Summary
In Marcus Hook, the Board in question and at least one of the parties was laboring under the misconception that the assessment figure in issue represented the evaluation of two properties.
Summary of this case from Ky. Fr. Ch. of A. v. U. Comp. Bd. of ROpinion
January 6, 1948.
March 22, 1948.
Taxation — Board for the Assessment and Revision of Taxes — Correction of errors after time for appeal — Evidence — Oral.
1. Where it appeared that the Board for the Assessment and Revision of Taxes, on appeal by a property owner from the assessment on one of two parcels owned by it, had reduced the assessment to an amount which the Board had contemplated as the total assessment for both parcels, mistakenly believing that all the land of the property owner was assessed as one piece; and that, after the time for appeal had expired, and after the School District had established its annual budget based on the duplicate furnished it, the Board, without notice to the School District, reduced the assessment on the one plot to the difference between its assessment in error and the assessment of the other plot, so that the total of the two assessments was the amount originally contemplated by the Board; it was Held that the Board had the power at the time it changed the assessment to make the correction. [61-8]
2. In such case, it was Held that the court below did not commit error, in the circumstances, in permitting oral testimony to explain the record and to show what was intended by the Board. [67-8]
Before MAXEY, C. J., DREW, LINN, STERN, STEARNE and JONES, JJ.
Appeals, Nos. 17 and 18, Jan. T., 1948, from decree of C. P., Delaware Co., Sept. T., 1946, Nos. 203 and 302, respectively, in case of School District of Borough of Marcus Hook, Delaware County v. Board for the Assessment and Revision of Taxes et al., and in re Appeal of American Viscose Corporation. Decree affirmed.
Appeals by School District, and by property owner, respectively, from assessment of Board for Assessment and Revision of Taxes.
Appeal of School District, dismissed, appeal of taxpayer affirmed, before MacDADE, P. J., ERVIN and SWENEY, JJ., dissenting opinion by MacDADE, P. J. The opinion of the court below is as follows:
On September 27th, 1946, the School District of the Borough of Marcus Hook filed its petition to strike off the assessment of the American Viscose Corporation for the years 1946, 1947 and 1948 made August 29th, 1946. The petition alleged that the property of the American Viscose Corporation in the Borough of Marcus Hook is "Plot #1 Ground and Buildings erected thereon, S S of Post Road between Hook Creek and P. B. W. R. R. in depth to Penn Ave. approx. 39.41 acres"; that the Board for the Assessment and Revision of Taxes assessed the property originally for the years 1946, 1947 and 1948 in the sum of $1,743,380 and on February 5th, 1946, upon appeal reduced the assessment to $1,595,730 and on further appeal on February 7th, 1946, further reduced the assessment to $1,250,000 and on August 29th, 1946, again reduced the assessment to $939,240; that the Board had no authority to hear an appeal or to reduce the taxes at said time; that on August 29, 1946, the time had long expired for the making of an appeal; that the School District had had no knowledge or notice of the appeal; that the School District had adopted its budget for 1946 and 1947 and had relied on the assessment as finally determined on February 7, 1946; that the local Tax Collector had received his tax duplicate prior to August 29th, 1946, and had billed the American Viscose Corporation on the assessment of February 7, 1946, and praying that the assessment of August 29th, 1946, should be stricken from the assessment books and the assessment fixed on February 7th, 1946, reinstated.
A rule was allowed by the Court (A.D. MacDADE, President Judge) returnable October 4th, 1946. On the return day, the American Viscose Corporation and the Board for the Assessment and Revision of Taxes of Delaware County filed answers in which they alleged that there were two plots of land in the Borough of Marcus Hook owned by the American Viscose Corporation that Plot #1 was as described in the School District's petition and was assessed, together with Plot #2 (industrial village and textile unit north of Post Road) for the triennial period from January 1st, 1943, to December 31st, 1945, for $1,435,270; that the Assessor tentatively valued the land for the triennial period beginning January 1st, 1946, at Plot #1 $1,743,380; Plot #2 $335,760, total $2,079,140; that neither the Board nor the Corporation realized that the two plots were assessed separately and dealt only with the figure of $1,743,380, believing it to be the total assessment; that the Board decided, as a matter of policy not to assess machinery in plants and of its own motion reduced the assessment to $1,595,730; that the Corporation appealed this assessment and, on February 6th, 1946, the Board reduced the assessment to $1,250,000, both the Board and the Corporation believing this to be the total assessment; that when the tax bills were received by the Corporation, the mistake was detected and, on August 27th, 1946, the Board acted to rectify the error and reduced the assessment on Plot #1 to $939,240 and, thereby, the total assessment to $1,275,000.
