In re Dixie Bldg., LLC , 235 N.C. App. 61 ( 2014 )

NO. COA13-1170
NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS
Filed: 15 July 2014
IN THE MATTER OF:
APPEAL OF: DIXIE BUILDING, LLC North Carolina Property
from the decision of the Tax Commission
Guilford County Board of No. 13 PTC 124
Equalization and Review
Appeal by appellant from order entered 28 June 2013 by the
North Carolina Property Tax Commission sitting as the State
Board of Equalization and Review. Heard in the Court of Appeals
19 February 2014.
Tuggle Duggins, P.A., by Michael S. Fox, J. Nathan Duggins
III, Martha R. Sacrinty, and Sarah J. Hayward, for
appellant Dixie Building, LLC.
Guilford County Attorney J. Mark Payne and Deputy County
Attorney Matthew J. Turcola, for appellee Guilford County.
GEER, Judge.
Dixie Building, LLC appeals from an order entered by the
North Carolina Property Tax Commission ("the Commission")
dismissing Dixie Building's appeal from the Guilford County
Board of Equalization and Review ("the Guilford County Board")
on the grounds that Dixie Building's original request to the
Guilford County Board for a hearing was untimely. Although
-2-
Dixie Building contends that it was permitted, under N.C. Gen.
Stat. § 105-322 (2013), to submit its appeal to the Guilford
County Board at any time prior to the Board's adjournment for
the year, Dixie Building's construction of the statute would
place various subsections of the statute in conflict with each
other.
Reading the statute as a whole and in a manner that gives
each provision meaning leads to the conclusion that the
legislature intended to allow boards of equalization and review
to set deadlines for the filing of hearing requests. Because
Dixie Building failed to comply with the Guilford County
deadline, the Commission properly concluded that Dixie
Building's appeal was untimely. We, therefore, affirm.
Facts
Dixie Building owns real property in Guilford County. In
2012, Guilford County performed a revaluation of all property
within its boundaries as it was required to do pursuant to N.C.
Gen. Stat. § 105-286(a)(1) (2013). The Guilford County Board
established a deadline of 2 July 2012 for appealing revaluations
and assessments for the 2012 year.
Following the 2012 revaluation, Dixie Building disputed the
resulting appraisal values of six properties ("the Dixie
properties"). However, Dixie Building did not appeal the
-3-
revaluations of the Dixie properties by the 2 July 2012
deadline. Instead, almost five months later, on 30 November
2012, Dixie Building filed a written notice with the Guilford
County Board formally requesting an appeal of the 2012
revaluations of the Dixie properties. In addition, counsel for
Dixie Building, while representing other clients with
revaluation appeals, attended a Guilford County Board meeting on
16 January 2013. During that meeting, Dixie Building's counsel
made an oral request for the Guilford County Board to review the
2012 revaluations of the Dixie properties.
On 22 January 2013, the Guilford County Board notified
Dixie Building in writing that it was denying Dixie Building's
request to challenge the 2012 reappraisal values on the grounds
that its appeal "was not timely." Dixie Building timely
appealed that denial to the Commission on 18 February 2013. On
28 June 2013, the Commission entered an order granting Guilford
County's motion to dismiss on the grounds that the appeal to the
Guilford County Board was in fact untimely. Dixie Building has
timely appealed the Commission's order to this Court.
Discussion
In an appeal from the Commission, "[q]uestions of law
receive de novo review, while issues such as sufficiency of the
evidence to support the Commission's decision are reviewed under
-4-
the whole-record test." In re Appeal of the Greens of Pine Glen
Ltd. P'Ship, 356 N.C. 642, 647, 576 S.E.2d 316, 319 (2003).
Dixie Building contends on appeal that the Commission erred in
construing the pertinent statutes when it concluded that Dixie
Building's appeal to the Guilford County Board was untimely.
Questions of statutory interpretation, such as Dixie
Building poses, "are questions of law[.] . . . The primary
objective of statutory interpretation is to give effect to the
intent of the legislature." First Bank v. S & R Grandview,
L.L.C., ___ N.C. App. ___, ___, 755 S.E.2d 393, 394 (2014). In
construing a statute, "[t]he plain language of a statute is the
primary indicator of legislative intent." Id. at ___, 755
S.E.2d at 394. However, when statutory language is ambiguous,
"we are required to examine the entire statute to ascertain its
meaning and to give force and effect to every part of it,
reconciling, when reasonably possible, any seeming conflicts by
comparing its sections and provisions with each other." State
Bd. of Agric. v. White Oak Buckle Drainage Dist., 177 N.C. 222,
226, 98 S.E. 597, 599 (1919).
Pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 105-286, each county is
required to reappraise all real property every eight years. In
years when a general reappraisal of real property has not been
done, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 105-287 (2013) limits the circumstances
-5-
under which the county may change the appraised value of real
property. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 105-322(g)(1)c provides that the
county board of equalization and review has a duty to review the
tax lists and increase and decrease the appraised value of any
property as appropriate, although "the board shall not change
the appraised value of any real property from that at which it
was appraised for the preceding year except in accordance with
the terms of G.S. 105-286 and 105-287."
