Source: https://www.poconnor.com/property-tax-notice-1-07/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 00:29:39+00:00

Document:
Texas property owners are often uncertain whether they need to drive to the appraisal district office to hand-deliver a protest (notice of appeal) or exemption application completed on the filing deadline day (May 15) or if they can mail it in.
Fortunately, the Texas Property Tax Code provides “A notice permitted to be delivered by first-class mail by this section is presumed delivered when it is deposited in the mail.” Many property owners and property tax consultants deposit mail in the mailbox or deliver it to a post office to obtain a postmark consistent with the deadline date.
Sec. 1.07. Delivery of Notice.
(a) An official or agency required by this title to deliver a notice to a property owner may deliver the notice by regular first-class mail, with postage prepaid, unless this section or another provision of this title requires a different method of delivery or the parties agree that the notice must be delivered as provided by Section 1.085.
(d) A notice required by Section 11.45(d), 23.44(d), 23.57(d), 23.79(d), or 23.85(d) must be sent by certified mail.
Added by Acts 1979, 66th Leg., p. 2220, ch. 841, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1982. Amended by Acts 1983, 68th Leg., p. 4947, ch. 885, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1984; Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 796, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1989; Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1039, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1998; Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 441, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1999; Acts 2005, 79th Leg., ch. 1126, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2005.
Electronic communication, see Sec. 1.085.
Notice cancelling exemption, see Sec. 11.43(h).
Notice of annual application for agricultural land, see Sec. 23.43(e).
Notice of denial of agricultural land, see Sec. 23.44(d).
Notice of new application for open-space land, see Sec. 23.54(e).
Notice of denial of open-space land, see Sec. 23.57(d).
Notice to file a new application for timber land, see Sec. 23.75(e).
Notice of penalty for failure of property owner to notify chief appraiser that timber land no longer qualifies for special appraisal, see Sec. 23.75(i).
Notice of denial of timber land appraisal, see Sec. 23.79(d).
Notice of penalty for late application for timber land, see Sec. 23.751(c).
Notice of new application for recreation, park, and scenic land, see Sec. 23.84(c).
Notice of denial of recreation, park, and scenic land appraisal, see Sec. 23.85(d).
Notice of penalty for violating deed restriction of recreational, park, and scenic land, see Sec. 23.87(b).
Notice of new application for public access airport property, see Sec. 23.94(c).
Notice of denial of application for public access airport property appraisal, see Sec. 23.95(d).
Notice of the qualification or cancellation of separate taxation of improvements, see Sec. 25.08(d).
Notice of qualification of standing timber for separate taxation, see Sec. 25.10(d).
Notice of qualification or cancellation of separate taxation for undivided interests, see Sec. 25.11(c).
Notice to property owner of a change in appraisal records, see Sec. 41.11(a).
Notice of additional penalty for delinquent taxes, see Sec. 33.07(d).
The failure of the taxing unit to give the required five-year notice of delinquent taxes (now repealed) resulted in the cancellation of penalties and interest on taxes when the taxpayer was able to prove that the notice was not delivered. The introduction of tax records establishes a prima facie case to establish every material fact, and a rebuttable presumption arises that all required notices likewise have been delivered. The presumption disappears, however, if the taxpayer produces competent evidence to justify a finding against the presumed fact. Tax notices must be addressed according to the most recent records in the possession of the taxing unit; if no address exists for a taxpayer, statutory notice requirements do not apply. In this case, evidence was sufficient to support the trial court’s finding that the school district did not deliver notice, thereby canceling penalties and interest for certain tax years. However, the owner did not overcome the presumption of delivery regarding other taxing units for certain years and therefore cancellation of the penalties and interest was not mandated. The case was remanded for trial court determination of the amounts of penalties, interest, attorney fees, court costs and other fees to be assessed. Aldine Independent School District, et.al. v. Ogg, 122 S.W.3d 257 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.], 2003, no pet..).
Taxing units were required to provide evidence of mailing the five-year delinquent tax notice (now repealed) before the presumption of delivery to an individual taxpayer arises. Taxing units must also claim avoidance through waiver as an affirmative defense to a taxpayer’s plea in intervention. By failing to do so, the issue was waived by the taxing units. Further, taxing units must raise a taxpayer’s corporate capacity to sue defense by verified pleadings or waive the issue. WHM Properties, Inc. v. Dallas County, 119 S.W.3d 325 (Tex. App.-Waco, 2003, pet. filed).
To prove that notice of appraised value was delivered as required by the Tax Code, the appraisal district must show: the correct amount of postage was placed on the envelope; how the notice itself was put into the mail as a first-class letter; whether the taxpayer’s most recent address was used; and that the notice was not returned. A mere stipulation of valid notice was insufficient. Harris County Appraisal District v. Dincans, 882 S.W.2d 75 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1994, rehearing denied, error denied).
Requesting a new application for open-space land appraisal provides a mechanism by which the chief appraiser can obtain needed information; the chief appraiser does not have to make individual determinations before requiring a new application. A new application mailed to the taxpayer’s correct address and not returned by the postal service gives the taxpayer sufficient notice. Peil v. Waller County Appraisal District, 737 S.W.2d 33 (Tex. App.-Houston 1987, no writ).
Where taxpayer testified he did not receive an appraisal notice, presumption of delivery under Sec. 1.07 was rebutted and burden shifted to appraisal district to show notice was properly delivered (i.e. deposited in the mail, correctly addressed.). Thus, where appraisal district addressed notice to previous owner of property, the fact that the previous owner was still listed as owner in the district’s records did not make the notice valid. Sec. 1.07 requires delivery to the current owner, at the most recent address listed in the appraisal records. New v. Dallas Appraisal Review Board, 734 S.W.2d 712 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1987, writ denied).
A county that imposes the 15% collection penalty cannot seek attorney’s fees in a delinquent tax suit. Taxpayer’s testimony that he didn’t receive a notice of imposition of the Sec. 33.07 penalty combined with evidence that the district had an incorrect address listed for taxpayer was enough to support trial court’s finding that notice was not delivered. Uvalde CAD v. Parker, 733 S.W.2d 609 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1987, writ ref’d n.r.e.).
Compliance with predecessor to this section required county to mail a notice; county was not required to show taxpayer received the notice. Fisher v. Kerr County, 739 S.W.2d 434 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1987).
Where the appraisal district denies a taxpayer’s assertion that a notice of appraised value was never delivered if required by the code, a material issue of fact exists that prevents the trial court from granting summary judgment for the taxpayer. Uvalde County Appraisal District v. F.T. Kincaid, 720 S.W.2d 678 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1986, writ ref’d n.r.e.).

References: § 1
 § 1
 § 1
 § 1
 § 1
 § 1
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.