On October 9th, 1946, the American Viscose Corporation filed its appeal from the action of the Board on August 29th, 1946, in raising the assessment from $1,250,000 to $1,275,000. This is case No. 302 September Term, 1946.
Both matters came on to be heard before SWENEY, J., on October 11th, 1946. During the hearing the question was raised as to the right of the School District to bring its action in the form of a petition to strike off the assessment rather than by appeal. On October 25th, 1946, the School District presented its appeal to the Court and the Court (SWENEY, J.) signed an order allowing the appeal as of September 27th, 1946, and thereby having the entire matter heard as an appeal from the action of the Board.
On December 3rd, 1946, the Chancellor (SWENEY, J.) filed his adjudication, dismissing the appeal of the School District and sustaining the appeal of the American Viscose Corporation and fixing the total assessment at $1,250,000. To this adjudication, the School District filed exceptions — eleven exceptions to findings of fact and three exceptions to conclusions of law, as well as an exception to the Decree Nisi.
Before these exceptions could be argued before the Court en banc, it was found necessary to hold an additional hearing, which was done and the notes of testimony were transcribed and were before the Court en banc, upon the Argument of the exceptions. The matter is now before us for opinion and final decree.
After a careful reading of the record papers, the notes of testimony and the adjudication and after a careful perusal of the briefs of counsel, we are of the opinion that the exceptions must be dismissed. Consequently, we dismiss the exceptions filed to the fourth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth and sixteenth findings of fact as there is sufficient evidence in the record to support these findings. We also dismiss the exceptions to the second, third and fourth conclusions of law as they are based upon proper supporting findings of fact and express the law bearing upon the question involved. The exception to the decree nisi is likewise dismissed.
In considering the action of the Court, it is most essential that we bear in mind that the only reason advanced by the School District of Marcus Hook for having the assessment of the Board for the Assessment and Revision of Taxes set aside is that the Board had no authority to make any change in the assessment at the time the said change was made. In the original petition filed by the School District to strike off the assessment, in the later appeal and in the testimony there is nothing that charges that the assessment of $1,250,000 is inequitable, unjust or unfair. It is true that the School District offered to prove assessments of other plants in the Marcus Hook District, but this offer was made for the purpose of showing that other plant assessments had been raised, while the assessment of the American Viscose Corporation was lowered below the assessment for the prior triennial period.
We consider this case, therefore, on the single proposition as to the right of the Board to act as the Board did act on August 29, 1946. In this connection, we are considering that the minutes of the Board of the meeting on August 29, 1946, are part of the original hearing records; it now appears (page 29 of testimony taken February 20, 1946) that the following action was taken: "Motion of Mr. Harvey, seconded by Mr. Kelly, on August 9, 1946, the American Viscose Corporation, through their Attorney, J. H. Ward Hinkson, appealed the assessment of this Corp. in Marcus Hook and the Board recommended the 1946 assessment revised as follows: Page 174, American Viscose Corp., Plot 1, ground and buildings S.S. Post Road. Between Hook Creek and the P. B. W. R. R. In depth to Pennsylvania Avenue approximately 39.41 acres, assessed at $1,250,000, to be changed to read correctly assessed at $939,240. Plot 2, Model Village — 'M. V.' — approximately 39 acres will remain assessed at the original figure of $335,760."
This minute clarifies the entire situation and leaves only one question — did the Board have the right to make this correction? Unquestionably, the answer to this question is "yes". It is the inalienable right of this Board to correct its own errors.
We are fearful that this case has been thrown into confusion by the fact that we all dislike mistakes, which work hardship to those who are doing good public work. There is also evident concern because the net result of this correction is to lower an assessment when the trend of assessments in the Borough of Marcus Hook appears to be upward. There is also a misunderstanding of the law which seeks to impose the terms of the statutes upon the Board in an attempt to show that the Acts of Assembly rule this situation.
There can be no quarrel with the Acts of 1931, June 26, P. L. 1379 (The Third Class County Assessment Act) and of 1933, May 22, P. L. 853 and its amending Acts of later dates. (The General Tax Assessment Act.) The procedure is clearly set; in Counties of the third class (Delaware County) the board for the assessment and revision of taxes issues its precept to the local assessor, whose duty it is to "assess, rate and value all objects of taxation", based on actual sale value and equalized with similar property "within the taxing district". When the precept is returned, the board proceeds to examine and inquire whether the assessment has been made properly and, on the day appointed to determine whether any property is assessed too high or too low, the board determines what the assessment shall be, adjourning from day to day until the board is in the position to properly arrive at a proper assessment. Having granted relief, "the board for the assessment and revision of taxes, shall not make any allowance or abatement in the valuation of any real estate, in any other year than that in which the triennial assessment is made, excepting where buildings or other improvements have been destroyed, or where coal, ore, or other minerals assessed under the triennial assessment have been mined out, subsequently to such triennial assessment, in which cases such allowance or abatement shall be made." ( 72 P. S. § 5020-511.)
