{ "id": 8525989, "name": "In the matter of: THE APPEAL OF LEE MEMORY GARDENS, INC. from the appraisal of certain real property by the Lee County Board of Equalization and Review for the tax year 1990", "name_abbreviation": "In re the Appeal of Lee Memory Gardens, Inc.", "decision_date": "1993-06-15", "docket_number": "No. 9210PTC485", "first_page": "541", "last_page": "551", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "110 N.C. App. 541" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.", "id": 14983, "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7\u00a7 65-46", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "215 S.E.2d 752", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1975, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "761-62" }, { "page": "762", "parenthetical": "emphasis in the original" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "287 N.C. 547", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8564265 ], "year": 1975, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "562" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/287/0547-01" ] }, { "cite": "160 S.E.2d 293", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 5, "year": 1968, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "294", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" }, { "page": "294-95", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" }, { "page": "294" }, { "page": "295" }, { "page": "295" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "273 N.C. 467", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8575602 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1968, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "469", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" }, { "page": "469-70" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/273/0467-01" ] }, { "cite": "112 S.E.2d 528", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1960, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "533" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "251 N.C. 775", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8627484 ], "year": 1960, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "782" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/251/0775-01" ] }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 105-278.2", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(b)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "372 S.E.2d 342", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "345", "parenthetical": "applying N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 150B-51(b)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "91 N.C. App. 459", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8525947 ], "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "464", "parenthetical": "applying N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 150B-51(b)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/91/0459-01" ] }, { "cite": "345 S.E.2d 235", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "238", "parenthetical": "applying former Chapter 150A which is now recodified as Chapter 150B" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "81 N.C. App. 628", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8524768 ], "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "633", "parenthetical": "applying former Chapter 150A which is now recodified as Chapter 150B" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/81/0628-01" ] }, { "cite": "401 S.E.2d 358", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "328 N.C. 322", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2543513 ], "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/328/0322-01" ] }, { "cite": "393 S.E.2d 897", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1990, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "326 N.C. 800", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 5308643, 5307752, 5306835, 5305817, 5304543 ], "year": 1990, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/326/0800-01", "/nc/326/0800-03", "/nc/326/0800-02", "/nc/326/0800-04", "/nc/326/0800-05" ] }, { "cite": "386 S.E.2d 588", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "589" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "96 N.C. App. 571", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8523613 ], "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "574" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/96/0571-01" ] }, { "cite": "401 S.E.2d 391", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "393" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "102 N.C. App. 38", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8521822 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "39" }, { "page": "40" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/102/0038-01" ] }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 105-345.2", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(c)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 745, "char_count": 22161, "ocr_confidence": 0.771, "pagerank": { "raw": 8.201480102213815e-08, "percentile": 0.47601153580768607 }, "sha256": "697a04af0fc0e7182884b62112fc5cd262078e6fd7d03be3e2905fac1bc067bb", "simhash": "1:c9aa4348ce2b6d44", "word_count": 3643 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:46:54.224272+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges JOHNSON and McCRODDEN concur." ], "parties": [ "In the matter of: THE APPEAL OF LEE MEMORY GARDENS, INC. from the appraisal of certain real property by the Lee County Board of Equalization and Review for the tax year 1990" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "ORR, Judge.