Court Opinion

ID: 9845386
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:20:42.915212+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:05.570612
License: Public Domain

McGraw, Justice,

concurring:

This case stands for the simple proposition that where the taxpayer can prove that he is the victim of “intentional discrimination” on the part of the assessor, whereby the assessor has knowingly permitted other taxpayers owning similar property to obtain assessments of their property at a substantially different value, he may require that his property be similarly assessed.
This decision does not alter the rule in Tug Valley Recovery Center, Inc. v. Mingo County Commission, _ W.Va. _, 261 S.E.2d 165 (1979), where we held that every person affected by the tax base could challenge improper tax assessments. Nor does it alter the assessor’s statutory mandate, under penalty of removal, W. Va. Code 11-3-1, that: “All property shall be assessed ... at its true and actual value.”
Finally, the decision does not relieve the assessor, under penalty of removal, from carrying out his mandatory duty under W. Va. Code 18-9A-11, which requires: “The total assessed value in each of the four classes of property shall not be less than fifty percent or more than one hundred percent of the appraised valuation of each paid *380class of property.” Had the other taxpayers in this case been assessed at less than fifty percent of their appraised value, the petitioner in this case would not have been entitled to relief, because their assessments would have been illegal and petitioner would not have been entitled to have its assessments adjusted downward against an illegal assessment.
I am authorized to state that Justices Harshbarger and Miller join with me in this opinion.