A Citizens’ Guide to the Revaluation and Assessment of Property by North Carolina Counties 9
Standing
Consideration of taxpayer appeals comprises the lion’s share of the work of all boards of equalization
and review, or “boards of E&R,” as they are commonly termed. Boards of E&R are required by
statute “to hear appeals from 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.”
56
While the
statute is broadly written, the courts have determined that the legal doctrine of standing permits a
taxpayer to contest the valuation of property of others only when the appellant taxpayer is in some way
aggrieved by that valuation.
57
Given that “‘[t]he purpose of the statutory requirement that all property
be appraised at its true value in money is to assure, as far as practicable, a distribution of the burden
of taxation in proportion to the true values of the respective taxpayers’ property holdings,’” a taxpayer
is only aggrieved by the valuation of another’s property when that property has been undervalued or
underassessed by the county assessor, thereby resulting in the taxpayer bearing a disproportionately
greater share of the overall tax burden.
58
e overvaluation of another’s property, which would lessen
the tax burden borne by other property owners, including the taxpayer, is not a matter that aggrieves
the taxpayer and, as such, is not a matter that the taxpayer may appeal.
59
In In re Whiteside Estates,
60
a Jackson County taxpayer filed an appeal with the county board of
equalization and review challenging the classification of a 227-acre parcel owned by Whiteside Estates,
a family corporation, for taxation based on its present-use value as forestland. e board determined
that the property did not meet present-use value requirements and notified Whiteside of its right to a
hearing. At Whiteside’s request, the board conducted another hearing and again determined that the
property had been improperly classified as forestland qualifying for present-use-value taxation. e
board ordered the property assessed at its market value of $719,000 rather than its present-use value of
$102,800. Whiteside appealed to the Property Tax Commission, contending that the initial appeal to
56. G.S. 105-322(g)(2).
57. In re Whiteside Estates, 136 N.C. App. 360, 525 S.E.2d 196 (2000).
58. Id. (quoting In re King, 281 N.C. 533, 189 S.E.2d 158 (1972)).
59. See Brock v. Property Tax Comm’n, 290 N.C. 731, 228 S.E.2d 254 (1976). Brock and several unidentified property
owners appeared before the Jones County Board of Equalization and Review to request a 25 percent reduction in the
appraised values of all farm property in Jones County. When their request was denied, Brock and eleven other taxpayers
appealed to the Property Tax Commission. Brock later sought to have ninety-nine additional landowners added to the
complaint. e Property Tax Commission dismissed all of the appeals on the basis that the taxpayers sought to attack the
schedule of values rather than the appraised value of their own property and thus lacked standing to pursue the appeal. e
taxpayers appealed to Wake Superior Court, which was, at that time, the body to which Property Tax Commission appeals
were filed. e superior court affirmed the Property Tax Commission decision. e taxpayers then appealed to the Court
of Appeals, which also affirmed the Property Tax Commission’s decision, though one judge dissented from the opinion.
e taxpayers appealed to the North Carolina Supreme Court, which reversed the lower court’s decision, determining that
the initial complainants had challenged the appraisal of their property rather than the schedule of values and, as such, were
entitled to a full hearing on the merits before the Property Tax Commission. e Supreme Court held, however, that the
Property Tax Commission had properly dismissed the appeal as to the ninety-nine property owners who sought to join the
appeal in process. Noting that the Machinery Act permitted any property owner to appeal an order of the county board of
equalization and review to the Property Tax Commission, the court held that this statutory provision presupposed a ruling
by the county board adverse to the appellant taxpayer with respect to the listing or appraisal of his property or the property
of others, after a hearing requested by the taxpayer. Since the additional taxpayers had not requested a hearing before the
county board or filed a timely notice of appeal, the dismissal of the case was proper. e original eleven appellants argued
that even if the ninety-nine additional plaintiffs lacked standing, they could appeal the appraisal of this additional property
under the authority to appeal the appraisal of others’ property. e court rejected this argument on the basis that there had
been no showing that the original eleven appellants had been aggrieved by those appraisals.
60. 136 N.C. App. 360, 525 S.E.2d 196 (2000).