Petition of Heath

• Decision Date: 02 June 1970
• Docket Number: No. 22-70,22-70
• Citation: 266 A.2d 812,128 Vt. 519
• Parties: Petition of Benjamin HEATH.
• Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Page 812

266 A.2d 812

128 Vt. 519

Petition of Benjamin HEATH.

No. 22-70.

Supreme Court of Vermont.

June 2, 1970.

Divoll & Buckley, Bellows Falls, for plaintiff.

James M. Jeffords, Atty. Gen., and H. Russell Morss, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for the Tax Commissioner.

Before HOLDEN, C. J., and SHANGRAW, BARNEY, SMITH and KEYSER, JJ.

KEYSER, Justice.

This is a petition for a writ of certiorari brought against the State Tax Commissioner and the Town of Rockingham. The petitioner, a taxpayer in the Town of Rockingham, seeks a review of the action of the Windham County Board of Tax Appraisers in their appraisal of his personal property in said town.

The petitioner operates a store known as 'Meatland' in said town. The listers appraised the entire personal property in the store at a value of $33,802.00. Part of this valuation applied to inventory and part to furniture and fixtures. The writ is addressed only in respect to that part allocated to furniture and fixtures.

The taxpayer appealed to the board of civil authority from the action of the listers. The board denied any relief from the listers' valuation and the taxpayer appealed to the state tax commissioner who referred the appeal to the county board of tax appraisers as provided by 32 V.S.A. § 4446.

In its report submitted to the commissioner the board found the appraisal value of all personalty was $33,802, which is the same amount fixed by the listers and board of civil authority. The board made the following additional findings of fact:

'The appellant came before the Board with an appraisal report of all the furniture and fixtures located in their food market known locally as 'Meatland.' These figures were substantially lower than those used by the Listers.

After hearing all the testimony, the board took into consideration the method used by the listers to arrive at their values. Several comparable appraisals were checked out to assure us that uniformity prevailed.

The basic approach by the Listers is to establish original value, reduce this to 50% of F.M.V. and then further reduce by 50% to arrive at a continuing depreciated value for listing purposes.

The Board unanimously recommends that the F.M.V. of $33,802 which includes inventory as well as equipment, be approved as thereby equitable to all parties concerned.'

From these findings it is clear that the appealing taxpayer as stated in his petition was contesting only that part of the listers' appraisal which applied to the furniture and fixtures in his store. However, the findings in the report of the board to the commissioner do not state what amount it determined was the fair market value of only that part of the personal property which was the subject of the appeal but included the stock in trade as well.

The tax commissioner moved to dismiss the plaintiff's petition on two grounds (1) that the county board of tax appraisers had not been made a party, and (2) that the petitioner had failed to produce the record of proceedings before the county board. The town moved to quash the petition (1) for the lack of an adequate record, and (2) on the ground that the petition fails to present a meritorious case.

The commissioner of taxes is a necessary party to the petition only because the record of the appeal is in his custody, Petition of Villeneuve, Vt., 256 A.2d 455, and not because he stands, in the position of an adversary to the relief sought by the taxpayer. The town is the only party having a vital interest in the outcome of the proceeding since the decision in the case may affect its tax revenue.

Since the county board of appraisers exercises a judicial function the correctness of their actions will be inquired into where substantial questions of law affecting the merits of a case are in issue. Petition of Town of Mendon, 127 Vt. 502, 503, 253 A.2d 139. The correctional power of this Court extends no further than to keep inferior jurisdictions within the limits of their jurisdiction and see that they exercise it with regularity. Petition of Mallary, 127 Vt. 412, 415, 250 A.2d 837. The petition on its face, must present a meritorious case and state facts sufficient to authorize the issuance of the writ and this is largely a matter of discretion. Burton v. Selectmen, Town of Springfield, 124 Vt. 502, 505, 208 A.2d 318.

Here, the question is what is the appraisal value of petitioner's store furniture and fixtures based on its 'fair market value' within the legal concepts of that term and in compliance with statutory requirements. Under 32 V.S.A. § 3481, 'appraisal value shall mean the estimated fair market value of property.'

The petition and report of the county board disclose that a controversial question of fact was presented to the board for determination. The county board is a quasi-judicial agency acting as triers of fact 'touching the questions to be by them determined' as referred to them by the tax commissioner. 32 V.S.A. § 4446. And their findings on the questions so submitted are reported to the commissioner in writing in such form as he requests. 32 V.S.A. § 4450.

This court will not disturb the determinations of fair market value of real and personal property by the listers or county board unless errors of law appear which affect the merits of the case or occur in the course of the proceedings. Petition of Mallary, supra, 127 Vt. at p. 415, 250 A.2d 837.

While it is our practice to hear the merits of the case upon the petition and subsequent pleadings and decide whether the writ shall be granted or refused, Petition of Mallary, supra, at p. 415, 250 A.2d 837, it is necessary that an adequate record be furnished to this Court.

Thus, it is the duty of this Court to examine the evidence and...