"The amount of your ad valorem tax bill for this year will be based on the appraised and assessed values specified in this notice. You have the right to appeal these values to the county board of tax assessors. At the time of filing your appeal you must select one of the following options:
If you wish to file an appeal, you must do so in writing no later than 45 days after the date of this notice. If you do not file an appeal by this date, your right to file an appeal will be lost. For further information on the proper method for filing an appeal, you may contact the county board of tax assessors which is located at: (insert address) and which may be contacted by telephone at: (insert telephone number)."
"The estimate of your ad valorem tax bill for the current year is based on the previous or most applicable year's millage rate and the fair market value contained in this notice. The actual tax bill you receive may be more or less than this estimate. This estimate may not include all eligible exemptions."
(Ga. L. 1913, p. 123, § 6; Code 1933, § 92-6911; Ga. L. 1937, p. 517, § 2; Ga. L. 1970, p. 580, § 1; Ga. L. 1971, p. 33, § 1; Ga. L. 1972, p. 1114, § 5; Ga. L. 1974, p. 609, § 1; Ga. L. 1975, p. 1083, § 2; Ga. L. 1976, p. 518, § 2; Code 1933, § 91A-1448, enacted by Ga. L. 1978, p. 309, § 2; Ga. L. 1985, p. 1262, § 2; Ga. L. 1994, p. 1823, § 1; Ga. L. 1999, p. 1043, § 2; Ga. L. 1999, p. 1212, § 1; Ga. L. 2009, p. 27, § 4/SB 55; Ga. L. 2009, p. 216, § 2C/SB 240; Ga. L. 2010, p. 1104, § 1-1/SB 346; Ga. L. 2015, p. 1219, § 14/HB 202; Ga. L. 2017, p. 774, § 48/HB 323; Ga. L. 2018, p. 162, § 1/HB 374.)
The 2015 amendment, effective January 1, 2016, in division (b)(2(A)(iii), substituted "$750,000.00, or for one or more account numbers of wireless property as defined in subparagraph (e.1)(1)(B) of Code Section 48-5-311 with an aggregate fair market value in excess of $750,000.00" for "$1 million"; in subparagraph (b)(2)(B), substituted "statements" for "statement" in the introductory language and inserted "or most applicable" in the first sentence of the notice; and, in subsection (d), in paragraph (1), inserted "a description of the methodology used by the board of tax assessors in setting the property's fair market value," deleted "and" from the end, in paragraph (2), added "; and" to the end, and added paragraph (3).
The 2017 amendment, effective May 9, 2017, part of an Act to revise, modernize, and correct the Code, added the catchline at the beginning of subsection (f).
The 2018 amendment, effective July 1, 2018, substituted "$500,000.00 as shown on the taxpayer's annual notice of current assessment under this Code section" for "$750,000.00" twice in division (b)(2)(A)(iii).
Editor's notes.- Ga. L. 1985, p. 1262, § 3, not codified by the General Assembly, provided that that Act would apply to tax bills and assessment notices mailed on or after January 1, 1986.
Ga. L. 1999, p. 1043, § 4, not codified by the General Assembly, provides that the amendment to this Code section shall be applicable to all assessments and proceedings commenced on or after January 1, 2000.
Ga. L. 1999, p. 1212, § 2, not codified by the General Assembly, provides that the amendment to this Code section shall be applicable to all taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2000.
Ga. L. 2009, p. 27, § 5/SB 55, not codified by the General Assembly, provides, in part, that the amendment to this Code section shall be applicable to all taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2009.
Law reviews.- For article surveying legislative and judicial developments in Georgia local government law for 1978-79, see 31 Mercer L. Rev. 155 (1979). For article, "Procedure and Problems in Georgia Ad Valorem Tax Appeals," see 26 Ga. St. B. J. 98 (1990). For survey article on local government law, see 67 Mercer L. Rev. 147 (2015). For note on the 1999 amendment to this Code section, see 16 Ga. St. U. L. Rev. 223 (1999).
JUDICIAL DECISIONSANALYSIS
General Consideration
Editor's notes.
- In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, decisions under Ga. L. 1931, p. 7, § 85 are included in the annotations for this Code section.
