Court Opinion

ID: 9602346
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 01:53:25.798663+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:02:02.832204
License: Public Domain

McMurray, Presiding Judge,
dissenting.
The authority of the taxing boards to make or correct assessments rests entirely upon the constitution and the statutory taxation scheme. Thus, the acts of the taxing boards must be strictly confined to the powers delineated by the statutes; and acts which exceed the powers specifically set forth in the statutes are void. 84 CJS, Taxation, § 519. See also Cross v. Miller, 221 Ga. 579 (146 SE2d 279). As it is said: “Subject to constitutional limitations, it rests entirely with the legislature to bestow as much or as little power as it sees fit on a particular board or officer. Thus, the character of the corrections or changes which the board is authorized to make depends on, and is to be determined by, the provisions of the prevailing statutes.” 84 CJS, Taxation, § 519.
This holds true for the correction of clerical or fundamental errors. The taxing board may make corrections of a clerical nature to the extent authorized by statute. 84 CJS, Taxation, § 520; Burrell v. Lynch, 85 NYS2d 705 (1949). But in the absence of such a statute, the power to correct clerical defects cannot be conferred by the courts. 84 CJS, Taxation, § 520. See generally Douglas v. Forrester, 150 Ga. 57 (2) (102 SE 347).
*801Does OCGA § 48-5-299 (a) authorize the board of tax assessors to correct clerical defects? In determining whether a function of the taxing board is authorized, statutes are to be construed strictly in the absence of a contrary legislative directive. 84 CJS, Taxation, § 519. Inasmuch as our legislature did not prescribe a liberal interpretation of OCGA § 48-5-299 (a), the statute must be “construed strictly so as to resolve doubt in favor of the taxpayer, and [its] meaning is not to be extended by implication. [Cits.]” Novak v. Redwine, 89 Ga. App. 755, 757 (81 SE2d 222). Strictly construing OCGA § 48-5-299 (a) so as to resolve any doubt in favor of Barland, I fail to see how that code section empowers the board of tax assessors to correct clerical defects in the tax assessment notice after the full amount of taxes due have been paid. In my opinion OCGA § 48-5-299 (a) merely requires the board of tax assessors to assess taxable property at a just and fair evaluation. It cannot be interpreted “to mean the Board can act with unlimited discretion, or arbitrarily or for any purpose not specifically set forth in the statute.” Cross v. Miller, 221 Ga. 579, 581, supra.
My opinion in this regard is buttressed by the fact that OCGA § 48-5-380 specifically enables counties to refund to taxpayers any taxes which were erroneously assessed and collected. If, as the majority holds, OCGA § 48-5-299 (a), authorizes the correction of errors, why then did the legislature deem it necessary to enact OCGA § 48-5-380? I think the answer to this question is obvious.
Not so obvious are the answers to the following questions: Under OCGA § 48-5-299 (a), how long can the taxing board wait before it corrects a previous assessment? One year? Two years? Five years? Does OCGA § 48-5-299 (a) allow the taxing board to correct a previous assessment if the property was sold by the taxpayer? If the property was sold, who is responsible for the payment of additional taxes resulting from the correction, the taxpayer or the purchaser? No answers to these questions can be found in OCGA § 48-5-299 (a). Yet the majority insists that that code section empowers taxing boards to correct previous assessments. Imagine the difficulties which real estate lawyers, title companies, and homeowners will face as a result of this decision.
I would rule, therefore, that taxing boards are not empowered to correct assessment notices as a matter of right. Of course, this is not to say that a board of tax assessors cannot seek equitable relief from a clerical error. (An equitable proceeding would be best suited for the resolution of cases of this kind. There the court could weigh the equities and provide answers to questions which are not addressed by OCGA § 48-5-299 (a).) But this case was presented to the superior court by an appeal from the judgment of the board of equalization. Thus, the only question for review is whether the board of tax assessors has the power, as a matter of law, to correct clerical defects. Sim*802ply put, it does not.
Decided October 23, 1985
Rehearing denied November 12, 1985
William A. Neel, Jr., J. M. Neel, Jr., for appellant.
G. Carey Nelson III, for appellee.