Opinion ID: 1922946
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Legality of the order

Text: An illegal order is a directive to violate or to assist in violating a federal, state, or local law, rule, or regulation. D.C.Code § 1-615.52(4). The trial court ruled that Mr. Branham's August 23 directive was not illegal, but merely an exercise of the administrative discretion entrusted to OTR in the proper exercise of its agency function. Before this court appellant stresses that the assessed value of all real property shall be the proposed estimated market value, 9 DCMR § 306.1 (1998) (emphasis added), and that the assessed value must be established on the basis of the most current, accurate, and conclusive evidence of market value available at the time the assessed value is determined. 9 DCMR § 306.2. According to appellant, these regulations do not give OTR any discretion to allow taxpayers to withdraw their appeals after a first-level appeal hearing has determined that an increase is warranted, because doing so at that point would be tantamount to applying assessments that are no longer based on the most current estimated market value. [11] D.C.Code §§ 47-825.01(f-1) and (f-2), which codify the first-level appeal process, are completely silent as to how such appeals are to be conducted. Thus OTR's policy in no way contradicts any statutory language. As for the regulations, the DCFO is granted very broad discretion in deciding how to determine a property's estimated market value. See 9 DCMR § 307.2 (the Deputy Chief Financial Officer may apply, when appropriate, one or more of the generally recognized approaches to valuation ... or any other method the [DCFO] deems necessary to arrive at estimated market value); see also Wolf, supra note 11, 611 A.2d at 48. This broad discretion in determining methodology is granted because, as even appellant's expert testified, establishing the estimated market value is by no means an exact science. Consequently, it cannot be said that the estimated market value arrived at during the first-level appeal hearing is the only possible assessment based on the most current, accurate, and conclusive evidence. On the contrary, we think it was quite reasonable for OTR to conclude, in light of its expertise in this area, that the initial assessment likewise met that requirement. Thus we are satisfied that OTR acted within its discretion in allowing a taxpayer the option to withdraw the appeal if it appeared, after the first-level hearing, that an increase would be justified. [12]