Subsection (a) of O.C.G.A. § 48-5-306 does not require tax assessors to use any definite system or method, but demands only that valuations be just and that the valuations be fairly and justly equalized among the individual taxpayers according to the best information obtainable. Rogers v. DeKalb County Bd. of Tax Assessors, 247 Ga. 726, 279 S.E.2d 223 (1981).
Subsection (a) of O.C.G.A. § 48-5-306 permits the board to audit and make changes to a taxpayer's return with regard to personalty omitted and personalty that has been returned and undervalued. Eckerd Corp. v. Coweta County Bd. of Tax Assessors, 228 Ga. App. 94, 491 S.E.2d 173 (1997).
Statute establishes the procedure for securing tax uniformity in a county. Hawes v. Conner, 224 Ga. 567, 163 S.E.2d 724 (1968).
Import of this statute is to ensure that the burden of taxation is spread evenly over the taxpayers, according to a fair valuation (now fair market value) of their property holdings. Allen v. Norris, 148 Ga. App. 261, 251 S.E.2d 145 (1978).
Application to persons who make returns to commissioner is unconstitutional.
- Because former Code 1933, §§ 92-6901 and 92-6915 (see now O.C.G.A. §§ 48-5-305 and48-5-306) provided that nothing in former Code 1933, Ch. 92 (see now O.C.G.A. Pt. 2, Art. 5, Ch. 5, T. 48) shall apply to those persons who were required to make their returns to the comptroller general (now commissioner), these two sections, therefore, expressly excluded such persons from the benefit of any such due process procedure as may be afforded under former Code 1933, Ch. 92 (see now O.C.G.A. Pt. 2, Art. 5, Ch. 5, T. 48). Therefore, an application of former Code 1933, Ch. 92 (see now O.C.G.A. Pt. 2, Art. 5, Ch. 5, T. 48) by the county board as to such persons contravened the federal and state Constitutions. Pullman Co. v. Suttles, 187 Ga. 217, 199 S.E. 821 (1938).
Action of board outside the board's authority is void when the board of tax assessors acts arbitrarily and beyond the scope of the board's authority, there is no sound distinction between a situation when the board raises the valuations of all the taxpayers in order to obtain additional revenue for school purposes, or when the board lowers all the valuations by a certain percent in order to reduce taxes. In so doing, the board's action is outside their authority and hence void. Cross v. Miller, 221 Ga. 579, 146 S.E.2d 279 (1965).
Trial court did not err in denying the plaintiff's request for a mandamus nisi because the Open Records Act, O.C.G.A. § 50-14-1 et seq., was not available to enforce compliance with the plaintiff's requests for information from the county board of tax assessors regarding property tax assessments as those requests were made pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 48-5-306 and not the Open Records Act. Hansen v. DeKalb County Board of Tax Assessors, 295 Ga. 385, 761 S.E.2d 35 (2014).
If assessment action displeases a taxpayer, the taxpayer's remedy is arbitration as provided in former Code 1933, § 92-6912 (see now O.C.G.A. § 48-5-311). Hawes v. Conner, 224 Ga. 567, 163 S.E.2d 724 (1968).
Injunction against unlawful or arbitrary valuations.
- When an increase in the valuations of realty returned by taxpayers is not for the purpose of equalizing such valuations, but is an unlawful and arbitrary attempt to provide additional revenue for educational purposes, a court may grant an interlocutory injunction against the making up, compiling, or listing of any report or digest incorporating or including therein any increased assessment or changes or alterations in the returns, and may enjoin the tax receiver from transmitting to the department or the comptroller general or the tax collector of the county, or any tax authorities of the county or state any report, list, or other compilation or digest including or incorporating therein any increase or change or alteration in the return filed with the tax receiver by any taxpayer thereof. Green v. Calhoun, 204 Ga. 550, 50 S.E.2d 209 (1948).
Right to appeal penalty assessment.
- Assessment of a penalty for a breach of a conservation use covenant is an assessment for which a property owner has the right to appeal pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 48-5-311, and the failure of the county board of assessment to provide notice of the property owner's right to appeal was in error. Oconee County Bd. of Tax Assessors v. Thomas, 282 Ga. 422, 651 S.E.2d 45 (2007).
Requirements from county board of tax assessors regarding information requests.