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 105-322(e) sets out the provisions
regarding when a board of equalization and review shall meet and
regulates the starting date and the ending date for a board's
meetings:
Time of Meeting. -- Each year the board of
equalization and review shall hold its first
meeting not earlier than the first Monday in
April and not later than the first Monday in
May. In years in which a county does not
conduct a real property revaluation, the
board shall complete its duties on or before
the third Monday following its first meeting
unless, in its opinion, a longer period of
time is necessary or expedient to a proper
execution of its responsibilities. Except
as provided in subdivision (g)(5) of this
section, the board may not sit later than
July 1 except to hear and determine requests
made under the provisions of subdivision
(g)(2), below, when such requests are made
within the time prescribed by law. In the
year in which a county conducts a real
property revaluation, the board shall
complete its duties on or before December 1,
except that it may sit after that date to
hear and determine requests made under the
-6-
provisions of subdivision (g)(2), below,
when such requests are made within the time
prescribed by law. From the time of its
first meeting until its adjournment, the
board shall meet at such times as it deems
reasonably necessary to perform its
statutory duties and to receive requests and
hear the appeals of taxpayers under the
provisions of subdivision (g)(2), below.
(Emphasis added.)
Our Supreme Court has explained that "[t]he reason why the
Board of Equalization is required to act within a fixed time is
apparent. The taxing authority must know the value of the
taxable property before it can fix a rate sufficient to meet
governmental needs." Spiers v. Davenport, 263 N.C. 56, 59, 138
S.E.2d 762, 764 (1964). See also N.C. Gen. Stat. § 105-347(2013) (providing that county must set property tax rate "not
later than the date prescribed by applicable law or, in the
absence of specific statutory provisions, not later than the
first day of August" so as to provide revenues "necessary to
meet the general and other legally authorized expenses of the
taxing units"); N.C. Gen. Stat. § 105-360(a) (2013) (providing
that property taxes are due and payable on September 1 of fiscal
year for which taxes are levied with interest accruing if taxes
are paid on or after January 6).
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 105-322(g) sets out the powers and duties
of a board of equalization and review, including the duty to
-7-
review tax lists, the duty to hear taxpayer appeals, the power
to appoint committees, the power to issue subpoenas, and the
power to examine witnesses and documents. With respect to the
duty to hear taxpayer appeals, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 105-322(g)(2)
provides:
Duty to Hear Taxpayer Appeals. -- On
request, the board of equalization and
review shall hear any taxpayer who owns or
controls property taxable in the county with
respect to the listing or appraisal of the
taxpayer's property or the property of
others.
a. A request for a hearing under this
subdivision (g)(2) shall be made
in writing to or by personal
appearance before the board prior
to its adjournment. However, if
the taxpayer requests review of a
decision made by the board under
the provisions of subdivision
(g)(1), above, notice of which was
mailed fewer than 15 days prior to
the board's adjournment, the
request for a hearing thereon may
be made within 15 days after the
notice of the board's decision was
mailed.
(Emphasis added.)
In arguing that its request for a hearing before the
Guilford County Board was timely, Dixie Building points to N.C.
Gen. Stat. § 105-322(g)(2), asserting that it should be
construed as providing that any request made prior to a board's
adjournment is timely. Dixie Building further contends that
-8-
"the time prescribed by law" referenced in N.C. Gen. Stat. §
105-322(e) is defined by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 105-322(g)(2) as the
date of the Guilford County Board's adjournment for the year.
Consequently, Dixie Building asserts, its request for a hearing,
presented prior to the Guilford County Board's adjournment, was
timely. We disagree.
The plain language of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 105-322(e) cannot
be reconciled with Dixie Building's interpretation of the
statute. In N.C. Gen. Stat. § 105-322(e), the General Assembly
provided generally that "the board shall meet at such times as
it deems reasonably necessary to perform its statutory duties
and to receive requests and hear the appeals of taxpayers under
the provisions of subdivision (g)(2), below." (Emphasis added.)
However, the legislature also mandated that in years involving a
real property revaluation, as occurred in 2012, "the board shall
complete its duties on or before December 1 . . . ." Id. The
only exception is that the board "may sit after that date to
hear and determine requests made under the provisions of
subdivision (g)(2), below, when such requests are made within
the time prescribed by law." Id. (emphasis added).
Thus, the plain language of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 105-322(e)
limits the board's authority after 1 December to only hearing
and determining requests for review under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 105-
-9-
322(g)(2). The General Assembly did not authorize a board of
equalization and review to receive requests for hearings under
subdivision (g)(2) after 1 December. Under N.C. Gen. Stat. §
105-322(e), the board may only receive requests prior to 1
December. However, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 105-322(e) adds a further
limitation that hearings after 1 December may only be held for
those requests "made within the time prescribed by law,"
suggesting that the deadline for requests could be a date other
than 1 December.
