Department of Revenue gives Union County board refresher on property tax appeals, valuation standards

Lindsay Smith, a representative of the North Carolina Department of Revenue, gave a detailed briefing to the Union County Board of Equalization and Review on the county appeals process, valuation standards and the board’s duties.

The presentation summarized who may file appeals, the distinction between informal assessor review and formal Board of Equalization and Review (BER) appeals, timelines and the process for appealing BER decisions to the state Property Tax Commission and courts.

Smith said the assessor’s authority to change a property’s value “shifts to the board of equalization and review once the board of equalization and review convenes,” and that after the BER issues a written decision taxpayers have 30 days to appeal to the Property Tax Commission. She added that the Property Tax Commission hears appeals de novo and that appeals from the Property Tax Commission may proceed to the Court of Appeals and, with discretionary review, to the North Carolina Supreme Court.

Why it matters: the presentation reviewed legal deadlines and statutory limits that govern when and how property valuations and exemption decisions may be changed, and it emphasized consistent, equitable application of those rules by county officials.

Smith walked the board through core duties of the BER: examining and reviewing current-year tax lists, correcting clerical and appraisal errors, changing appraised values within statutory limits, issuing written notices to taxpayers and recording decisions in minutes. She described the BER as a “quasi‑judicial board” that bases decisions on evidence and existing law and warned that BER decisions do not set precedent as case law but should be applied consistently.

Key procedural points covered included: who may file appeals (owners or controllers of property, joint owners, licensed attorneys and authorized business representatives), the recommended use of powers of attorney for representatives and county processes for verifying authorization, and the assessor’s recommended practice of conducting an informal review before the BER convenes to correct factual errors early.

Smith outlined timelines and hearing-window guidance: counties typically convene the BER between the first Monday in April and the first Monday in May; in non‑revaluation years the BER must adjourn by July 1, and in revaluation years by Dec. 1. She recommended allowing 3–8 weeks between convening and adjournment in revaluation years and 2–6 weeks in other years so taxpayers have adequate time to file appeals.

On evidence, she emphasized the greater‑weight‑of‑evidence test: taxpayers must present compelling market‑value evidence such as qualified comparable sales, appraisals prepared before the reappraisal date, building plans, photos, closing statements, income/expense records and property record cards for comparables. She warned that complaints anchored only to dissatisfaction with services, the size of a tax bill, or national market trends are not appropriate grounds for a BER value appeal.

Smith described appraisal approaches (sales comparison, income and cost), the concept of highest and best use, and the Department of Revenue’s view that true value should reflect market value. For personal property, she said listing is generally at historical cost adjusted by DOR cost indices and depreciation schedules and noted factors appraisers consider including age, condition, productivity and remaining useful life.

Discovery and penalties were highlighted: discovered property that was not listed during the listing period is taxable for the current year and the five preceding years; discovery notices must include a tentative appraisal and grant 30 days to appeal. Penalties for the earliest year start at 10% and an additional 10% may be added for each subsequent unlisted year, calculated separately for each year to reflect changes in that year’s tax rate. Smith explained the BER has statutory power to compromise discovery bills but advised counties adopt written policies and limit use of that power to ensure uniform application.

On conflicts of interest and representation, Smith advised recusal when board members have a direct financial interest in the property. She recommended the BER require a power of attorney for anyone who will represent or speak for the taxpayer at a hearing to protect both the county and the property owner from unauthorized practice of law and to provide a consistent record; the county usually will ask representatives to present a signed power of attorney when an appeal is scheduled.

Smith also reviewed taxpayer remedies if the BER’s order causes an overpayment (interest calculated under N.C. Gen. Stat. 105‑360(a)) and explained that releases, refunds or compromises of taxes are tightly constrained by statute and generally fall under the authority of the board of county commissioners rather than the BER.

The presentation concluded with a department recommendation that the BER maintain consistent procedures (sign‑up sheets, hearing scripts and evidence logs), treat hearings with appropriate formality, and apply uniform relief criteria when exercising discretionary powers such as penalty compromises.

The board asked clarifying questions about recusal examples, late applications, and representative authority; Smith said counties typically adopt local, written definitions of “good cause” for accepting late exemption applications and noted that certain changes are more permissible in reappraisal years than in non‑reappraisal years.

Lindsay Smith said she would provide the presentation slides and a reference guide for distribution to board members.

Ending: Board members thanked Smith for the refresher; staff confirmed the materials would be distributed and that notaries are available if a power of attorney must be completed at hearing time.