\nThe 14.14 acre tract of land at issue in this case has been irrevocably dedicated for use exclusively as a cemetery under the North Carolina Cemetery Act. Thus, no part of the Tract can be sold, mortgaged or used except for human burial. Of this tract, 7.14 acres are unplotted, undeveloped land, not being offered for sale or use as burial sites. Additionally, as of 1 January 1990, there were 1,216 unsold burial sites plotted and marked off with landscaping and access driveways. In 1989, the Taxpayer added a mausoleum with 288 crypts at a cost of $154,080, of which 126 were pre-sold. As of 1 January 1990, 162 crypts remained unsold.\nI.\nAt the outset, we note that our scope of review in cases that have been appealed from the Commission is determined by N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 105-345.2. \u201cThis procedure for review is the same as that under the Administrative Procedure Act, Chapter 150B (formerly Chapter 150A).\u201d In re Appeal of General Tire, 102 N.C. App. 38, 39, 401 S.E.2d 391, 393 (1991). G.S. \u00a7 105-345.2 states in pertinent part:\n(b) So far as necessary to the decision and where presented, the court shall decide all relevant questions of law, interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, and determine the meaning and applicability of the terms of any Commission action. The court may affirm or reverse the decision of the Commission, declare the same null and void, or remand the case for further proceedings; or it may reverse or modify the decision if the substantial rights of the appellants have been prejudiced because the Commission\u2019s findings, inferences, conclusions or decisions are:\n(1) In violation of constitutional provisions; or\n(2) In excess of statutory authority or jurisdiction of the\nCommission; or\n(3) Made upon unlawful proceedings; or\n(4) Affected by other errors of law; or\n(5) Unsupported by competent, material and substantial evidence in view of the entire record as submitted; or\n(6) Arbitrary or capricious.\n(c) In making the foregoing determinations, the court shall review the whole record or such portions thereof as may be cited by any party and due account shall be taken of the rule of prejudicial error. The appellant shall not be permitted to rely upon any grounds for relief on appeal which were not set forth specifically in his notice of appeal filed with the Commission.\n\u201cAn appellate court may not, however, \u2018substitute its judgment for that of the agency when two reasonable conflicting results could be reached. . . .\u2019 \u201d In re Appeal of Foundation Health Sys. Corp., 96 N.C. App. 571, 574, 386 S.E.2d 588, 589 (1989), disc. review allowed, 326 N.C. 800, 393 S.E.2d 897 (1990), review dismissed by, 328 N.C. 322, 401 S.E.2d 358 (1991) (citation omitted). \u201cOn appeal, our review is limited to a determination of whether the decision is supported by substantial evidence, in view of the \u2018entire record\u2019 as submitted.\u201d General Tire, 102 N.C. App. at 40, 401 S.E.2d at 393 (citations omitted).\nThe Commission\u2019s \u201cfindings of fact are conclusive if, upon review of the whole record, they are supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence.\u201d In re Humana Hosp. Corp. v. North Carolina Dep\u2019t of Human Resources, 81 N.C. App. 628, 633, 345 S.E.2d 235, 238 (1986) (applying former Chapter 150A which is now recodified as Chapter 150B). We apply a de novo review, however, to our review of the Commission\u2019s statutory interpretation, as \u201c[i]ncorrect statutory interpretation by [the Commission] constitutes an error of law. . . .\u201d Brooks v. Rebarco, Inc., 91 N.C. App. 459, 464, 372 S.E.2d 342, 345 (1988) (applying N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 150B-51(b)).\nII.\nIn the present case, the Taxpayer has raised three issues for our review. The first issue relates to whether the Commission erred in ruling that the 7.14 acres of undeveloped land was not exempt from taxation as of 1 January 1990, pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 105-278.2. The second issue relates to the valuation method employed by the County Assessor. The third issue relates to whether the County unconstitutionally discriminated against the Taxpayer in its valuation of the undeveloped tract of land. We begin by addressing the. Taxpayer\u2019s arguments under N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 105-278.2.\nG.S. \u00a7 105-278.2(a) states, \u201cReal property set apart for burial purposes shall be exempted from taxation unless it is owned and held for purposes of (i) sale or rental or (ii) sale of burial rights therein.\u201d The Taxpayer contends that based on this statute the Commission erred by not finding that the 7.14 acres of undeveloped land was exempt from taxation.\nIn support of its contention, the Taxpayer argues that the distinction in G.S. \u00a7 105-278.2(a) between real property \u201cset apart for burial purposes\u201d and property held for purposes of \u201csale\u201d should be interpreted as distinguishing between the undeveloped property in the cemetery and the property which has been platted and developed for burial purposes. Based on this argument, the Taxpayer contends that the only part of the cemetery property which is \u201cheld for purposes of . . . sale\u201d under this statute is that part which is platted and developed for burial sites. Further, the Taxpayer argues that the undeveloped property in the cemetery falls under the statutory language, \u201c[r]eal property set apart for burial purposes\u201d that is not held for sale and is therefore exempt from taxation.