Opinion ID: 1102954
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: did the lower court err in refusing to let the property owners cross-examine tate about the tax appraisal of the property?

Text: On cross-examination, the attorney for the owners asked Tate, JRA's expert appraiser, [d]id you among the many things you considered look to or examine what this property is on the tax rolls for? JRA objected to the question and the court held another of the legion of unrecorded bench conferences and then sustained the objection. JRA argues that evidence concerning the amount of the tax appraisal is inadmissible for any purpose, while the owners contend that the amount of the tax appraisal is admissible in itself, or at least to impeach Tate's testimony. The question of the admissibility of hearsay relied on by experts on cross-examination is explicitly addressed under Rule 705 of the Mississippi Rules of Evidence, which states that, the expert may in any event be required to disclose the underlying facts or data on cross-examination. This line of inquiry should have been allowed to determine whether the tax appraisal aided Tate in arriving at his determination of market value, and the lower court should not have sustained the objection. In addition, the admissibility of appraisals of property for tax purposes presents a separate question not yet addressed by this Court. The owners contend that the assessment for tax purposes should be independently admissible to impeach the opinion of JRA's expert, regardless of whether he relied upon the appraisal, since tax assessments in Mississippi must be based on the property's true value. Miss. Code Ann. § 27-35-49 (Supp. 1991). The majority of states do not allow the use of property tax assessments to be injected at eminent domain proceedings for any purpose. See, Nichols' Eminent Domain, § 22.1, and collected cases. Many jurisdictions, however, do allow the assessments for impeachment purposes, particularly where the government's appraiser offers a lower value than the assessment. Sometimes the admission is simply labeled generically, impeachment evidence and often it is termed an admission against interest where the taxing authority and the condemning authority are the same. Mississippi's tax assessors are directed by Miss. Code Ann. § 27-35-49 (Supp. 1991, eff. May 16, 1980) to appraise land according to its true value. True value shall mean and include, but shall not be limited to, market value, cash value, actual cash value, proper value and value for the purposes of appraisal for ad valorem taxation. Miss. Code Ann. § 27-35-50(1) (Supp. 1991, eff. 1980). Property such as the King Edward must be appraised according to its current use. Miss. Code Ann. § 27-35-50(4). The method of valuation for ad valorem tax purposes obviously does not mirror the eminent domain concept of fair market value. Some of the same factors are used, however, in the different methods of valuation. We agree with the substantial minority of states which find tax appraisals admissible to impeach the government's appraisers, where the assessed valuation is related to market value. To do otherwise would be to ignore the reality of the situation and to withhold from the jury relevant evidence which it is then free to consider as it finds appropriate. Of course, counsel may argue to the jury why the tax appraisal is or is not sound evidence of market value and the jury is free to evaluate the evidence as it deems proper. As stated by one court, we see no reason why the property owner in fairness should not be able to bring before the Commissioners evidence of an assessment valuation based on or related to market value which forms the very basis on which the very condemning authority in the case has been taxing that very property owner on the very land being condemned. New Castle County v. 16.89 Acres of Land, 404 A.2d 135 (Del. 1979).