Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Personal Property Tax topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears HB 349 to clarify how assessors value specialty used vehicles
Summary
House Bill 349 would give assessors explicit direction for valuing motor vehicles not listed in standard valuation guides by allowing use of trading value guidance; proponents described inconsistent valuation practices and appeals challenges, while assessors warned about removing statutory language that constrains valuations for recent vehicles.
Representative Renee Reuter introduced House Bill 349 and described it as intended to give assessors direction when they must value motor vehicles that are not listed in standard guides such as NADA or Kelley Blue Book. "This gives them direction that they can base it on the trading value," Reuter said, adding that assessors sometimes lack a reliable published reference for specialty, rare, or older vehicles.
Resident witness Ian McFarland testified of personal disputes with Boone County valuation where he said his specialty Audi was assessed at retail rather than trade‑in values and described difficulties and adversarial tone in appeals to the State Tax Commission. McFarland urged statutory language to make trade‑in value explicit: "The law explicitly states shall not charge a value greater than average trade in," he told the committee, and said he was denied the use of dealer data in his appeal.
Boone County Assessor Kenny Moore provided informational testimony and warned that removing or changing statutory valuation rules for vehicles two years or newer could create enforcement problems in years when trade‑in values are not published for the newest model years. He described current practice of interpolating between manufacturer retail and any available trade values and said assessors need discretion when guides lack coverage. "When I looked it up in the JD Power book, it did not have an average trade value," Moore said.
Committee members asked about the scale of the problem; McFarland estimated the issue affects a small but nontrivial slice of vehicles (he said as many as 5% in his circle), while Moore and other assessors stressed that most vehicles are covered by standard guides and that an appeals process to the State Tax Commission already exists. No committee vote was recorded during the hearing.
