Tennessee Taxpayers Association

 
Unfair for Assessors to Decide Taxpayer Appeals
 

The Tennessee Assessment Appeals Commission meets throughout the State to hear property tax appeals from local property taxpayers.  This Commission is specifically charged by law to  “hear and act upon all complaints and appeals regarding the assessment, classification and value of property for purposes of taxation . . .

Having first been through the lower appeals process consisting of the Assessor, the county board of equalization, and the State Board’s Hearing Officer, the taxpayer’s last hope may be with this Commission.  

Its powerful decisions overrule all the lower officials and board decisions. 

The Commission’s decisions, therefore, set precedent for future assessment, tax, and appeal procedures that must be followed by all the assessors, lower officers, boards of equalization, and of course, the taxpayers of Tennessee. 

While The State Board has the power to review and reverse the Appeals Commission’s decisions, the State Board rarely reviews any.

It is absolutely essential then that the Appeals Commission be composed of independent members who have no inherent bias for or against any of the parties involved in a property tax appeal.

The Appeals Commission is typically composed of six primary members and a panel of nine alternate members.  Various members and alternates hear appeals depending upon whether the appeals are located in west, middle, or east Tennessee.  The alternate members often hear cases when the Commission meets in their division of the State.

Our serious concern with the present member composition is that among the fifteen total members and alternates, six of them are Assessors of Property. Two Assessors are among the six regular members and four Assessors are included among the alternates.

We do not see how it is possible that Assessors may sit on the Appeals Commission without the appearance of inherent bias in favor of the Assessors’ side of the dispute. After all, the Appeals Commission is deciding disputes between the taxpayers and the Assessors. 

The Assessors are the parties opposing the taxpayers.

For example, some time ago members of the county boards of equalization included various local tax officials.  TTA was able to cure that inequity by presenting a bill to the Legislature to forbid such members.  The Legislature agreed and passed the bill into law.

The Attorney General, however, has issued his Opinion that it is not a conflict of interest for an Assessor to sit and decide assessment appeals on this high Commission.   Of course, it is only an Opinion, but one that will permit this practice to continue and the practice may even get worse.  Soon, more Assessors may sit on the Commission.

The Attorney General did leave doubt in his Opinion by the following statements:

As your request suggests, a local assessor should not hear property tax appeals from his own jurisdiction.  A local assessor also may be disqualified from hearing a particular matter if it will set a precedent for a particular case pending in his jurisdiction.

Our point is that common sense tells us every case this high Commission hears will set precedents for an Assessor member’s county.  Every case is precedent setting for all Assessors, taxpayers, State Division of Assesments, and  county boards of equalization.  There is no escape from these precedents for these lower assessment officials.

Therefore, there is absolutely no way we can be convinced that an Assessor of Property may hear and decide, without the appearance of inherent and inescapable bias, a property tax appeal as a member of the Appeals Commission. 

Our objections are summarized below:

• Even though Assessor members may recuse themselves should any appeal involve a property located in their counties, the appearance of bias is still unavoidable.  An Assessor’s mere presence as  a Commission member places unfair pressure upon the other members when it is time to vote for or against the Assessor member’s case before the Commission.  

• What responsible judges or members of a jury would not offer to recuse themselves if they knew one of the parties to a case they had to decide?   This would have to be necessary in just about every case with Assessors.   All appeals that comes before the Appeals Commission involves Assessors from other counties who the Assessor members probably know, belong to the same organizations, attend conferences with, and have common interests, even play golf together.  

• Again, of great importance is that on any appeal which the Assessor members vote, those votes will affect the member Assessors and their counties.   This is without doubt a fact because as pointed out earlier, Appeal Commission decisions are used a precedents and guidance by all Assessors (including Commission member Assessors), lower boards, State Hearing Officers, and taxpayers.  This fact is inescapable.

All these concerns present a horribly unfair bias against the property taxpayers of Tennessee.

Packing the Appeals Commissions with Assessors, who make the assessments and are always the opposing parties, is an unavoidable conflict of interest. 

We feel the members of the State Board of Equalization should refuse to appoint assessors to this Commission.  

©  copyright – Tennessee Taxpayers Association – November 7,  2009

Email this post