An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute 

controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance 

with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure.

NO. COA13-1314

NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS

Filed: 5 August 2014

In The Matter of the Appeal of:

DENNY E. and DEBORAH C. KING from 

the decision of the Haywood County 

Board of Equalization and Review 

regarding the valuation of certain 

real property for tax year 2011.

From The North Carolina 

Property Tax Commission

No. 11 PTC 838

Appeal by Haywood County from final decision of the North 

Carolina Property Tax Commission entered 21 June 2013. Heard in 

the Court of Appeals 9 April 2014.

Denny E. King, pro se.

Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP, by Charles C. Meeker, for 

Haywood County.

McCULLOUGH, Judge.

Haywood County appeals from the final decision of the North 

Carolina Property Tax Commission (the “Commission”) in favor of 

Denny E. King and Deborah C. King (“taxpayers”). For the 

following reasons, we vacate the final decision and remand to 

the Commission.
-2-

I. Background

This case concerns a 2011 valuation of taxpayers’ real

property located at 296 Rough Water Point in Haywood County, 

North Carolina, (the “subject property”) for purposes of 

assessing ad valorem taxes. The subject property includes a 

single family residence situated on 3.1 acres of land.

In a general reappraisal effective 1 January 2011, the 

Haywood County Tax Assessor (the “assessor”) valued the subject 

property at a total value of $210,900. Unsatisfied with the 

valuation, taxpayers appealed the assessor’s determination to 

the Haywood County Board of Equalization and Review (the “County 

Board”), who later received evidence and heard testimony in the 

case on 25 July 2011. By notice mailed 2 September 2011, the 

County Board notified taxpayers of its decision to reduce the 

valuation to a total value of $205,100.

Still unsatisfied, taxpayers proceeded to challenge the 

County Board’s decision by appealing to the Commission. In 

their notice of appeal to the Commission, taxpayers asserted the

“assessed value per square foot [was] substantially higher than 

similar assessed homes[]” and alleged the true value of the 

subject property was $165,232. Taxpayers’ appeal then came on 
-3-

for hearing before the Commission, sitting as the State Board of 

Equalization and Review, in Raleigh on 18 January 2013.

Subsequent to the hearing, the Commission entered its final 

decision in favor of taxpayers on 21 June 2013. Specifically, 

the Commission concluded “[i]n this appeal, [taxpayers] did 

present evidence tending to show that the county tax supervisor 

used an arbitrary method of valuation; and that the county’s 

assessment substantially exceeded the true value in money of the 

property.” The Commission then ordered that the value assigned 

to the subject property by the County Board be modified to a 

total value of $172,200.

Haywood County appealed the Commission’s decision to this 

Court on 18 July 2013.

II. Standard of Review

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 105-345.2 governs this Court’s review of 

a final decision by the Commission. It provides in pertinent 

part:

So far as necessary to the decision and 

where presented, the court shall decide all 

relevant questions of law, interpret 

constitutional and statutory provisions, and 

determine the meaning and applicability of 

the terms of any Commission action. The 

court may affirm or reverse the decision of 

the Commission, declare the same null and 

void, or remand the case for further 

proceedings; or it may reverse or modify the 
-4-

decision if the substantial rights of the 

appellants have been prejudiced because the 

Commission's findings, inferences, 

conclusions or decisions are:

(1) In violation of constitutional 

provisions; or

(2) In excess of statutory authority or 

jurisdiction of the Commission; or

(3) Made upon unlawful proceedings; or

(4) Affected by other errors of law; or

(5) Unsupported by competent, material and 

substantial evidence in view of the 

entire record as submitted; or

(6) Arbitrary or capricious.

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 105-345.2(b) (2013). “In making the foregoing 

determinations, the court shall review the whole record or such 

portions thereof as may be cited by any party and due account

shall be taken of the rule of prejudicial error.” N.C. Gen. 

Stat. § 105-345.2(c).

III. Discussion

Haywood County raises the following issues on appeal: 

whether the Commission erred in (1) failing to explain the 

process by which it concluded taxpayers rebutted the presumption 

of correctness afforded to ad valorem tax assessments, (2) 

failing to explain why the valuation of the subject property 

should be reduced to $172,200, and (3) failing to find and
-5-

conclude that substantial evidence supported the County Board’s 

assessment of the subject property at a value of $205,100. We 

address the first two issues together, followed by the third 

issue.

Sufficiency of the Commission’s Final Decision

In the first two issues on appeal, Haywood County 

challenges the sufficiency of the Commission’s final decision. 

Specifically, Haywood County contends the Commission erred in 

failing to explain how it applied the burden shifting analysis 

and how it determined the reduced value of the subject property. 

In response to Haywood County’s arguments, taxpayers do not 

address the adequacy of the Commission’s final decision, but 

instead point to evidence they contend supports the Commission’s 

decision. Upon review, we agree with Haywood County and hold 

the final decision inadequate.

