Case Name: ALDON INDUSTRIES, INC. et al. v. GORDON COUNTY BOARD OF TAX ASSESSORS
Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1975-10-21
Citations: 136 Ga. App. 598
Docket Number: 50738
Parties: ALDON INDUSTRIES, INC. et al. v. GORDON COUNTY BOARD OF TAX ASSESSORS.
Judges: Bell, C. J., Quillian, Clark and Webb, JJ., concur. Pannell, P. J., Evans, Stolz and Marshall, JJ., dissent.
Reporter: Georgia Appeals Reports
Volume: 136
Pages: 598–606

Head Matter:
50738.
ALDON INDUSTRIES, INC. et al. v. GORDON COUNTY BOARD OF TAX ASSESSORS.

Opinion:
Deen, Presiding Judge.
The twenty-eight appellants involved here, whose cases were by consent consolidated for trial in the superior court, appeal from the judgment on a jury verdict finding against their contentions that the tax assessors of Gordon County, who admittedly based assessments for personal property taxes on 40% of the 100% market value at which such personal property was returned, based assessments on real property situate in the county at figures considerably under this amount, thereby creating two unequal and impermissible subclassifications of tangible property for tax purposes. The assessments were appealed to the county board of tax equalization set up under the provisions of Code § 92-6912, and from there to the Superior Court of Gordon County. Held:
1. The motion to dismiss the appeal is denied. J. D. Jewell, Inc. v. Hancock, 226 Ga. 480 (1) (175 SE2d 847); Young v. State, 123 Ga. App. 791 (182 SE2d 676).
2. It is stipulated that personal property was returned at 100% of its fair market value, and that it was assessed at 40% of this figure as required by Code § 92-5703 ("All tangible property subject to taxation by the State, any county, or any other taxing jurisdiction shall be returned by the taxpayers as provided by law at its fair market value, and shall be assessed at 40 per cent of said fair market value and taxed according to said 40 per cent of its fair market value on a levy made by each respective taxing jurisdiction. . . It is the intent and purpose of the General Assembly of this State that the value of tangible property as referred to in the tax laws of this State shall be 40 per cent of the fair market value of such property.")
It was further uncontested that real estate and tangible personal property (except for a few exceptions such as motor vehicles) constitute a single class of property for tax purposes and must be valued in the same manner. "All taxation shall be uniform upon the same class of subjects within the territorial limits of the authority levying the tax." Constitution of Georgia, Art. VII, Sec. I, Par. Ill (Code § 2-5403.) The taxing authority may not subdivide a single class of tangible property into subcategories. Griggs v. Green, 230 Ga. 257 (197 SE2d 116); Herring v. Ferrell, 130 Ga. App. 431 (203 SE2d 617) (this ruling being affirmed in the modifying opinion, Herring v. Ferrell, 233 Ga. 1 (4) (209 SE2d 599)).
At issue is whether the evidence demands a finding that real property was appraised at a substantially lower figure than fair market value in the county as a whole with the result that assessments represented something like 30% instead of 40% of fair market value and thus threw an unjustifiable tax burden on an impermissible subclassification of tangible personal property. This is an important matter for both large and small business concerns whose taxes are in large part levied on inventory and fixtures, and on apartment dwellers who own personal property but little or no real estate.
The appellants introduced records of twenty-one pieces of real estate which had been sold during the year in question and the previous year with sales prices ranging from $4,000 to $222,000, along with evidence that the sales were uncoerced and most of them were substantially cash sales. Sales prices uniformly ran ahead of appraised values to the extent that (assuming the sales prices in fact represented fair market value) the appraised values ran between 28% (on a $160,000 sale) and 77% (on a $48,000 sale) of market values. The county contended that the sales were not all cash sales, that the cross section was too small to allow any definitive reflection of appraised versus market values, and that in some cases sales were speculative or subject to special considerations and should not be taken at face value, it being the duty of the board of tax assessors "to see that all taxable property within the county is assessed and returned at its just and fair valuation arid that valuations as between the individual taxpayers are fairly and justly equalized so that each taxpayer shall pay as near as may be only his proportionate share of taxes" as required by Code § 92-6911 (a). Also, under Code § 92-6912 (4) (B): "If the board [of equalization] determines that uniformity is not present, the board shall have the power to order the county board of tax assessors to take such action as is necessary to obtain uniformity." See Moseley v. Fargason, 215 Ga. 207 (109 SE2d 591). Sales prices, under this view, are heuristic but not conclusive. For example, if a subdivision with 20 identical houses shows three cash sales within a year, and these sales vary appreciably in price, a true index of fair market value would be an average of the sales. On the other hand, although the county had some general testimony by a real estate man and by a member of the board of tax assessors to the effect that assessed values were in fact based on fair market value, no examples at all were forthcoming of particular instances bearing this out. However, the board had in the previous two years examined some 4,000 pieces of property, and had in fact changed assessed values upward in some circumstances, although where and to what extent the record fails to indicate. From the evidence of the tax assessor, taken as a whole, his conclusion that property in the county was appraised at fair market value is not supported by evidence. The variations shown by the plaintiffs' analysis of sales to appraised value showed large blocks of land valued at less than half their sale value, with little attempt to explain the discrepancies and no attempt to indicate proper appraisals on other lands. Further, the thrust of the testimony showed an effort to "equalize" taxes on real estate, but little or no effort to keep this equalization up to its fair market value as required by the statute. "Realty and tangible personal property are of the same class, and the constitutional rule of uniformity in taxation requires that both be taxed alike." Hutchins v. Howard, 211 Ga. 830 (1) (89 SE2d 183), and see Colvard v. Ridley, 218 Ga. 490 (128 SE2d 732). While questions of value are peculiarly for the jury "where there is any data in the evidence upon which the jury may legitimately exercise their own knowledge and ideas' " (Dixon v. Cassels Co., 34 Ga. App. 478 (130 SE 75)), and while the members of this jury may have had a general idea from their own experience as property owners that property in the county was properly appraised, there is no evidence in the record of any data from which this conclusion could be drawn.
3. The trial court was correct as to the contention that certain "official records of the Department of Audits" were improperly excluded, for lack of proper authentication. The law provides as to how an official document must be documented. See Code § 38-601. There was no proper authentication here, nor was there anything whatever to show that these communications or letters were from the Department of Audits except at the bottom of 53 pages of data sheets is found the following: "Georgia Department of Audits. E. B. Davis, State Auditor." Four other pages refer to "Information supplied by the Revenue Department." An equalized adjusted school property tax digest is required by Code Ann. § 92-7008, the same to be prepared by the auditor. These two documents did not state that this was the "equalized adjusted school property tax digest prepared by the Department of Audits," and it was not properly authenticated.
Argued May 21, 1975
Decided October 21, 1975
Rehearing denied November 18, 1975
Langford, Pope & Bailey, R. Thomas Pope, for appellants.
Chance, Maddox & Jones, Ronald F. Chance, Sr., Howard Jones, for appellee.
4. Error is enumerated on the reading of Code § 92-6202.1, 92-6206, 92-6207, 92-6208 relating to methods of returning property. Although some of the information in these statutes was irrelevant to the case as not applying to categories in which the various plaintiffs were situated so far as might have been shown by the evidence, nevertheless, the duty to return property for taxation and its valuation at full market value was relevant and we find nothing in the instructions given, which simply outlined the manner of making returns under various circumstances, which would have been harmful to the appellants. These enumerations are without merit.
Judgment reversed.
Bell, C. J., Quillian, Clark and Webb, JJ., concur. Pannell, P. J., Evans, Stolz and Marshall, JJ., dissent.