Opinion ID: 2179681
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Full and Fair Cash Value

Text: Finally, plaintiff alleged that The Tax Assessor systematically assessed valuations in excess of 100% of full and fair cash value in clear violation of the assessment process.  Section 44-5-12(a) provides that [a]ll property subject to taxation shall be assessed at its full and fair cash value, or at a uniform percentage of its value, not to exceed one hundred percent (100%). This Court has previously defined `full and fair cash value' as that price the property would probably bring in a transaction in a fair market between a willing seller and a willing buyer. Rosen v. Restrepo, 119 R.I. 398, 400, 380 A.2d 960, 961 (1977); Allen v. Bonded Municipal Corp., 62 R.I. 101, 105, 4 A.2d 249, 251 (1938). In determining the fair market value of ratable property, an assessor is not bound by any particular formula, but rather he or she is exercising a discretionary act which has been authorized by our state's constitution and delegated in turn by the General Assembly to the various municipal assessors. Rosen, 119 R.I. at 401, 380 A.2d at 961; Kargman v. Jacobs, 113 R.I. 696, 704, 325 A.2d 543, 547-48 (1974). A taxpayer who challenges the legality of the assessment or claims that the assessor used an inappropriate fair market value of the subject property has the burden of presenting evidence of fair market value. Nos Limited Partnership v. Booth, 654 A.2d 308, 310 (R.I.1995). In the present case, once plaintiff conceded the fair and accurate revaluation of her property, the full and fair cash value was established, and the alternative assessment at a uniform percentage became inapplicable. Consequently, the plaintiff failed to satisfy her burden of proving that her property was overassessed or that the tax assessor acted illegally. In her appeal, plaintiff also argued that the term `assessment' refers to the `entire plan or statutory scheme' or process for the imposition and collection of taxes, not the value placed on property on a particular date by an official for the purpose of taxation, and she relied on deZahara v. Weiss, 516 A.2d 879, 880 (R.I.1986) for support. The plaintiff in deZahara, however, was an aggrieved person who suffered specific, concrete injury from the assessment process when her appeal to reduce the assessment on a property was denied because she had purchased the property after the date of revaluation. In contrast, plaintiff here, who stipulated that her properties were accurately valuated, suffered no such injury, and therefore we need not address the details of the assessment process.