Buncombe board rules valuation change must be applied prospectively in Black Mountain tax appeal

The Buncombe County Board of Equalization and Review voted 3–1 on Aug. 18 to treat a recent reassessment of 11 Hunting Lodge Road in Black Mountain as a change in appraised value under N.C. Gen. Stat. §105-287 and to apply any new valuation prospectively rather than collecting retroactive taxes under the immaterial irregularity or discovered-property statutes.

The decision came after the assessor’s staff notified then-owners John and Penny Stollery that unlisted improvements had been identified and issued bills described in the staff packet as immaterial irregularity notices for tax years 2020 through 2024. The owners’ attorney, Anna Stearns, argued the permits for the work had been on record with the town of Black Mountain and that the county had access to the information earlier; she asked the board to rescind the retroactive bills or, if a value change were appropriate, to apply it only prospectively.

Brian Marshall, residential appraiser supervisor in the Buncombe County Assessor’s Office, told the board staff used MLS listing information and sales data to identify an undervalued sale and concluded that an immaterial irregularity notice (N.C.G.S. §105-394) should be issued for five years back to 2020. Marshall described the subject property as a single-story primary dwelling of about 1,196 square feet with a 541-square-foot accessory dwelling unit; he said staff revised the property record card after reviewing the listing and sales information and added a $10,000 home-site modifier for the second dwelling. "Even in a permanent listing system, owners of real property in North Carolina remain responsible for listing buildings and other improvements valued at more than $100," Marshall said during his presentation.

Stearns urged the board to view the facts through three separate statutory schemes—immaterial irregularity, discovered property (N.C.G.S. §105-312) and change in value (N.C.G.S. §105-287)—and asserted the county’s own records and affidavits show the renovations were permitted and on file with the town. "The statute is not intended to cover situations where the county failed to properly value the improvements based on information already in its possession," Stearns said, arguing that §105-287 (change in appraised value in non‑reappraisal years) is the applicable statute and allows prospective relief only.

Board members questioned staff about why permits or permit data had not earlier triggered an update of the property card. County staff said permit-processing is manual and can fail to surface every historical permit; they described current practice of reviewing monthly permit reports, flagging potential value changers and following up as needed. Staff also confirmed the property had been listed for sale 04/26/2025 at $725,000 and closed 06/12/2025 at $750,000; the immaterial irregularity notices were mailed May 9, 2025 and the formal appeal arrived June 6, 2025, with the property transferring to Marvin and Donna Davis on June 12.

During deliberations Chair Randall Barnett said he had initially planned to recommend waiving interest while requiring payment of back taxes, but the legal framing and mixing of statutory language in the notice led the board to a different conclusion. Barnett noted the board had three reappraisal cycles since the renovations and that the notice quoted both immaterial irregularity and discovery language, which complicated the statutory analysis.

On a 3–1 vote the board concluded the change-in-value statute (§105-287) best described the situation and directed that any valuation change be applied prospectively rather than as a five-year retroactive tax assessment under immaterial irregularity or discovered‑property remedies. The board did not adopt the county appraiser staff’s recommendation to pursue retroactive taxes under the immaterial irregularity notice.

The board closed the hearing after issuing its ruling; members said staff and commissioners could consider administrative changes—such as adding a permit‑application prompt to notify the assessor—so property owners better understand the separate duty to report property changes for tax purposes.

What the board decided and why will be reflected in the written order and may be subject to further appeal in the Property Tax Commission or courts, the board and counsel noted. The hearing record shows the board debated statutory interpretation and notice practices rather than disputing the existence of improvements, which both sides agreed were permitted and on file with the town of Black Mountain.