Court Opinion

ID: 9767744
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 05:24:55.702631+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:32.702645
License: Public Domain

Tom Glaze, Justice, concurring. Although the appellant’s proof failed to show an intentional, systematic practice of undervaluation of personal property, this case does reflect there are counties where assessment at fair market value is not being achieved. The state has the obligation to assure assessments on property, privileges and franchises are properly made. The Assessment Coordination Division of the Public Service Commission is given the power of supervision and control over the several county assessors and boards of equalization and review in order that assessments of property shall amount to true market value. Tuthill v. Arkansas County Equalization Bd., 303 Ark. 387, 797 S.W.2d 439 (1990); Ark. Code Ann. § 26-24-101 and - 102 (1987). It is the duty of the assessors, boards of review or equalization and county judges to adopt the basis of valuation certified by the Commission. Ark. Code Ann. § 26-24-105 (1987). The Commission has the authority to direct and approve suits to be instituted by the Attorney General, prosecuting attorneys, or attorneys specially employed for such purpose for the collection of any taxes or penalties due the state. Ark. Code Ann. § 26-24-109 (Repl. 1991). Apparently, Yell County followed the directive of the Arkansas Assessment Coordination Division and assessed property in the county at the property’s full value. However, if Yell County proves the exception in this regard rather than the rule, state and county officials failing to meet their duties in administrating and enforcing legal evaluation or assessment requirements may be placing themselves at risk to potential litigation designed to ensure all state taxpayers are treated evenhandedly. See generally Annotation, Tax Assessment — Standing to Challenge, 9 A.L.R.4th 428, 436 (1981). Hopefully, a concerted effort by state officials can serve to avoid such litigation. The result reached by this court in this case merely highlights a serious flaw in the state’s and counties’ apparent underassessment of property; it in no way resolves the problem.