77 P.3d 468 (Ariz.Tax 2003), 2003-000198, Maricopa County v. TWC Chandler
|Docket Nº:||TX 2003-000198.|
|Citation:||77 P.3d 468, 206 Ariz. 293|
|Party Name:||MARICOPA COUNTY, v. TWC CHANDLER, et al.|
|Case Date:||October 03, 2003|
|Court:||Tax Court of Arizona|
Roberta S. Livesay, Helm & Kyle, Ltd, Counsel for Plaintiff.
Rex C. Nowlan, Assistant Attorney General, Paul J. Mooney, Fennemore Craig, P.C., Counsel for the Defendants.
UNDER ADVISEMENT RULING
PAUL A. KATZ, Judge.
The Court having taken Defendant Arizona State Board of Equalization's (the "SBOE") Motion to Dismiss and Defendant TWC-Chandler, L.L.C.'s ("TWC") Motion to Dismiss under advisement; having reviewed the memoranda of the parties and the legal authorities cited therein; and good cause appearing, enters the following Opinion,
Nature of the case
This action involves three (3) of more than a dozen real estate parcels that make up the Chandler Fashion Center ("CFC"). Originally, the CFC consisted of two parcels, however the property owner/developer asked the Maricopa County Assessor (the "Assessor") on several successive occasions to split the parcels consistent with its development plan for this shopping center. Maricopa County (the "County") alleges the Assessor mistakenly crossed off the improvement values from the split/combining form for several parcels, which had the effect of showing no improvement values for those parcels. On September 11, 2002, the County mailed Notices of Proposed Correction on these three parcels of land owned by TWC (the "Subject Property"), proposing to correct what the County claimed was an "error" in the values
[206 Ariz. 294] assigned to the Subject Property and proposing to increase the values assigned to each of these parcels. TWC disputed the proposed correction and appealed the Assessor's decision to the SBOE. The SBOE issued its decision on February 7, 2003, upholding TWC's objection to the proposed error correction and reducing the values back to those originally determined for the Subject Property by the Assessor for the 2002 tax year. The SBOE eliminated all value associated with the existing improvements, effectively removing the improvements from the County tax roll, and valued the land only. On April 4, 2003, the County filed a complaint that was amended on April 24, 2003, appealing the SBOE's valuation decision and requesting declaratory relief regarding the SBOE's alleged failure to comply with the statutes and rules governing the...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP