Opinion ID: 836010
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Other Provisions of Article XI, Section 11

Text: We begin with other provisions of Article XI, section 11. Taxpayer argues that Article XI, section 11(1)(c), provides evidence that the voters intended the phrase each unit of property in this state to refer separately to land and improvements. Article XI, section 11(1)(c), creates a ratio method for valuing property in some circumstances. It provides: (c) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) or (b) of this subsection [described above], property shall be valued at the ratio of average maximum assessed value to average real market value of property located in the area in which the property is located that is within the same property class, if on or after July 1, 1995: (A) The property is new property or new improvements to new property; (B) The property is partitioned or subdivided; (C) The property is rezoned and used consistently with the rezoning; (D) The property is first taken into account as omitted property; (E) The property becomes disqualified from exemption, partial exemption or special assessment; or (F) A lot line adjustment is made with respect to the property, except that the total assessed value of all property affected by a lot line adjustment shall not exceed the total maximum assessed value of the affected property under paragraph (a) or (b) of this subsection. Taxpayer argues that, [i]n light of the `exception value' structure in Article XI, section 11(1)(c), it is inconceivable that the voters intended maximum assessed value to be calculated with respect to a parcel of property as a whole. As an example, taxpayer notes that, if property refers to land and improvements collectively, then Article XI, section 11(1)(c)(A), would authorize a tax assessor to revalue both land and improvements when new improvements alone are added to a property. Similarly, if property refers to land and improvements collectively, then Article XI, section 11(1)(c)(B), which permits alternative valuation when property is partitioned, would permit revaluation of both land and improvements when the partition involves only the land. Taxpayer provides additional examples under Article XI, section 11(1)(c), all of which, it contends, lead to the same conclusion, namely, that Article XI, section 11(1)(c), makes clear that the voters could not have intended the phrase each unit of property in this state to mean all the property in a tax account. Taxpayer apparently believes that that is so because taxing authorities' understanding of the phrase does not yield as much reduction in ad valorem property taxes as does taxpayer's proffered meaning of the phrase. Taxpayer's arguments under Article XI, section 11(1)(c), do not advance the analytical effort here, because those arguments assume, rather than demonstrate, the voters' intent in adopting the phrase each unit of property in this state in Article XI, section 11(1)(a). Taxpayer describes the effects that it believes will result if the phrase each unit of property in this state means all the property in a property tax account. However, without additional textual evidence that the voters did not intend those effects, taxpayer's argument does not provide contextual evidence that the voters intended the phrase to refer to land and improvements separately.