Opinion ID: 1725037
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Sales Ratios.

Text: As noted above, the city assessor, in each of the tax years in question, valued Yadco's property at 60% of its true and full value for the purpose of taxation 60% of $915,000 or $539,480. In so doing, the assessor followed the mandate of SDCL 10-6-33 which states that, All property shall be assessed at its true and full value in money but only sixty per cent of such assessed value shall be taken and considered as the taxable value of such property   . Yadco notes, however, that other property in the county was not taxed at the 60% level. It indicates that the average sales ratio in Yankton County varied from 54.2% in 1971 to 51.9% in 1973, meaning that property was assessed at 54.2% to 51.9% of the price at which it was subsequently sold. The statistics also indicate that the county weighted average varied from 53.0% in 1971 to 49.7% in 1973. [3] At this point, Yadco's argument becomes difficult to discern. We cannot, for example, determine whether it argues that the circuit court should correct an assessment in which, for example, the sales ratio varies 5%, 10% or some greater percentage from the 60% statutory ratio. Yadco cites no authority demanding any correction in a comparable situation except Baken Park Inc. v. County of Pennington, 1961, 79 S.D. 156, 109 N.W.2d 898, in which the variance was 18%. Of course, in this case the variance is but 5.8% to 10.3%. A bare citation, without argument, of Baken Park will not suffice to challenge the variance in this case. [4] Nor are we able to ascertain which sales ratio the appellant wishes us to employ as a standardthe county average sales ratio, the county weighted average sales ratio or the county weighted median sales ratio. As is clear, these figures vary and the appellant should have presented reasoning favoring one of these alternatives. Our review of the briefs, oral argument and assignments of error does not reveal any question for us to review nor does it disclose argument and authorities supporting a remedy. We therefore affirm the trial court on all issues.