- Trial court did not err in denying the plaintiff's request for a mandamus nisi because the plaintiff's request for mandamus was unsupportable as a matter of law as it was undisputed that the county board of tax assessors provided various documents in response to the plaintiff's information requests regarding property tax assessments, and the plaintiff's demands for supplementation of the responses and an explanation of those responses in a recorded meeting session strayed far beyond what was required by O.C.G.A. § 48-5-306. Hansen v. DeKalb County Board of Tax Assessors, 295 Ga. 385, 761 S.E.2d 35 (2014).
Cited in Chatham County Bd. of Assessors v. Jepson, 261 Ga. App. 771, 584 S.E.2d 22 (2003); Ferdinand v. City of East Point, 288 Ga. App. 152, 653 S.E.2d 529 (2007); Coffman Grading Co. v. Forsyth County, 303 Ga. App. 836, 695 S.E.2d 310 (2010).
Valuation of Property
Proper assessment required as part of tax enforcement proceedings.
- Assessment made in the manner prescribed by the statute is indispensable in proceedings to enforce the collection of taxes. Colvard v. Ridley, 218 Ga. 490, 128 S.E.2d 732 (1962).
Duty to ensure just and fair valuation of property and proportionate distribution of taxes.
- It is the duty of the board of tax assessors to see that all taxable property within the county is returned and assessed for taxes at the property's just and fair value (now fair market value) and that valuations as between the individual taxpayers are fairly and justly equalized so that each taxpayer shall pay as near as may be only the taxpayer's proportionate share of taxes. Colvard v. Ridley, 218 Ga. 490, 128 S.E.2d 732 (1962); Register v. Langdale, 226 Ga. 82, 172 S.E.2d 620 (1970).
Property in same class to be valued by same standard or system.
- Tax assessors must use the same standard or system in determining and fixing taxable value of all property of the same class. Colvard v. Ridley, 218 Ga. 490, 128 S.E.2d 732 (1962).
Taxation within class must be uniform, equal, and by same standard.
- Taxation of all kinds of property of the same class must be uniform and by the same standard of valuation, equally with other taxable property of the same class. Champion Papers, Inc. v. Williams, 221 Ga. 345, 144 S.E.2d 514 (1965).
What valuation methods authorized.
- Tax assessors may use any system, method, cadastral survey, books, available lists of valuations of types of property, city valuations, or other instruments, or other information obtainable, provided such information is the best information available in the assessors fixing of just and fair valuation (now fair market value) of the property assessed, and provided that the taxation as between individual taxpayers is justly and fairly equalized. Kight v. Gilliard, 214 Ga. 445, 105 S.E.2d 333 (1958); Colvard v. Ridley, 218 Ga. 490, 128 S.E.2d 732 (1962).
Tax assessors are authorized to fix fair market value from the best information obtainable. This does not require the tax assessors to use any definite system or method, but demands only that the valuations be just and that the valuations be fairly and justly equalized among the individual taxpayers, according to the best information obtainable. Kight v. Gilliard, 214 Ga. 445, 105 S.E.2d 333 (1958); Colvard v. Ridley, 218 Ga. 490, 128 S.E.2d 732 (1962).
Use of cadastral surveys in equalizing values for taxation.
- Authority granted by Ga. L. 1941, p. 382 and Ga. L. 1951, p. 85 to tax assessors to use information based upon a cadastral survey in equalizing values for taxation is not a substitution of the survey for the discretion of the assessors. Hutchins v. Candler, 209 Ga. 415, 73 S.E.2d 191 (1952).
Valuations not voided by failure to use past methods.
- Duties placed on the board of tax assessors do not require the use of any definite system or method, but demand only that the valuations be just and fair (now fair market value) and that the valuations be justly and fairly equalized among taxpayers. The failure to use any particular system, method, cadastral survey, book, or other instruments used in the past to derive values would not in any way render void the valuations placed on such property by the assessors. Hutchins v. Williams, 212 Ga. 754, 95 S.E.2d 674 (1956).
Property valuation may be increased even if property not further improved.
- Tax authorities are not prevented from increasing the valuation by the fact that the property has been returned for a lower valuation in the past, and that there have been no improvements thereon, or that no particular fixed system was used to derive the valuation as long as there is a just and fair valuation (now fair market valuation) and the valuation as between individual taxpayers is justly and fairly equalized. Whitehead v. Henson, 115 Ga. App. 81, 153 S.E.2d 581, rev'd on other grounds, 223 Ga. 329, 155 S.E.2d 391 (1967).
