PROPERTY TAX COMMISSION
North Carolina
Department of Revenue
2011 Advanced Real
and Personal Property
Seminar
September 14, 2011
Joseph S. Koury
Convention Center
Greensboro, NC
Property Tax Commission
G.S. 105-288



Constitutes the State Board of Equalization and
Review for the valuation and taxation of property
in North Carolina.
Five members, three of whom are appointed by
the Governor and two of whom are appointed by
the General Assembly, one on recommendation
of the Speaker of the House and one on
recommendation of the President Pro Tempore of
the Senate.
Governor appoints the chair and members elect
the vice-chair.
Duties of the Commission






Members:
Terry L. Wheeler, Chair
Paul Pittman, Vice Chair
Aaron W. Plyler
Georgette (Gigi) Dixon
William (Bill) Peaslee
Notice of Appeal
Application for Hearing


Must be in writing and state the grounds for the
appeal. 105-290(f).
Must be filed with the Commission within 30 days
after the date the Board mailed a notice of its
decision to the taxpayer. 105-290(e).
– If by US Mail--must have a timely and legible postmark
affixed by the US Postal Service, OR
– If not by US Mail or if USPS postmark does not show
the date of mailing--the appeal will be considered filed
when it is received by the Commission. 105-290(g).
The Notice of Appeal
Motion to Dismiss
If the notice of appeal is not timely filed,
the county attorney shall file a Motion to
Dismiss the appeal for failure of the
taxpayer to meet the statutory time limit.
 Commission Form AV-2 (Motion to
Dismiss).
 Form AV-2 is available online
www.dornc.com/downloads/property.html

Application for Hearing





Application for Hearing (Form AV-14):
Untimely filed (17 NCAC 11 .0212).
Failure to file (17 NCAC 11 .0212).
Appeal dismissed by motion of the Commission.
The county attorney may file a written answer to
the taxpayer’s AV-14 (17 NCAC 11 .0212).
Application for Hearing

Application must be signed and filed by the
taxpayer or the taxpayer’s attorney who is
licensed to practice law in North Carolina.
Discovery
Discovery Rule: 17 NCAC 11 .0218.
 Discovery must occur before scheduling an
appeal for hearing.
 Examples: Depositions, Interrogatories,
Production of Documents.
 Motions to Compel Discovery.
 Motions to Dismiss Appeal (taxpayer fails
to respond to discovery).

Commission Hearings




FAQs:
www.dornc.com/taxes/property/ptc_faq.html
Hearing dates:
www.dornc.com/taxes/property/ptc_hearingdates.
pdf
50 day notice of hearing: (example: September 2123, 2011 Session of Hearings).
20 day notice: (example: Wednesday, September
21, 2011, at 1:00 p.m.).
Commission Hearings
All monthly hearings in Raleigh, unless
Commission designates another location (17
NCAC 11 .0207). NCDOR Building, Room
135, located at 501 N. Wilmington Street.
 The hearing before the Commission is a
formal adversarial proceeding conducted
under the Rules of Evidence (17 NCAC 11
.0209).

Commission Hearings






Exhibits (17 NCAC 11 .0213).
Exhibit notebooks (tab exhibits and number
pages).
File one copy of the schedule of values, standards
and rules.
Include relevant pages from the schedule of values
in the exhibit notebook.
Pre-Hearing Order (17 NCAC 11 .0214).
Subpoenas.
Commission Hearings
Exchange documents and enter into Order
on Final Pre-Hearing Conference.
 File six copies with Commission Secretary.
 File briefs (legal issues).
 You are the expert.
 Testimony is taken under oath or
affirmation by the witness.
 Court reporter is present.

Commission Hearings
Motions to dismiss:
 Failure to Appear at Hearing (17 NCAC 11
.0217).
 (Dismissal is appropriate sanction for
failure of the taxpayer to follow the rules.
 In re Fayetteville Hotel Assocs., 117 N.C.
App. 285. 450 S.E.2d 568 (1994) aff’d per
curiam, 342 N.C. 405, 464 S.E.2d 298
(1995).

Commission Hearings
Commission Hearings are open to the
public.
 By motion of either party, the Commission
may grant a request to close the hearing to
the public to protect a “trade secret” or
other confidential information.

