The Oklahoma County Tax Review Commission voted to confess a lack of notice for a taxpayer’s valuation dispute and referred the matter to the Board of Equalization for a hearing, after discussion over whether a parent–subsidiary transfer of property value should be subject to the 5% increase cap.

The board opened the item by identifying the property as “Diamond Ridge” and noting a presence by David Potts. Speaker 4 summarized a recent change in assessed value, saying, "It was $3.51, and it went to $4.25," and referencing a figure of "425,000." The panel spent much of the discussion parsing whether the transfer between a subsidiary and a parent company is excluded from the statutory 5% transfer rule.

Legal and procedural questions drove the debate. Speaker 4 cited constitutional and statutory language, saying, "68, 28 71 dot 1 says you can't" treat parent–subsidiary transfers as triggering the 5% transfer limit. Miss Crawford (identified in the record) told the board an Attorney General opinion had bearing on the scope of the panel’s authority and outlined the taxpayer’s usual remedies: "The taxpayers' first recourse is to informal hearing before the assessor, and, we can go on to the county court authorization and then, of course, off district court." She also emphasized that statutory corrections to the tax rolls are limited to a prescribed set of reasons.

Board members raised timeliness and standing questions about a deed filed in 2022 and refund requests for 2022 and 2023. Speaker 5 (counseling the panel) said ownership and beneficiary identity would be key facts to resolve the claim and cautioned that some relief may be foreclosed if the taxpayer had timely notice.

For a later, separate case where the assessor’s mailing address was entered incorrectly, Speaker 5 proposed a remedial path: make a factual finding that the taxpayer did not receive notice due to a clerical error, "confess" lack of notice, and refer the matter to the Board of Equalization so the taxpayer receives a hearing. Speaker 3 moved "to confess a lack of notice to the taxpayer," the motion was seconded, and the board approved the referral by voice vote.

The meeting record shows the commission conducted other routine business as well: it approved the minutes of Nov. 10 and returned to and approved item 2 after the referral vote. The transcript does not provide a roll-call tally; voice votes were recorded with the board answering ‘aye.’

What happens next: the matter the commission confessed will be placed on the Board of Equalization’s agenda for a hearing, where factual determinations about notice and valuation can be made and any appropriate adjustments to tax records considered.