taxpayer may think the best choice is the Board
of
> Abatement.  This hypothetical, unfortunate taxpayer comes before the
board,
> comparables in hand, cost sheets in hand, only to find that the Board
can't
> hear him because his tax hasn't accrued yet.  Even if his tax has accrued,
> the taxpayer may find that he doesn't meet the "unable to pay" criterion
nor
> any of the other 7 narrow criteria for abatement requests.  There are all
> his old friends sitting as the Board of Abatement (BCA members along with
> the listers and town treasurer constitute the Board of Abatement).  And
> these people who apprised him of his right to go before the Board of
> Abatement now tell him he doesn't have a cognizable basis for being before
> them.  Then they tell him he loses.  Then he finds out that his other
> avenues of appeal have expired.  With some justification, that taxpayer
> (whose assessment arguments could be right, after all) may feel slightly
> beleaguered.  In fairness to that taxpayer, I recommend that the town find
> some other way to apprise its community of the existence of the Board of
> Abatement.
>
> BCA decisions should, of course, continue to include the language
informing
> the taxpayer of his/her appeal rights beyond the BCA.
>
> I hope these notes help.  Please e-mail me at [log in to unmask] if
> you have any follow-up questions.
>
> Charles L. Merriman
> Attorney for the Division of Property Valuation and Review, Vermont
> Department of Taxes
>
>
> ______________________________________________
> FREE Personalized Email at Mail.com
> Sign up at http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup
>


______________________________________________
FREE Personalized Email at Mail.com
Sign up at http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LIST.UVM.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager