BC 2010 03 15 Regular - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

March 15, 2010 (Regular Meeting) Page 1857 Research City, LLC has a legal remedy against the owner of Lot 207 for the taxes it paid.. I must also remind the Board that pursuant to N.C.G.S. §105-380, members of the Board of Commissioners who vote for release, refund or compromise of a tax obligation in violation of Chapter 105 of the North Carolina General Statutes can be held personally liable for the taxes, plus court costs including attorneys fees. Zac Moretz, Attorney representing Research City, LLC, reviewed the following information previously provided to the County regarding the refund request: Letter from Moretz & Skufca, PLLC dated January 5, 2010 Rich Koch, Esq. VIA FACSIMILE ONLY TO 704-503-5707 3320 Prosperity Church Road, Suite 201 Charlotte, NC 28269 Re: 2009 property tax bills of Edward H. McAfee and wife Patra McAfee Request for correction of mistaken tax paid Dear Rich: Thank you for speaking with me regarding the above- referenced matter today. In order for you to better understand the factual background in this matter, please see the attached copy of a letter I sent to all parties involved on or about June 23, 2009. Shortly after this letter was sent, my paralegal Melissa Eddleman spoke with Debbie at the Cabarrus County Tax Assessor's office and was assured that the taxes incorrectly paid would be credited to the McAfees' property tax obligations for other property they own in Cabarrus County. Melissa hand- delivered to the Tax Assessor's office copies of all corroborating information. It was only in following up with Debbie in December to confirm that Melissa was informed by Dawn that Debbie was mistaken and that the matter would have to be referred to you for a decision. You called yesterday and informed us that the Tax Assessor would not credit the McAfees' other accounts with the amount mistakenly paid. This has caused great financial difficulty for the McAfees, in part because Mrs. McAfee was subsequently laid off from her position with Fifth Third Bank and Mr. McAfee is a commission- only salesperson in the real estate field which as you know is a difficult profession currently. The McAfees reasonably relied upon Debbie's assurance that this matter would be taken care of, and they believe it is grossly unfair for the County to now withdraw its position after the McAfees have relied upon Debbie's statements. Further, this would work a substantial injustice to the McAfees in that a completely unrelated party, the Alstons, have now received an improper benefit which will be near impossible to recover since they are currently in bankruptcy and have been throughout the relevant time period. Also, the payment made was for three years' of back taxes (2006, 2007 and 2008), which the County had apparently made no effort to collect. The County's now reneging on its assurance to the McAfees certainly feels like a "gotcha" to my clients, where the County saw an opportunity to collect an amount it had apparently long since written off and seems happy to uphold an injustice to good and honest taxpayers by claiming the protection of a vaguely-worded statute. I have reviewed the statute you cited, N.C.G.S. § 105-381, and believe it provides more than ample leeway for the County to redirect the obviously incorrectly-applied funds. First, the statute does not state that the grounds listed in subsection (a)(1) are the exclusive grounds for a defense to the payment of taxes. Second, the error by Debbie in giving incorrect information to Melissa could be construed as a clerical error. Finally, the McAfees are not requesting a release, refund or compromise of any tax obligation. They are simply requesting that a payment that they made mistakenly upon a property they thought they owned due to an error in the public records which was not reasonably discoverable by them (or me or the other attorneys involved) be credited to accounts for property they do in fact