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 105-322(g)(2)a, the subsection on which
Dixie Building relies, can be read in a manner that is
consistent with the plain language of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 105-
322(e). The focus of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 105-322(g)(2)a is on how
"[a] request for a hearing under this subdivision (g)(2) shall
be made . . . ." The statute specifies that the hearing request
may be made in two ways: in writing to the board or by a
personal appearance before the board. The subsection, rather
than granting the taxpayer the absolute right to make a request
up until the board's adjournment for the year (a construction
that would place § 105-322(g)(2)a in conflict with § 105-
322(e)), can be read instead as providing an outside limit on
when a board of equalization may allow requests for hearings to
be made. The subsection establishes that the board has no
-10-
authority to grant a hearing for a request made after
adjournment.1
Such a construction is also consistent with N.C. Gen. Stat.
§ 105-322(f), which requires a board to publish a notice of
certain dates prior to the board's first meeting for the year.
In addition to announcing the date, hours, place, and purpose of
the first meeting of the board, the notice must also "state the
dates and hours on which the board will meet following its first
meeting and the date on which it expects to adjourn . . . ."
Id. (emphasis added). If a board subsequently decides to
adjourn at a later date than was originally announced, it must
provide notice "published at least once in the newspaper in
which the first notice was published, such publication to be
prior to the date first announced for adjournment." Id.(emphasis added).
The notice requirements of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 105-322(f)
regarding adjournment can only be effective if a board has the
authority to set deadlines prior to the time of adjournment for
the submission of requests for a hearing. It would be difficult
for a board to identify an adjournment date in advance that
would allow adequate time to conduct hearings without setting a
1
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 105-322(g)(2)a includes an exception, not
applicable here, when the board has made a decision under § 105-
322(g)(1) and notice was sent out less than 15 days prior to the
board's adjournment.
-11-
deadline for requests for hearings sufficiently in advance of
the projected adjournment date. In addition, under Dixie
Building's construction of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 105-322(g)(2)a, an
aggrieved taxpayer could request a hearing on the scheduled date
of adjournment, but that would require that the board then
postpone adjourning until the hearing could be conducted.
However, the board would then be unable to comply with the
notice provision for adjournment set out in N.C. Gen. Stat. §
105-322(f).
Dixie Building nonetheless urges that a board could hear an
appeal the same day it was requested, thus avoiding any
deviation from the statute's notice requirements. N.C. Gen.
Stat. § 105-322(g)(2)c, however, provides that "[u]pon the
request of an appellant, the board shall subpoena witnesses or
documents if there is a reasonable basis for believing that the
witnesses have or the documents contain information pertinent to
the decision of the appeal." In addition, the General Assembly
has granted a board of equalization and review the power to
"subpoena witnesses or documents on its own motion . . . ."
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 105-322(g)(3)b. A hearing occurring on the
same day as a request for a hearing would preclude the board
from exercising these powers.
-12-
Further, it is entirely plausible that if an announced
adjournment date were the deadline for requests for hearing
rather than the deadline set by a board, many taxpayers would
wait until the last day to make their requests. An inability to
conduct all the requested hearings in one meeting would then
force a postponement of the adjournment date and violation of
the notice provisions.
We can see no basis for concluding that the General
Assembly intended to strip a board of equalization and review of
the power to set a reasonable schedule for receiving requests
for a hearing that would ensure a full and careful consideration
of a taxpayer's appeal. Indeed, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 105-322(e)
mandates that "[f]rom the time of its first meeting until its
adjournment, the board shall meet at such times as it deems
reasonably necessary to perform its statutory duties and to
receive requests and hear the appeals of taxpayers under the
provisions of subdivision (g)(2), below." (Emphasis added.)
In short, Dixie Building's proposed construction of N.C.
Gen. Stat. § 105-322(g)(2) to allow requests for hearing through
the date of adjournment would place that subsection in conflict
with numerous other subsections. When the statute is read as a
whole giving effect to all of its provisions, we hold that the
Guilford County Board and the Property Commission properly
-13-
concluded that the legislature intended for a local board of
equalization and review to have the authority to set a
reasonable deadline prior to its adjournment for accepting
requests for revaluation appeals and that such time is "the time
prescribed by law" provided for in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 105-322(e).
See Rhyne v. K-Mart Corp., 358 N.C. 160, 188, 594 S.E.2d 1, 20
(2004) (holding that "this Court does not read segments of a
statute in isolation. Rather, we construe statutes in pari
materia, giving effect, if possible, to every provision.").
Because 2012 was a revaluation year for Guilford County,
the Guilford County Board set 2 July 2012 as the deadline for
appeal requests for that year and because Dixie Building did not
submit its hearing request by that date, Dixie Building did not
timely request an appeal of the revaluation of the Dixie
properties for the tax year 2012. The Commission, therefore,
properly dismissed Dixie Building's revaluation appeal.
Affirmed.
Judges ROBERT C. HUNTER and McCULLOUGH concur.