Commission Hearings

The North Carolina Rules of Evidence
govern the admissibility of evidence and
order of presenting evidence at the hearings
(17 NCAC 11 .0216).
Commission Hearings


Ad valorem tax assessments are presumed to
be correct. In Re Amp, Inc., 287 NC 547, 215
S.E.2d 752 (1975).
If the taxpayer rebuts the initial presumption,
then the burden shifts to the taxing authority
to demonstrate that its methods produce true
values. In re IBM Credit Corporation (IBM
Credit II) , N.C. App.
, 689 S.E.22d 487,
489 (2009).
Commission Hearings

The taxpayer rebuts the presumption by
presenting “competent, material and
substantial evidence” that tends to show that:
(1) the county tax supervisor used an
arbitrary method of valuation; or (2) the
county tax supervisor used an illegal method
of valuation; and (3) that the assessment
substantially exceeded the true value in
money of the property. In Re Amp, Inc., 287
NC 547, 215 S.E.2d 752 (1975).
Commission Decisions

The Commission deliberates in private to
reach a decision; but all final decisions and
orders are public records.
Judicial Review
The notice of appeal and exceptions must be
filed within 30 days after the entry of the
Commission’s final decision.
 The appeal is to the North Carolina Court of
Appeal as provided in G.S. 7A-29.
(G.S.105-345).
 Failure of Appellant to file record on
appeal.
 File Motion to Dismiss. (Appellate Rules).

Case Law Update
In re IBM Credit Corporation, (Durham
County) 01 PTC 544, entered June 24,
2011.
Ruling: The Commission rejects both the
U5 schedule and the valuation method
proposed by IBMC’s expert witness from
NACOMEX and relies instead on
testimony of IBMC’s sales manager for
marketing and personal property manager
to develop a depreciation schedule to
arrive at a value of $144,472,252 for the
subject property as of January 1, 2001.
Case Law Update
In re Family Tree Farm, LLC, (Halifax
County) 07 PTC 719, entered 21, 2010.
Ruling: County’s value affirmed where
taxpayer’s Forest Management Plan did
not refer to wasteland, and taxpayer
provided no evidence of governmental
restrictions that further reduced the land’s
value. Commission also rejected the claim
that individual shares in the LLC should be
individually valued.
Case Law Update
In re Rivershore, LLC, (Craven County) 09
PTC 019, entered February 3, 2011.
Ruling: When qualifying trust transferred
present-use classified timberland to
Rivershore, the property was disqualified
from present-use value qualification as
forestland and roll-back was triggered
because the owner’s primary purpose was
not commercial growing of trees as required
in G.S. 105-277.2(4).
Case Law Update
Farrier’s Ridge Development, LLC, (Wilson
County) 09 PTC 186, entered October 15,
2010.
Ruling: Developer applied for special use
valuation for Phase II of residential
subdivision alleging that the land continued
to be used for agricultural purposes. County
denied application. Commission affirmed
County’s denial by ruling that taxpayer’s
principle business was residential
development.
Case Law Update
In re David H. Murdock Research
Institute, (Cabarrus County) 09 PTC
022, entered May 31, 2011.
Ruling: Exemption application filed in
July 2008 by exempt
charitable/scientific nonprofit
organization was not untimely. The
County should have granted exemption
for tax year 2008 as provided in G.S.
105-282.1(a1).
Case Law Update
In re Home Health and Hospice Care,
Inc., (Wayne County) 09 PTC 322,
entered July 12, 2011.
Ruling: Administrative offices of
hospice facility also qualify for
exemption as used for charitable and
charitable hospital purposes as
provided in G.S. 105-278.7 and G.S.
105-278.8.
Case Law Update
In re Joshua McLamb (Sampson County) 10
PTC 954, entered February 25, 2011.
Ruling: Taxpayer challenged schedule of
values which classified special use
agricultural land at different rates depending
upon soil type submitted by landowner.
Commission upheld the schedule of values,
noting that the Machinery Act places the
burden of establishing entitlement to special
use classification on the applicant.
Case Law Update
In re Louisiana Pacific Corporation,
(COA10-500), filed December 7, 2011.
Ruling: Commission lacks jurisdiction to
consider taxpayer’s appeals when the
taxpayer did not timely file notices of
appeal with the Commission. See G.S.
105-290.
Case Law Update
In re Fontana Village, Inc., (Graham
County) 09 PTC 322, entered July 12,
2011.
Ruling: Fontana Village’s leasehold
interest in exempt federal property is not
taxable by Graham County.
Case Law Update
In re Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics
(Wake County) 10 PTC 434, [real
property] and 11 PTC 028 [personal
property]entered June 30, 2011.
Ruling: Commission held that 40% of the
value of the real and personal property is
exempt from taxation until all ownership
interest vests to Novartis.