Garbitelli v. Town of Brookfield, 2011 VT 122 (Reiber, C.J. )
Taxpayer appeals from a judgment affirming the Town of Brookfield Board of Abatement’s denial of his request for a tax abatement. We affirm.
The property was assessed at $1.6 million after taxpayer refused entry to the tax assessor. Taxpayer later allowed entry to the listers for 2009, which resulted in an assessment of $957,000. Taxpayer then moved for a tax abatement for the years 2007 and 2008 under 24 V.S.A. § 1535(a)(4), which authorizes an abatement in cases involving “a manifest error or a mistake of the listers.” The Board denied the request, finding that there was no mistake attributable to the listers since they were denied entry and were forced to use the best information available to them.
We review the Board’s decision denying abatement for abuse of discretion. In contrast to the tax assessment process, in an abatement action the Board is not constrained to value properties at fair market value. In fact, the whole point of tax abatement is to allow the Board to abate taxes for reasons other than that the property was assessed above fair market value. A taxpayer may argue before the Board that his assessment was so high as to constitute a “manifest error or a mistake of the listers,” 24 V.S.A. § 1535(a)(4), but the statute is entirely permissive and does not require abatement even if the taxpayer falls within one of the categories allowing for abatement.
The property was assessed at $1.6 million after taxpayer refused entry to the tax assessor. Taxpayer later allowed entry to the listers for 2009, which resulted in an assessment of $957,000. Taxpayer then moved for a tax abatement for the years 2007 and 2008 under 24 V.S.A. § 1535(a)(4), which authorizes an abatement in cases involving “a manifest error or a mistake of the listers.” The Board denied the request, finding that there was no mistake attributable to the listers since they were denied entry and were forced to use the best information available to them.
We review the Board’s decision denying abatement for abuse of discretion. In contrast to the tax assessment process, in an abatement action the Board is not constrained to value properties at fair market value. In fact, the whole point of tax abatement is to allow the Board to abate taxes for reasons other than that the property was assessed above fair market value. A taxpayer may argue before the Board that his assessment was so high as to constitute a “manifest error or a mistake of the listers,” 24 V.S.A. § 1535(a)(4), but the statute is entirely permissive and does not require abatement even if the taxpayer falls within one of the categories allowing for abatement.
In short, tax abatement is an equitable remedy. Taxpayer engaged in unfair and inequitable conduct by refusing the listers reasonable access to the property. The Board properly considered taxpayer’s conduct, and we find no abuse of its discretion in denying his abatement request on this ground.
No comments:
Post a Comment