it talks about who has power when they have power and what power they have under section sixteen dash fifty five the border review has power once a taxpayer files a timely written complaint with the board of review to quote review the assessment and correct it as appears just board reviews also granted quote full power over the assessment of any person and may do anything in regard to that it may deem necessary to make a just assessment at the next level section twenty three ten grants the circuit court power quote to hear and determine all objections specified for the taxes of sustenance for levies in question but that power is condition on the taxpayer filing a complaint with the board of review in almost every case section twenty three transpacific least that the objection to assessment for any year shall not be allowed by the court however if an administrative remedy was available by complaint to the board of appeals or board of review under section sixteen dash fifty five or section sixteen dash one fifteen unless that remedy was exhausted prior to the filing of the tax objection  was in applicable based on the facts of this case the facts of the case are summarized this fall in two thousand a tax payers in this case purchased one hundred sixty three point sixty one a pers how do they challenge the reclass case the we haven't really gotten into those issues the complaint alleges and that's a fair answer that there was  argument that summary judgment was inappropriate why would the because the issue of classification is one of the subjects is properly presented to the board of review which taxpayers in this case did not do although they received the notice that indicated that they had the right to file  first two thousand and nine it goes through the cycle the local fashion districts base or levies on that assessment which is generally in the latter part of two thousand and i so two thousand and ten was when the actual tax breaks were set out based on the l received according to the appendix on may fifth two thousand and ten but their complaint was not filed until august of two thousand and ten assists i mean that's more than thirty days after the bell but what's the timeline for a tax objection defer the claim that there was quote defective notice due to the failure to indicate the prior year assessed value the percentage change from the previous assessed value to the purchase just value that the current yourself value was being expressed as dollars and the reason for an increase in value they further allege in their complaint quote that as a result of the deficiencies displayed just did not recognize the purpose intent or magnitude of any proposed change and therefore did not feel the twenty three to know the property tax code and they responded the it was not a political because the taxing authorities deliberately fixed values contrary to known values let me ask it i mean at the end affect the validity of the fact the reassessment came as a result of the fact that it was a larger tax parcel and buying into two separate parcels of the two new tax particles had to be created that that's what inspired  yet there's no mention of well i think the reassessment is probably a more accurate description reclassification would presume that it should carry over from the you again at this stage of the looking at the states litigation in which the trout were granted summary judgment we were unable to get into those so we don't know and after foxworthy the general assembly adopted security of legislation to mitigate the effect of the fox with the holdings so that basically it is it retroactively validated in proper published notices in in that case the supreme court characterize the notice requires the publish notice requirements as effects that are procedural irregularities in the assessment process that the lack of timing they've been minimized the significance of although recognizing that the the imposition of those requirements need to be complied with argument that we don't fit with that one of the exceptions which is called the on off wife by the last step sion and i agree with that we don't fit within the exception but our argument yes we're not subject to the exhaustion of administrative remedies for the reason that the notice in this case is defective the notice was defective for a number of reasons if you look at the notice one of the things that is required is the prior year assessed value a second thing is the current year or what's proposed and the purpose of that is so we can compare that's obvious ok and it says it was zero it was not maybe should have been to forty but isn't it or shouldn't that have been really for the taxpayer and more no it was nothing then it's now one sixth of the one hundred  sixty five thousand something versus two forty i mean wasn't that the mistake here something that should have triggered a bigger means i've thought of that too but what a reasonable person think when they saw that out and i can't come up with any before as are my own and it but it number in the second that's true too that's another good point all of these categories all when i read it it all looks like it's farm of some sort or another you know the first  this and come up with the number frankly the only thing that changed in this case when they reassessed us was the name of the owner there was a code and the fact that they bought like three fourths of the like him that's yet and they went in and changed a would not only have to show this but they would have to specifically tell the taxpayer the percentage change that was amended and i think that goes to show the legislature legislators intent to notify past two years when these things are happening practicable all your to form the taxpayer of an increased assessment and i understand that's discretionary language or says we're practicable but why wouldn't  it just seems to me like an anomaly that you're required to tell about a reassessment which may have a minimal impact on your tax bill when they don't have to notify the taxpayer of a reclassification you might not make sense if we had seen the way this was going to training then we could have went to the border review and asked those questions why did you change this classification and you could have argued but in this case my clients were put on notice that it didn't hit home bell did not go off and i don't think most reasonable people would when they see this particularly when you read this whole thing i think the trial judges i've never been able to a hearing to determine what the classification of but that's not what the law says there's several cases that say if there was defective notice the tax is invalid and that's i don't think there's any question about that so there's no reason to  from the questions of my respect colleagues are asking others all so why can't the trial court decide  we never got to that we were in the middle of discovery when they filed a motion to dismiss our case and so we turned around after briefing the law and said we're entitled to a summary judgment as a matter of law based on the very then we find this notice that the earth or right that's correct because we have to pay the money upfront we have to pay the tax within a certain amount of time the fifteen thousand dollars there we  bellecourt made a comment said the play different taxpayer did not phrase this as a defective notice case and just like raising the question why didn't you because it would be a whole different kind of i don't know where i was has no application and that was followed in in your case the weber versus white eagle golf club  there were a couple of points that were in the review palace like all get out of jail cards or something a couple statutes that were cited it was twenty four twenty five twenty one one eighty five exactly what was going on just as we would have known if they were put down twenty five hundred dollars is the prior assessment of people versus abraham i cited questions both of those structures and i think you'll see there is one other distinction that counsel made about my two supreme court cases that well they're only publication norris's i would suggest that they their and their in an actual notice would be a more agree just than one with publication i think that's not a valid distinction to rule out two supreme court cases on that basis the bureaucrats function the people with the full accounting assessment office every day their job is to determine value for property it wouldn't be that hard of a task for people to do that all the time for a sign of some value and i don't think you have to tell them to do that it should be their duty to do that if we and i think the legislature probably reemphasizing that to them by this recent amendment tell the taxpayer what's going about changes and stuff neatly and changes to the existing property that i've been looking and i don't find a specific provision regarding a brand new tax parcel i mean there are responsibilities step forth in the property tax code that says if there's a new contemplate giving specific notice when the new person created but i think everyone would agree the best that needs to be done if there's a new tax were created they're going to get a bill this is the first time that they're don't know you take somebody and he these folks are from philadelphia pennsylvania but then there where they're from and they go out and they buy the big chunk of a piece of farm published list of assessments and i see that my property is assessed at one hundred sixty five thousand some odd dollars in the jason parcel of property like considered to be similar is assessed at three thousand dollars i'm going to be asking questions the public ate the publications never been drawn into question here all that's been complained of in this case is a technical defect that's to the fore in these are exactly this is exactly the was not published in conformity of law or is not mailed in accordance with the provisions of this act the failure so to publish the same or mail the same shall not be considered as a valid objection to the fact now the genny score observed that the legislature had  have we have to this this is going to appear in the record we didn't get that far but my understanding is that in the subsequent year they apply for a world in the four three management program so they receive the preferential assessment for something other