AG19820301 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

This communicatiOn also serves as an invoice; please remit payment at the earliest opportunit~ to: NCACC Railroad Defense Fund, c/o NCACC, PO Box 1488, Raleigh, NC 27602-1488. As you consider this matter~ several points should be borne in mind. First~ some count~ commissioners have stated a belief that the Counties' effort to defend the railroad lawsuit has been unfair to'the plantiff railroads. They suggest that the railroads' property, reassessed every year, is treated disparately, and that the railroads are entitled to the relief. But, the defense on behalf of the counties has never argued otherwise. The real issue in the lawsuit has been how to measure the amount of relief; in other Words, how far does a county have to lower a railroad's valuation in order to treat railroad property equally with all other assessed property. On this issue, the counties' position has been that the plantiff railroads sought more favorable treatment than that to which they were entitled. Judge Dupree's decision upholds the railroad's argument and~ in so doing, appears to grant them an unwarranted, favored status as a p~operty taxpayer. ~f his ~e,cision's logic were extended to all other taxpayers whose property i~ reassessed annually, the result would be to place all off,hem in a more favored status, and conversely, to shift an unwarranted ~en to real property taxpayers. In essence, his decision has tried to.-cDrrect an inequity b~tween taxpayers but appears to have created ~ D~ inequity. Second, the collective l~gg! defense fund approach wi~t most likely not be used again in subsequ~nti~lawsuit$ of a similar nature. As we have noted, this approach was'~eemed appropriate ~n'defending the first major lawsuit brought by an ann~%iy assessed prop~r~y taxpayer. As you recall, tile counties were~not made parties tg~the railroad lawsuit since the State assesses the property and certifie~ values back to the counties. And, for most Counties th~.was only a small, amount of potential revenue loss, making it more difficult to justify tho legal cost involved in direct intervention. BU%%~he !egaI principles'set forth in the case are likely to have impli6~iOns for future similar suits, and the counties will have at st~D the p~tential lOss of significant property tax revenues. Th6s, it ~p~ared essential to assure that the counties' collective concerns were~at]least addressed at the trial. This is why it remains important to pBr~ue the case on appeal. Beyond this case, however, it will now be a matter for counties in future lawsuits to determine on an individual basis whether to become involved. ~o law- suits have been filed already that will cause many counties to make this individual determination. In one case, the railroads have filed another lawsuit in Federal District Court requesting tax relief for the 1981 tax year. Once again, the law- suit names only state-level officials as the defendants - the Secretary of Revenue and the Director of the Ad Valorem Tax Division. The rail- roads seek relief against practically every county named in the prior suit as Well as a number of additional counties. As part of the suit, the plantiffs have served certain requests for admissions asking de- fendants to a~it that the levels of assessment in the several counties are not in excess of the figures agreed to in the 1980 case. For example, it was stipulated in the 1980 case that Mecklenburg County was