Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Property Tax Appeals topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

County denies several tax‑penalty waiver requests, approves a small first‑time late‑payment forgiveness

Utah County Commission · March 31, 2021
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The commission reviewed multiple property‑tax penalty appeals, approving waivers for two small first‑time late payments (Chung Chen) and declining or failing to approve larger requests that had prior late payments or insufficient evidence.

Utah County commissioners considered a series of property‑tax penalty appeals and took mixed action: they approved waivers for two small first‑time late payments and declined or deferred relief for other properties with prior delinquencies or procedural questions.

Commissioners approved waivers for two parcels owned by Chung Chen after staff confirmed the owner took title in February 2019 and that 2020 was the first late payment year. The waived penalties were about $12.08 and $19.35 respectively.

Other requests drew closer scrutiny. A request from Peak Joaquin Holdings for a $2,941 waiver was not seconded and therefore failed; commissioners noted this was not a first‑time delinquency. A Pamela Sesh request alleging a mailed check that did not clear likewise did not receive Board approval without additional documentation. A separate case involving misdirected tax notices tied to a vesting deed listing an attorney’s address (Benjamin Wohan) was judged an owner filing/addressing error and not approved. For a Carter parcel seeking rollback forgiveness tied to greenbelt status, commissioners noted that greenbelt determinations fall under the Board of Equalization; the appropriate remedy for disputed BOE decisions is appeal to the state tax commission and in many cases the statutory appeal window may have lapsed.

Commissioners repeatedly said they were willing to consider humanitarian or first‑time errors but were cautious about broadly forgiving penalties where the tax history showed repeated delinquencies. Where motions to approve were made without a second, no action was taken. The Board’s decisions reflected a combination of staff review, property history and a desire to avoid setting a broad precedent for waiving penalties.