Opinion ID: 2452179
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 18

Heading: Preliminary Findings

Text: There are several preliminary findings that are not directly responsive to the Supreme Court's three issues but which are necessary to place the Special Master's report in context.  Section 1514 did not expand the list of representatives authorized to represent taxpayers or taxing authorities. For the most part, it merely codified the existing practice.  There is no evidence that anyone is dissatisfied with the practice codified in § 1514.  Restricting taxpayer and taxing authority assistance to attorneys will substantially alter and disrupt the appeal process and is likely produce the following consequences: (1) Many individual taxpayers, smaller incorporated businesses, partnerships, and unincorporated associations will be effectively precluded from appealing assessments. The amount of potential tax savings is too small for attorneys charging contingent fees to assist taxpayers, and taxpayers could not afford to pay attorney fees for assistance now being provided by family members, employees, partners, or association members. (2) The cost to county governments will be enormous. They will be required to employ large numbers of attorneys to perform tasks now performed by assessors or their deputies including conferring with taxpayers and making presentations to boards. (3) Proceedings that are now informal will become more formal, thus increasing the cost to all parties involved.  There is no credible evidence that attorneys can better represent taxpayers and taxing authorities than the others who are authorized to do so. Indeed, the evidence is to the contrary. Registered agents, employees of businesses, and members of unincorporated associations can better represent taxpayers than can attorneys. Likewise, assessors or their deputies can better represent taxing authorities than can attorneys.  Section 1504 requires minimum qualifications for registered agents. Attorneys, on the other hand, are not required to have any particular qualifications.  Less than ten attorneys in the entire state of Tennessee regularly represent taxpayers in assessment appeals. Most of those attorneys were previously employed in state government in the assessment process in one capacity or another. They are also registered agents and usually appear in that capacity rather than as attorneys. Apparently, only two or three attorneys in Tennessee act as advocates when representing taxpayers in assessment appeals.  No attorneys regularly represent the taxing authorities in assessment appeals.  There is no evidence that any more attorneys are even interested in representing taxpayers or taxing authorities in appraisal appeals.  There was testimony that every other state except New Jersey permits registered agents and other non-attorneys to assist taxpayers with assessment appeals. The nonlawyer prohibition in New Jersey was enacted by its legislature, not the state courts.