Reevaluation and reassessment of only rural real estate of 25 acres or more did not constitute an impermissible spot or piecemeal reappraisal. Harrington v. Baldwin County Bd. of Tax Assessors, 214 Ga. App. 178, 447 S.E.2d 300 (1994).
Piecemeal or spot reappraisals which follow a general appraisal of residential property throughout the jurisdiction and which results in a significant increase in taxes without regard to any equalization between taxpayers is contrary to the statutory mandate and void. Thorpe v. Benham, 161 Ga. App. 116, 289 S.E.2d 275 (1982); Dade County v. Eldridge, 229 Ga. App. 401, 494 S.E.2d 106 (1997).
Valuation of leasehold estates.
- Trial court erred in dismissing for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted a taxpayer's petition seeking a declaration that the valuation method a county board of assessors and the development authority of the county used for leasehold estates arising from a local development authority sale-leaseback bond transaction was illegal and in granting the authority's motion for judgment on the pleadings because the taxpayer made material allegations that could be supported by admissible evidence on the issue of whether the valuation method fairly and justly approximated the fair market value of a bond transaction leasehold estate, and the board and authority failed to show that they were clearly entitled to judgment; although O.C.G.A. § 36-80-16.1(e) gave county boards of tax assessors authority to use simplified methods for determining the value of a bond transaction leasehold estate, the statute did not relieve the board and authority from their duty to value the leasehold estate at the estate's fair market value, and any contention that the statute did allow the board and authority to value a bond transaction leasehold estate at less than the estate's fair market value would make the statute illegal and unconstitutional. Sherman v. Fulton County Bd. of Assessors, 288 Ga. 88, 701 S.E.2d 472 (2010).
Failure to show entitlement to mandamus relief.
- In a taxpayer's suit against a county and officials (the county), the court upheld the grant of summary judgment to the county because the taxpayer's mandamus claims failed for the simple reason that the claim adduced no evidence that any actual assessment of any particular property was other than at fair market value or that the county had failed to comply with the county's legal duty to see that all taxable property within the county is assessed and returned for taxes at the property's fair market value. SJN Props., LLC v. Fulton County Bd. of Assessors, 296 Ga. 793, 770 S.E.2d 832 (2015).
Notice
Purpose of notice requirements.
- Purpose of the notice required by this statute is to give the taxpayer an opportunity to exercise the taxpayer's right to challenge the change by an appeal to the board of equalization. Oxford v. City of Waycross, 241 Ga. 159, 243 S.E.2d 881 (1978).
Notice provisions to be strictly construed.
- Statute providing for notice when, for failure of service, a person may be deprived of the person's property must be strictly construed. Gilmore v. Curry, 225 Ga. 483, 170 S.E.2d 31 (1969).
When a reassessment notice was properly mailed to a taxpayer pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 48-5-306 and the taxpayer's request for a late appeal was denied by the board of tax assessors, the taxpayers were not entitled to declaratory relief or to mandamus because O.C.G.A. § 48-5-311 prescribes a time limit for filing appeals, the appeal was not filed within that period, and the board was powerless to extend the period. Dillard v. Denson, 243 Ga. App. 458, 533 S.E.2d 101 (2000).
Required contents of notice.
- Statute requires that the taxpayer be told of the time period in which an appeal may be demanded, and statement on the notice of assessment that the assessment will become final if not protested as provided by law did not comply with the statutory requirement. Ledbetter Trucks, Inc. v. Floyd County Bd. of Tax Assessors, 240 Ga. 791, 242 S.E.2d 596 (1978).
Relation to
§ 48-5-7.2(e). - O.C.G.A. § 48-5-7.2(e) expressly requires a tax board, upon denying an application for preferential assessment, to notify the applicant in the same manner that notices of assessment are given pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 48-5-306, and appeals from the denial of an application for preferential assessment by the board of tax assessors shall be made in the same manner that other property tax appeals are made pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 48-5-311; in light of a tax board's failure to provide an applicant with the proper statutory notice, the board's argument that the applicant failed to exhaust the applicant's administrative remedies was without merit. Chatham County Bd. of Tax Assessors v. Emmoth, 278 Ga. 144, 598 S.E.2d 495 (2004).
Notice sufficient unless defect misleads taxpayer to taxpayer's detriment.
