Opinion ID: 1449642
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the borough's power to tax escaped property

Text: The threshold question in this case is when the Borough may assess and tax property that should have been, but was not, taxed in prior years. The state statutes and Borough ordinances governing property taxation [3] recognize that property will occasionally escape taxation and require the Borough to prepare a supplemental assessment roll including the escaped property. [4] The statutes and ordinances do not, however, provide a clear answer to the question that is of importance here: when, if ever, does the Borough's power to assess and tax escaped property expire? Alascom's first point is that a supplemental assessment roll for omitted property must be prepared annually because AS 29.53.150 requires that a supplemental roll be prepared using the procedures ... for the original roll and AS 29.53.100(a) requires that an original roll be prepared annually. Alascom argues that the Borough's failure to include property on a supplemental roll during a given fiscal year precludes later inclusion of that property on a supplemental roll. In preparing a supplemental assessment roll, however, the Borough will never be able to comply with all of the procedures... for the original roll. Literal compliance would require that the Borough follow the time-table for preparation of the original roll. If compliance with this timetable were required, there would be no occasion to prepare a supplemental roll and the statutory requirement of a supplemental roll would be rendered superfluous. In order to avoid rendering that requirement irrelevant, [5] we construe the statutory language requiring adherence to the procedures ... for the original roll as addressing the manner in which the Borough must apprise a taxpayer of his tax liability [6] and the procedures for review of an assessment [7] rather than as addressing the time as of which a supplemental assessment roll must be prepared. [8] Alascom's second argument is that the principle of finality announced in Anchorage Independent School District v. Stephens, 370 P.2d 531 (Alaska 1962) prevents the Borough from demanding prior years' taxes. We disagree. In Stephens we ruled that a taxing authority may not reassess a parcel after giving the taxpayer notice of the assessed value and accepting payment of taxes. [9] In the case at hand, however, we are dealing not with an attempt to revalue retroactively property that has already been taxed, but with an attempt to tax for the first time property that has escaped taxation entirely. Although our ruling in Stephens would prevent the Borough from retroactively raising the assessed value of a parcel or an item, that ruling has no applicability in a case in which the property in question escaped assessment and taxation.