Court Opinion

ID: 9854317
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:05:08.455003+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:01.178677
License: Public Domain

ADAMS, Judge,
concurring specially.
I concur in the majority decision. According to the Supreme Court of Georgia, OCGA § 48-2-18 (d) gave counties “a new role in the taxation of utilities.” Telecom*USA v. Collins, 260 Ga. 362, 365 (1) (393 SE2d 235) (1990). “The essence of the counties’ new role is the right to make an assessment that is different from the Commissioner’s ‘proposed assessment’ and to deal with appeals from its ‘final assessment.’ ” Id. Thus, the court concluded that counties had the right to either adopt the Tax Commissioner’s proposed assessment of utility property or to modify it before issuing a final assessment. Id. at 365-366. But neither the TelecomPUSA opinion nor the statute defines the extent of the county’s power to modify the Commissioner’s proposed assessment. Id. at 366, n. 3.
This ambiguity inherent in OCGA § 48-2-18 (d) cries out for legislative explanation. But in the absence of such clarification we must review that statute in the context of the current statutory scheme for the imposition of county ad valorem taxes. From that review, it appears that the legislature intended that the valuation of utility properties should occur at the state level, and not on a county-by-county basis. See OCGA §§ 48-5-263 (b) (excluding the valuation of such property from the duties of county tax appraisers); 48-5-305 (excluding such property from county’s right to value property not appearing in the county tax digest). See also OCGA § 48-5-313 (providing that part of the Code dealing with county boards of tax assessors has no application to such property). Accordingly, I agree with the majority’s conclusion that under the current legislation a county may not reappraise the fair market value of the property.