- Failure of the board of tax assessors to comply strictly with the requirements for the contents of the notice does not invalidate the notice, unless the defect in the notice in fact misleads the taxpayer to the taxpayer's detriment. Oxford v. City of Waycross, 241 Ga. 159, 243 S.E.2d 881 (1978).
Increased valuation may be enjoined when taxpayer not given notice of it.
- When a taxpayer returns the taxpayer's property, and an assessment and a higher valuation is made by the assessors for those years, the taxpayer should be given due notice thereof and have an opportunity to be heard thereon. If the taxpayer has not been given such notice, the enforcement of a tax fi. fa. based upon the increased valuation may be enjoined by a court of equity. Gilmore v. Curry, 225 Ga. 483, 170 S.E.2d 31 (1969).
Taxpayer need not be served notice of reduction in assessment.
- When a taxpayer's assessment is increased by the board of tax assessors, the taxpayer must be served with a notice which will give the taxpayer an opportunity to contest the increase. When the board reduces the assessment on a taxpayer's property, the taxpayer need not be served with notice of the reduction. County Bd. of Tax Assessors v. Catledge, 173 Ga. 656, 160 S.E. 909 (1931) (decided under Ga. L. 1931, p. 7, § 85).
Notice not required.
- Because the tax assessors did not correct the taxpayer's 1998 or 1999 returns, change those returns, or reassess the property but rather, the taxpayer elected to automatically return the taxpayer's property in 1998 and 1999 at the 1997 value, the statutory notice requirements of O.C.G.A. § 48-5-306 did not preclude summary judgment. Pine Pointe Hous., L. P. v. Bd. of Tax Assessors, 269 Ga. App. 855, 605 S.E.2d 443 (2004).
Manner in which notice to be served.
- Statute contemplates that the notice of a change made by the board of tax equalizers shall be served personally upon the taxpayer, or by leaving the same either at the taxpayer's place of residence or the taxpayer's place of business. Only in the case of a nonresident taxpayer is service by sending notice through the United States mail allowed. Gilmore v. Curry, 225 Ga. 483, 170 S.E.2d 31 (1969).
When notice of a change of assessment is served in the manner requested by the taxpayer, the taxpayer cannot complain that service was inadequate. Oxford v. City of Waycross, 241 Ga. 159, 243 S.E.2d 881 (1978).
Manner of notifying taxpayer of valuations and changes therein.
- Requirement that the assessors fix the just and fair valuation (now fair market value) of a taxpayer's property and make a note of any change and attach the note to the return does not require any fixed system of doing so, such as attaching a separate memorandum. When this change is made by pencil note on the taxpayer's return itself, the statute is satisfied. Hutchins v. Williams, 212 Ga. 754, 95 S.E.2d 674 (1956).
Notice to taxpayer as to tentative changes.
- When tax assessors made tentative changes in tax returns during the period that the assessors studied the returns, but made no final decision on changes until a date within five days of the date on which notices of such changes were mailed, there was sufficient compliance with subsection (a) of this statute. Register v. Langdale, 226 Ga. 82, 172 S.E.2d 620 (1970).
Failure to mail or file notice of appeal within 30 days.
- Failure of limited liability companies (LLC) to satisfy the requirement of O.C.G.A. § 48-5-311(e)(2)(A) barred any further right to appeal because the letters and returns the LLCs' representative submitted months before the assessment notices were mailed did not excuse the LLCs from complying with the requirement of O.C.G.A. § 48-5-311(e)(2)(A) that a taxpayer mail or file a notice of appeal within 30 days from the date of mailing the notice pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 48-5-306; because the LLCs failed to comply with O.C.G.A. § 48-5-311(e) so as to effectuate an appeal to the county board of equalization, the LLCs' appeals to the superior court should have been dismissed. Hall County Bd. of Tax Assessors v. Avalon Hills Partners, LLC, 307 Ga. App. 520, 705 S.E.2d 674 (2010).
Failure to give notice to taxpayer of right to appeal.
- County's recalculations of taxpayers' homestead exemptions involved the value of the exemptions, bringing the taxpayers within O.C.G.A. § 48-5-49, which permitted an appeal under O.C.G.A. § 48-5-311. Since the county had not given the taxpayers notice under O.C.G.A. § 48-5-306 of the taxpayers' right to appeal, the taxpayers were entitled to equitable relief requiring the county to: (1) provide taxpayers with proper notice of and the right to appeal changes in the homestead exemptions; (2) stop collecting taxes referenced in bills sent without proper notice; and (3) refund any tax money collected based on bills issued without such notice. Fulton County Bd. of Tax Assessors v. Marani, 299 Ga. App. 580, 683 S.E.2d 136 (2009), cert. denied, No. S09C2072, 2010 Ga. LEXIS 18 (Ga. 2010).
