Appeal of Parker

• Decision Date: 03 September 1985
• Docket Number: No. 8410PTC1146,8410PTC1146
• Citation: 333 S.E.2d 749,76 N.C.App. 447
• Parties: In the Matter of the Appeal of Edwin PARKER, Charles Harden, J.B. Davenport, III, J.A. Dilday, R.E. Dilday, Vernon Cobb, Robert L. Hoggard, Herbert Jenkins, Jr., G.D. Perry, David Askew, Bryant Savage, Hurron Freeman, Rhodes Bond, Jr., and C.B. Griffin, Jr.
• Court: North Carolina Court of Appeals

Page 749

333 S.E.2d 749

76 N.C.App. 447

In the Matter of the Appeal of Edwin PARKER, Charles Harden,

J.B. Davenport, III, J.A. Dilday, R.E. Dilday, Vernon Cobb,

Robert L. Hoggard, Herbert Jenkins, Jr., G.D. Perry, David

Askew, Bryant Savage, Hurron Freeman, Rhodes Bond, Jr., and

C.B. Griffin, Jr.

No. 8410PTC1146.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Sept. 3, 1985.

Josey, Josey & Hanudel by C. Kitchin Josey, Scotland Neck, for taxpayer-appellants.

John R. Jenkins, Jr., Aulander, for respondent-appellee.

Robert B. Broughton, Gen. Counsel, Raleigh, for North Carolina Farm Bureau Federation, filing an Amicus Curiae Brief.

PARKER, Judge.

We note at the outset that petitioners have flagrantly violated Appellate Rule 28 by failing to bring forward in their brief assignments of error with exceptions grouped thereunder. Nevertheless, in the exercise of our discretion, pursuant to Appellate Rule 2, we will consider the appeal; however, all exceptions not herein discussed are deemed abandoned.

The question presented for review before this Court is whether the decision of the North Carolina Property Tax Commission as it affected the ad valorem tax present use value schedule and the ad valorem tax true or market value schedule adopted by the Bertie County Board of Commissioners was (i) unsupported by competent, material and substantial evidence in view of the entire record as submitted, or (ii) arbitrary and capricious or (iii) affected by other errors of law. G.S. 105-345.2. For the reasons herein discussed as to that part of the Property Tax Commission's decision finding the adoption of the true value schedule to be arbitrary on account of the twenty-five (25%) percent reduction in the proposed true value schedule, we affirm; however, as to that part of the decision permitting the true value schedule and the use value schedule to be the same except for notes F and G as modified on the true value schedule, we reverse.

The statutory scheme for taxation of property qualifying for present use value treatment as defined in G.S. 105-277.2 and 277.3 is a tax deferment. General Statute 105-277.4(c) provides:

Property meeting the conditions herein set forth shall be taxed on the basis of the value of the property for its present use. The difference between the taxes due on the present-use basis and the taxes which would have been payable in the absence of this classification, together with any interest, penalities or costs that may accrue thereon, shall be a lien on the real property of the taxpayer as provided in G.S. 105-355(a). The difference in taxes shall be carried forward in the records of the taxing unit or units as deferred taxes, but shall not be payable, unless and until [certain disqualifying conditions occur].

The statutory provision which, in our view, mandates that the true value schedule and the use value schedule be determined separately is G.S. 105-277.6 which provides:

(b) In revaluation years, as provided in G.S. 105-286, all property entitled to classification under G.S. 105-277.3 shall be reappraised at its true value in money and at its present use value as of the effective date of the revaluation. The two valuations shall continue in effect and shall provide the basis for deferred taxes until a change in one or both of the appraisals is required by law. (emphasis added)

(c) To insure uniform appraisal of the classes of property herein defined in each county, the tax supervisor, at the time of the general reappraisal of all real property as required by G.S. 105-286, shall also prepare a schedule of land values, standards and rules which, when properly applied, will result in the appraisal of the property at its present-use value. Such schedule, standards and rules shall be used by the tax supervisor to appraise property receiving the benefit of this classification until the next general revaluation of real property...