\nWe must interpret the language of the statute to determine whether the Taxpayer is correct in its argument. \u201cThe words used in the statute must be given their natural or ordinary meaning.\u201d Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, Inc. v. Wake County, 251 N.C. 775, 782, 112 S.E.2d 528, 533 (1960). \u201c \u2018Statutes exempting specific property from taxation because of the purposes for which such property is held and used, are and should be construed strictly, when there is room for construction, against exemption and in favor of taxation.\u2019 \u201d Over-look Cemetery, Inc. v. Rockingham County, 273 N.C. 467, 469, 160 S.E.2d 293, 294 (1968) (citation omitted). This rule does not, however, mean that the statute must \u201c \u2018be stintingly or even narrowly construed.\u2019 \u201d Id. at 469, 160 S.E.2d at 294-95 (citation omitted).\nOur Supreme Court interpreted the language \u201cset apart for burial purposes\u201d and \u201cowned and held for purposes of sale or rental\u201d in Over-look Cemetery, Inc., supra. At the time Over-look was decided, this language appeared in G.S. \u00a7 105-296(2) which was the applicable exemption statute. At that time, G.S. \u00a7 105-296(2) stated, \u201c \u2018The following real property, and no other, shall be exempted from taxation: ... (2) Real property, tombs, vaults, and mausoleums set apart for burial purposes, except such as are owned and held for purposes of sale or rental. . . .\u2019 \u201d Over-look Cemetery, Inc., supra, at 469, 160 S.E.2d at 294.\nThe plaintiff in Over-look was a North Carolina corporation which owned property in Overlook Cemetery that consisted of grave spaces and unmapped and undeveloped land. The plaintiff was appealing the ad valorem taxes it had to pay on this property and alleged that its property was exempt under the language of G.S. \u00a7 105-296(2).\nOur Supreme Court stated:\nThe words used in G.S. 105-296(2), when given their ordinary meaning, are clear and require no construction. The statute .distinguishes between real property \u201cset apart for burial purposes,\u201d which is exempt, and that \u201cowned and held for purposes of sale or rental,\u201d which is not exempt. Obviously, plaintiff\u2019s property will not be used by plaintiff for burial purposes. It is owned and held by plaintiff for sale to purchasers who in turn will use it for burial, purposes. When the words, \u201cset apart for burial purposes,\u201d and the words, \u201cowned and held for purposes of sale or rental,\u201d are considered contextually, we are of opinion, and so decide, that the exemption contemplated by G.S. 105-296(2) refers only to real property presently in use for burial purposes and property owned and held by persons for their use for burial purposes.\nOver-look Cemetery, Inc., 273 N.C. at 469-70, 160 S.E.2d at 295. Further, the Court held that the plaintiff\u2019s property was not exempt from ad valorem taxes under the language of this statute because \u201cplaintiff\u2019s property [was] not held for its use for burial purposes but solely for the purpose of sale to others. . . .\u201d Id. at 470, 160 S.E.2d at 295.\nIn the case sub judice, the applicable exemption statute contains the same language that the old exemption statute contained. The fact that the General Assembly chose to use language in G.S. \u00a7 105-278.2, the exemption statute before us, that is identical to the language found in G.S. \u00a7 105-296(2), the old exemption statute, is a strong indication that the General Assembly intended the same interpretation of this language given to it in the old statute. Thus, we will apply our Supreme Court\u2019s interpretation of this language in Over-look to the case before us.\nThe Taxpayer in the present case contends that its undeveloped, unmapped land is real property set aside for burial purposes but not held for sale such that it is exempt from taxes under G.S. \u00a7 105-278.2. Based on the holding in Over-look, we disagree. The Court in Over-look held,\n[w]hen the words, \u201cset apart for burial purposes,\u201d and the words, \u201cowned and held for purposes of sale...,\u201d are considered contextually, . . . [the exemption in the statute] refers only to real property presently in use for burial purposes and property owned and held by persons for their use for burial purposes.\nOver-look Cemetery, Inc., supra.\nLike the plaintiff in Over-look, the Taxpayer in the present case is a corporation which owns undeveloped, unmapped land as part of a tract of land set apart as a cemetery. In the case of the Taxpayer, this land has been irrevocably dedicated for use exclusively as a cemetery under the North Carolina Cemetery Act. Additionally, like the plaintiff in Over-look, the Taxpayer is not holding undeveloped land for its burial. Thus, because the undeveloped land is irrevocably dedicated for use exclusively as a cemetery, the Taxpayer can only be holding it for the purpose of sale to others as burial sites, like the plaintiff in Over-look. The Taxpayer\u2019s undeveloped, unmapped land does not, therefore, fall under the exemption of G.S. \u00a7 105-278.2 as tax-exempt property. Accordingly, we find no error with the Commission\u2019s decision to affirm the taxing of this property.