Sufficiency of pleadings regarding compliance with notice provisions.
- Allegation in a petition that a board of tax assessors raised the assessments made by the tax assessors without giving petitioners notice of the change in tax assessments as required by law was not as against demurrer (now motion to strike), an averment that the petitioners were not given the five-day notice required under this statute. Lanier v. Suttles, 212 Ga. 154, 91 S.E.2d 21 (1956).
OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Occupant of property sold under bond for title.
- Purchaser/possessor of a piece of property under a bond for title can be subjected to ad valorem taxation for that parcel, and once the Board of Tax Assessors chooses to assess the property against the occupant, and not the seller of the property, the occupant should receive the tax notices required by O.C.G.A. § 48-5-306, and be treated as "the taxpayer" entitled to appeal under O.C.G.A. § 48-5-311. 1989 Op. Att'y Gen. U89-17.
Assessment of returned but undervalued property.
- Property that has been returned may only be revalued in accordance with O.C.G.A. § 48-5-306 if the county board of tax assessors has not previously rendered a final assessment of that property pursuant to that Code section. 1987 Op. Att'y Gen. No. U87-13, rescinding and superseding Op. Att'y Gen. 1961, p. 482 insofar as it suggests that returned property may be revalued and reassessed at any time within the applicable period of limitation.
Duty to reassess property when fair market value increases.- If the fair market value of property increases every two years, then it is the duty of the county tax assessors to increase the valuation of property for tax purposes every two years. 1969 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 69-504.
Duty to correct errors and certify corrections to commissioner.- County board of tax assessors is not only authorized to correct mistakes and errors made by the board, but it is made the board's duty to do so. Such correction should be certified to the commissioner so that the digest on file in the commissioner's office may be made to conform with the county digest. 1950-51 Op. Att'y Gen. p. 154.
Real property may not be reassessed despite error in first assessment.- Tax assessors are precluded from again assessing real estate that the assessors have previously assessed, although the assessors were mistaken as to the property's value at that time. 1969 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 69-183.
Invalidity of tax digest has no effect on validity of taxpayer's return.- Tax return of a property owner is separate from the tax digest prepared by the tax commissioner, and the invalidity of the digest has no effect on the validity of the taxpayer's return. 1970 Op. Att'y Gen. No. U70-41.
Board of tax assessors cannot place a nominal value on property of new industries, but must see that such valuations are equalized with the valuations placed on property owned by other taxpayers. 1967 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 67-328.
Board of tax assessors does not have authority to classify personal property as real estate. 1958-59 Op. Att'y Gen. p. 357.
Valuation of automobiles.- Municipal and county tax assessors have a legal right to place a higher valuation on automobiles than on other property. 1954-56 Op. Att'y Gen. p. 675.
Manner in which notice to be served.- When property evaluation is altered, the taxpayer must be notified personally or through posting of reevaluation notice in front of the courthouse door. The provisions of this statute requiring the board to give notice either personally or by mail indicate that the giving of notice by mail is not personal service as contemplated by the statute. 1962 Op. Att'y Gen. p. 483.
Board of tax assessors may act in absence of a member.- Board of tax assessors consisting of three members, and sitting in accordance with this statute, can legally act in the absence, for any reason, of one of the board's members. 1971 Op. Att'y Gen. No. U71-55.
Additional compensation for extra duties performed by tax assessors.- Board of county commissioners (now county governing authority) may legally pay certain members of the board of tax assessors additional compensation for the performance of extra duties in assembling information. 1952-53 Op. Att'y Gen. p. 296.
RESEARCH REFERENCES
C.J.S.
- 84 C.J.S., Taxation, § 799 et seq.
ALR.
- Notice to property owners of increase in assessment or valuation by board of equalization review, 24 A.L.R. 331; 84 A.L.R. 197.
Power of board of tax review to receive evidence as to assessable value, without notice to taxpayer, 113 A.L.R. 990.
Provisions of tax statute as to time for performance of acts by boards or officers as mandatory or directory, 151 A.L.R. 248.