Union County board narrows who may represent taxpayers in property appeals
Loading...
Summary
The Board of Equalization and Review of Union County voted to amend its rules to limit who may represent taxpayers in property-tax appeals, requiring business representatives to be officers, managers, W-2 employees authorized in writing, or owners with at least 25% interest, and restricting other non-attorney representation to narrow good-cause exceptions.
The Board of Equalization and Review of Union County adopted an amendment to its rules that narrows who may file appeals and who may represent taxpayers in hearings.
Staff member (S1), presenting the change, said the proposal is intended to curb mass or frivolous filings by tax-representative firms and to mirror the State Property Tax Commission’s approach. "If a property owner is a business entity, the entity may submit an appeal and be represented in front of the board through a non-attorney representative who is one or more of the following of the business entity: officer, manager, or member-manager; employee whose income is reported on IRS Form W-2 if the business entity authorizes the representation in writing; or owner of the business entity if the owner's interest is at least 25 percent," S1 read from the draft rule.
Staff also described a new "good cause" exception allowing non-attorney representation for natural-person taxpayers only in limited circumstances, such as physical or mental illness, death of the taxpayer or immediate family member, or active military deployment. Staff said written documentation supporting good cause must accompany an appeal filing or representation request and that the board will make the final determination whether good cause is met.
Members asked whether the change could be legally challenged. S1 said county attorneys, led by Ben Isley, reviewed the language and that several other counties have moved in the same direction this year. "We've vetted this and it almost mirrors the property tax commission statute," S1 said, adding that the board had discussed potential bar-rule concerns and concluded the language is defensible.
A motion from Ashcraft to accept the proposed changes was recorded, seconded (Mr. Smith), and approved by voice vote. Chair (S2) called for the ayes, and the motion carried; the staff said the official rules document will be revised and posted at the next meeting.
The change limits mass representation by tax-representative firms: taxpayers may still use consultant firms as witnesses, but the taxpayer must be present and the firm may not independently represent multiple taxpayers by blanket power-of-attorney. The board's staff said the rule is intended to make hearings more efficient and reduce staff time spent chasing representatives who do not appear.
The board's decision applies to appeals under the 2025 reappraisal cycle (values as of 01/01/2025). Staff said the county currently has about 315 appeals this year and that most of last year's carryover cases have been settled or remain at the Property Tax Commission.