North Carolina’s uniform appraisal standards provide the 

following guidance:

All property, real and personal, shall as 

far as practicable be appraised or valued at 

its true value in money. When used in this 

Subchapter, the words “true value” shall be 

interpreted as meaning market value, that 

is, the price estimated in terms of money at 

which the property would change hands 

between a willing and financially able buyer 

and a willing seller, neither being under 

any compulsion to buy or to sell and both 
-6-

having reasonable knowledge of all the uses 

to which the property is adapted and for 

which it is capable of being used.

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 105-283 (2013).

“It is . . . a sound and a fundamental principle of law in 

this State that ad valorem tax assessments are presumed to be 

correct.” In re Amp, 287 N.C. 547, 562, 215 S.E.2d 752, 761 

(1975). Yet, “the presumption is only one of fact and is 

therefore rebuttable.” Id. at 563, 215 S.E.2d at 762. “[T]he 

burden of proof is on the taxpayer to show that the assessment 

was erroneous.” Id. at 562, 215 S.E.2d at 762.

[I]n order for the taxpayer to rebut the 

presumption he must produce competent, 

material and substantial evidence that tends 

to show that: (1) [e]ither the county tax 

supervisor used an arbitrary method of 

valuation; or (2) the county tax supervisor 

used an illegal method of valuation; AND (3) 

the assessment substantially exceeded the 

true value in money of the property. Simply 

stated, it is not enough for the taxpayer to 

show that the means adopted by the tax 

supervisor were wrong, he must also show 

that the result arrived at is substantially

greater than the true value in money of the 

property assessed, i.e., that the valuation 

was unreasonably high.

Id. at 563, 215 S.E.2d at 762 (quotation marks and citation 

omitted) (emphasis in original). “[O]nce [the] taxpayer 

produces the evidence required by AMP, the burden of proof then 

shifts to the taxing authority: ‘The burden of going forward 
-7-

with evidence and of persuasion that its methods would in fact 

produce true values then rest[s] with the [taxing authority].’”

In re IBM Credit Corp., 186 N.C. App. 223, 226, 650 S.E.2d 828, 

830 (2007) (quoting In re Appeal of S. Ry. Co., 313 N.C. 177, 

182, 328 S.E.2d 235, 239 (1985)).

As this Court has recognized, in order for this Court to 

apply its standard of review on appeal, the Commission must 

issue specific findings and conclusions explaining how it 

weighed the evidence to reach its decision using the burdenshifting framework and how it determined the true value. See In 

re Parkdale America, 212 N.C. App. 192, 197-98, 710 S.E.2d 449, 

453 (2011); In re IBM Credit Corp., 201 N.C. App. 343, 349, 689 

S.E.2d 487, 491-92 (2009). In the present case, the Commission 

did not do so.

Here, the Commission made the following three findings of 

fact related to its review of the assessment:

6. At the hearing, [taxpayers] provided 

evidence that Haywood County overvalued

their property, and that the value 

assigned to the subject property by the 

County Board should, in their opinion, be 

reduced by thirty percent (30%) to 

recognize the watershed issues associated 

with the property.

7. At the hearing, the Commission also heard 

testimonial evidence by Mr. James Messer. 

Mr. Messer testified that Haywood County 
-8-

did consider the 2011 schedule of values, 

standards, and rules when assessing the 

subject property, and that the value 

assigned by the County Board was 

consistent with the values assessed to 

similarly situated properties when 

considering Haywood County’s 2011 general 

reappraisal.

8. Accordingly, after hearing and 

considering evidence presented by the 

parties, the Commission determined that 

the value of $205,100 assigned to the 

subject property by the County Board did 

not reflect true value of the property as 

of January 1, 2011. Consequently, the 

Commission determined that the market 

value of the property was $172,200 as of 

January 1, 2011.

The Commission then concluded, “[i]n this appeal, [taxpayers] 

did present evidence tending to show that the county tax 

supervisor used an arbitrary method of valuation; and that the 

county’s assessment substantially exceeded the true value in 

money of the property.”

We hold these findings and conclusions are inadequate to 

explain the Commission’s analysis, frustrating this Court’s 

review. Thus, we vacate the final decision and remand to the 

Commission. As we instructed in In re Parkdale America, 212 

N.C. App. at 198, 710 S.E.2d at 453, “[o]n remand, the 

Commission shall make specific findings of fact and conclusions 
-9-

of law explaining how it weighed the evidence to reach its 

conclusions[.]”

True Value

In the third issue on appeal, Haywood County contends the 

evidence supported the County Board’s valuation and requests 

that this Court provide guidance to the Commission as to the 

weight and sufficiency that should be afforded the evidence 

presented. We decline Haywood County’s request.

We simply note that both sides presented evidence in 

support of their argument. It is the Commission’s role to weigh 

and apply that evidence, as well as issue specific findings and 

conclusions to permit review by this Court.

III. Conclusion

For the reasons discussed above, we vacate the final 

decision of the Commission and remand the case for further 

proceedings.

Vacated and remanded.

Judges ELMORE and DAVIS concur.

Report per RULE 30 (e).