Opinion ID: 553303
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Review and Appeal Process

Text: 16 Colonial also claims that the review and appeal process incorporated in Georgia's ad valorem tax system is plagued with similar problems that render it virtually useless for correcting unequal tax assessments. Before the 1988 amendments to Georgia's ad valorem tax system, centrally-assessed taxpayers could appeal to the state Board of Equalization on issues of valuation and assessment. Id. Sec. 48-2-18 (1982) (amended 1988). Colonial alleges, however, that only two part-time hearing officers are available to hear these appeals which has resulted in a backlog of more than 70 appeals filed by centrally assessed taxpayers for proposed assessments from tax years 1985 to 1988. Only one appeal has been heard and no decisions have ever been rendered by the Board. 4 17 The 1988 amendments introduced several significant changes to the treatment of centrally-assessed taxpayers by expanding the role of the counties in making assessment determinations and handling appeals. Under this new regime, the commissioner prepares and the state Board approves an initial assessment of the property of centrally-assessed taxpayers--referred to in the legislative history as the proposed assessment--which is then transmitted to the counties. 5 Id. Sec. 48-2-18(c) (Supp.1990). After receipt of the proposed assessment, a county may, but is not required to, use these figures as the county's own tax assessment. Whether the county accepts the state assessment as its own or issues a locally generated assessment, the county must issue within 30 days a final assessment to the taxpayer. Id. Sec. 48-2-18(d). 18 The expanded role of the counties under this new regime was accompanied by the establishment of a two-part appeals process. First, the 1988 amendments eliminated a centrally-assessed taxpayer's right to appeal directly to the state Board from a proposed assessment; rather, a taxpayer must now appeal to the Fulton County Superior Court within 30 days of the receipt of a proposed assessment. Id. Sec. 48-2-18(c). Second, appeals from final assessments must be pursued at the county administrative level within 30 days from the date of notice of such assessments. 6 Id. Secs. 48-2-18(d), -5-311(e). 19 Colonial alleges that this new appeals procedure is excessively burdensome because it creates circumstances where a centrally-assessed taxpayer must pursue simultaneous appeals in the Fulton County Superior Court for the proposed assessment and appeals in each county in which it owns property. Thus, Colonial contends that in any given year it could be required to litigate in each of the 37 counties in which it owns property and also pursue an appeal in the Fulton County Superior Court against the state Board's proposed assessment. 7 20 In a recent interpretation of this new statutory scheme, the Georgia Supreme Court attempted to reconcile these two branches of appeals by eliminating some of their duplicitous elements. See Telecom  USA, Inc. v. Collins, 260 Ga. 362, 393 S.E.2d 235 (1990). As a matter of statutory interpretation, the court held that when a county adopts the state Board's proposed assessment as its own final assessment without modification, an appeal from a decision of the state Board under section 48-2-18(c) is conclusive as to all issues, thereby obviating the need for a separate appeal in that particular county. See id. at 366, 393 S.E.2d at 239. On the other hand, when a county changes a proposed assessment before issuing its own final assessment, a centrally-assessed taxpayer should pursue a separate appeal in the county under section 48-2-18(d) in addition to any appeal from the state Board's assessment. Id. at 365-66, 393 S.E.2d at 239. 21 In the latter case, the Georgia Supreme Court reasoned that a county's modification of a proposed assessment must be based on more current or credible information than that used by the state Board and therefore an appeal from this decision would involve different issues than those presented at an appeal at the state level. Id., 393 S.E.2d at 239. Under this interpretation of the 1988 amendment, the court reasoned that utilities are not subjected to a multiplicity of lawsuits because [a]lthough they may file several appeals, each will deal with distinct issues and evidence. Id. at 366, 393 S.E.2d at 239.