It shall be the duty of the board to hear appeals at any subsequent time when they may be in session, previous to the payment of the tax and to make such alterations as they might have done on the regular day of appeal: provided, due notice thereof has been given the assessor ( 72 P. S. § 5020-517).
Any owner of real estate, who believes that he has been aggrieved may appeal to the Court of Common Pleas within sixty days after the board have held the appeal and acted on the assessment. This right of appeal is given alike to taxables and the corporate authorities of any city, borough, town, township, school district or poor district, which may be aggrieved. The Acts of 1931 and of 1933 (supra) are generally the same in their respective provisions.
As heretofore pointed out in the adjudication, the Act of 1931 ( 72 P. S. § 5350a) gives assessors the right to "revise any assessment or valuation according to right and equity by correcting errors". In more deeply considering this clause, however, we conclude that the Chancellor was in error in finding that this section ruled the present case. Although the assessor may correct any error which he makes, it was not his error in this case but the mistake of the board, which mistake the assessor has no right to correct.
Applying, therefore, the law above cited to the facts in this case, we feel that the board had the right to alter the figures fixed as assessments by the assessor of its own motion without waiting for the filing of a formal appeal by the taxable. Under this right the board had power to reduce the assessment on plot No. 1, from $1,743,380 to $1,595,730, when it was decided, as a matter of policy, that machinery in plants in the County would not be assessed. By the same token, had the School District of Marcus Hook felt aggrieved by this action, it had the right to appeal within sixty days of such action. No such appeal was taken.
The American Viscose Corporation, believing that the assessment of $1,595,730 was too high (it was higher than the total assessment for the prior triennial) took an appeal, which was heard before the board on February 7th, 1946.
At this point it seems proper to quote from Susquehanna Collieries Company's Appeal, 335 Pa. 337 (Mr. Chief Justice KEPHART): "The failure of the county Boards of Revision to make proper records of their proceedings, has resulted in confusion in many cases and has been commented on by the appellate courts. (Citing cases.) It is true that the statutes prescribe no form of procedure, and it is common knowledge that the hearings before these Boards are conducted with extreme informality. It is desirable, of course, as in all other administrative proceedings, that the administrative body should not be burdened or restricted by technical rules of pleading and evidence. Nevertheless, some orderly method of conducting and recording hearings should be adopted. Since a Board of Revision in acting upon appeals functions as a quasi-judicial tribunal, there is no reason why it could not employ the services of a stenographer to prepare such minutes as would disclose the substance of the appeal. These minutes would eliminate guess work in subsequent stages of litigation, and would preserve the rights of the taxpayer and the county."
Since no such notes were taken on February 7th, 1946 the only record before us is the precept of the board, which has been offered in evidence. The School District contends that this record is binding upon us and that the Chancellor erred in permitting oral testimony to explain the record by showing what was intended by the Board. With this contention, we cannot agree. We feel that the minutes of the board action on August 9th, 1946, discloses fully the fact that an error had been made and was rectified by the resolution passed on that date, which reduced the assessment of Plot No. 1 "to read correctly assessed at $939,240". It is essential that those in public office keep faith and that their official word should be good. The board, as we see it, was keeping faith with the taxable by correcting an error.
And finally, the School District questions the activity of Clarence Conner, President of the Board of Commissioners of Delaware County, in this particular matter. The Commissioners appoint the Board for the Assessment and Revision of Taxes and, after the appointment, it goes without saying that the action of the Board should be untrammeled and unafraid. We have read and re-read the testimony and we find nothing in the actions of Mr. Conner which in any way reflect upon his conduct as a valued official. So far from showing any feeling against Mr. Conner, the Board appeared to welcome his efforts. No one doubts Mr. Conner's honesty and, on all sides, we hear praise of his ability as a public official.
Plaintiff appealed.
Robert W. Beatty, with him William A. Burns, for School District, appellant.
J. H. Ward Hinkson and William R. Toal, for American Viscose Corporation, appellee.
It would serve no useful purpose to rehearse the facts and law of this case. Both are fully and accurately presented in the opinion of the learned court below. The final decree is affirmed on that opinion.
Decree affirmed.