\nIII.\nNext, the Taxpayer contends that the Commission erred in approving the appraisal method used by the County when it valued the Taxpayer\u2019s property. In support of its contention, the Taxpayer brings forward two arguments: (1) that the appraisal method used by the County to assess the undeveloped tract of land and the burial sites failed to follow N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 105-278.2(b), and (2) that the replacement cost method should be applied to value all perpetual care cemetery property.\nIn order to successfully challenge the method of appraisal, the Taxpayer must first overcome the presumption in North Carolina that ad valorem property tax assessments are correct. See, In re Appeal of Amp, Inc., 287 N.C. 547, 562, 215 S.E.2d 752, 761-62 (1975). In order to rebut this presumption and prove that a method used by the tax assessor was incorrect, a taxpayer has the burden of showing by competent, material and substantial evidence that:\n(1) Either the county tax supervisor used an arbitrary method of valuation; or (2) the county tax supervisor used an illegal method of valuation; And (3) the assessment substantially exceeded the true value in money of the property. (Citation omitted.) Simply stated, it is not enough for the taxpayer to show that the means adopted by the tax supervisor were wrong, he must also show that the result arrived at is substantially greater than the true value in money of the property assessed, i.e., that the valuation was unreasonably high. (Citation omitted.)\nId. at 563, 215 S.E.2d at 762 (emphasis in the original).\nIn the present case, the Taxpayer has failed to meet the burden of proving that the result of the assessment of his property was \u201csubstantially\u201d greater than the true value in money of the property assessed.\nOn the issue of valuation, the Commission found:\n1. During 1989, the Taxpayer constructed a mausoleum containing 288 crypts. One hundred and twenty-six (126) of these crypts were sold by the Taxpayer, on a pre-need basis, prior to 1 January 1990. For each crypt sold, the Taxpayer received a price of approximately $1,495.\n10. In its appraisal of the Taxpayer\u2019s mausoleum, the County correctly applied its schedule of values. The Commission finds that the value assigned to the mausoleum ($150,100) did not exceed the true value in money of the mausoleum as of 1 January 1990. To the contrary, the Taxpayer\u2019s evidence as to the sales price of crypt spaces in this mausoleum suggests that the County\u2019s appraisal may have been substantially less than the true value in money of the property as of 1 January 1990.\n11. In its appraisal of the Taxpayer\u2019s 1,216 unsold burial sites at a value of $3,500, the County properly applied its schedule of values. Under the schedule, burial land was assigned a value of $2,500 per acre, with improvements to be appraised separately. Based on the Taxpayer\u2019s evidence concerning the sales price of burial spaces, the Commission finds that the County appraised these burial sites at a value substantially less than the true value in money of the property as of 1 January 1990.\n12. As to the remaining 7.14 acres of undeveloped land, the County properly applied its schedule of values, which required the assignment of a value of $2,500 per acre to burial land, with improvements to be appraised separately. Based on the Taxpayer\u2019s evidence as to the sale[s] price of burial sites, the Commission finds that the County appraised the Taxpayer\u2019s 7.14 acres of undeveloped land at a value substantially less than the true value in money of the property as of 1 January 1990.\n13. It is apparent from the County\u2019s evidence concerning land values in the immediate neighborhood of the subject property that both the 1,216 unsold burial sites and the 7.14 acres of undeveloped land were appraised by the County at a value substantially less than the true value in money of the property as of 1 January 1990. Applying the principle of substitution, which holds that one way to determine the value of a thing is to determine the cost of replacing it, it is clear that if another cemetery operator wished, on 1 January 1990, to purchase land near the Taxpayer, dedicate it to cemetery use, and compete with the Taxpayer, that operator would have paid much more for the land than $2,500 per acre, and would then have been required to make additional expenditures to develop it for cemetery use.\n14. The Commission finds additional support for its conclusion that the County appraised both the 1,216 unsold burial sites and the 7.14 acres of undeveloped land at a value substantially less than its true value in money as of 1 January 1990 in the Taxpayer\u2019s evidence concerning the sales prices of burial spaces.\nOur review of the Commission\u2019s findings of fact is limited to a determination of whether they are supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence. See, In re Humana Hosp. Corp., supra. Further, we must give due account to the rule of prejudicial error. N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 105-345.2(c). After careful review of the record before us, we find competent, material, and substantial evidence to support the findings of the Commission. Thus, the Taxpayer has failed to prove that the valuation of the Tract was substantially greater than its true value. Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the Commission affirming the valuation of the Taxpayer\u2019s property.\nIV.\nFinally, the Taxpayer contends that Lee County unconstitutionally discriminated against the Taxpayer in its valuation of the Tract.\nIn support of its contention Taxpayer states in its brief:\nThe Buffalo-Jonesboro Cemetery, Inc. owns and operates a commercial perpetual care cemetery in Lee County on a 19 acre tract. None of its property was taxed by Lee County prior to 1990. In January 1990 only 3.42 acres of the Buffalo Cemetery tract was assessed for taxation. No undeveloped land was assessed. The unsold mausoleum crypts were assessed at $570.00 per crypt.\nFirst of all, the record before us is void of any evidence that Buffalo-Jonesboro Cemetery owns any undeveloped land. In addition, the record shows that in 1990 and 1991, Lee County assessed the property owned by Buff alo-Jonesboro Cemetery that consisted of unsold burial sites at a value of $2,500 per acre, the same value the County assessed to the Taxpayer\u2019s unsold burial sites. Further, on the issue of why the County assessed the unsold mausoleum crypts owned by Buff alo-Jonesboro Cemetery at a value of $570 per crypt, the Assessor testified,\nthere is quite a difference in the quality and the construction of the [Buffalo-Jonesboro mausoleum and Taxpayer\u2019s mausoleum]. The Buffalo mausoleum is all open. It has a concrete roof covering with overhang for the sides coming down to center. The Lee Memory Gardens mausoleum is a better quality. It does have an enclosed chapel type area between the clusters of crypts.\nAdditionally, the record before us is also void of any evidence that the County intentionally failed to tax the Buff alo-Jonesboro Cemetery before 1990.\nBased on our review of the record, there is no evidence of discrimination against the Taxpayer in the 1990 valuation of its cemetery property. We accordingly overrule the Taxpayer\u2019s assignment of error.\nAffirmed.\nJudges JOHNSON and McCRODDEN concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "ORR, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "County Attorney Kenneth R. Hoyle, Sr. for appellee Lee County.", "Hern\u00e1n R. Clark for appellant Lee Memory Gardens, Inc." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "In the matter of: THE APPEAL OF LEE MEMORY GARDENS, INC. from the appraisal of certain real property by the Lee County Board of Equalization and Review for the tax year 1990\nNo. 9210PTC485\n(Filed 15 June 1993)\n1. Taxation \u00a7 25.11 (NCI3d) \u2014 appeal from Property Tax Commission \u2014 scope of review\nThe scope of review in cases that have been appealed from the Property Tax Commission is the same as under the Administrative Procedure Act. The Commission\u2019s findings of fact are conclusive if, upon review of the whole record, they are supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence. A de novo review is applied to \u25a0 review the Commission\u2019s statutory interpretation.\nAm Jur 2d, State and Local Taxation \u00a7\u00a7 810-816.\n2. Taxation \u00a7 25.4 (NCI3d)\u2014 ad valorem taxes \u2014 cemetery\u2014 undeveloped land \u2014 not exempt\nThe Property Tax Commission did not err by ruling that 7.14 acres of undeveloped land held by a corporation licensed to operate a perpetual care cemetery was not tax exempt. Although the taxpayer contended that the distinction in N.C.G.S. \u00a7 105-278.2(a) between real property \u201cset apart for burial purposes\u201d and property held for purposes of \u201csale\u201d should be interpreted as distinguishing between the undeveloped property in the cemetery and the property which has been platted and developed for burial purposes, the land has been irrevocably dedicated for use exclusively as a cemetery under the North Carolina Cemetery Act and the taxpayer is not holding the undeveloped land for its burial. The taxpayer can only be holding the land for the purposes of sale to others as burial sites and it is not tax exempt under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 105-278.2.\nAm Jur 2d, State and Local Taxation \u00a7 390.\n3. Taxation \u00a7 25.4 (NCI3d)\u2014 ad valorem taxes \u2014undeveloped cemetery property \u2014method of valuation \u2014findings of Commission supported by evidence\nAlthough the taxpayer contended that the Property Tax Commission erred in approving the appraisal method used by the County when it valued the taxpayer\u2019s undeveloped cemetery property, the findings of the Property Tax Commission were supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence and the taxpayer thus failed to prove that the valuation was substantially greater than the true value. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 105-345.2(c).\nAm Jur 2d, State and Local Taxation \u00a7 390.\n4. Constitutional Law \u00a7 92 (NCI4th)\u2014 ad valorem taxation\u2014 cemeteries \u2014no evidence of discrimination in valuation\nThere was no evidence of discrimination against the taxpayer in the 1990 valuation of its cemetery property where there was no evidence that another commercial cemetery cited by the taxpayer owns undeveloped land, as does the taxpayer, the County assessed burial sites in the other cemetery at the same value as the taxpayer\u2019s, and, although unsold mausoleum crypts were assessed at a different value, there was evidence that the taxpayer\u2019s mausoleum crypts were of a better quality.\nAm Jur 2d, Constitutional Law \u00a7\u00a7 784-910; State and Local Taxation \u00a7\u00a7 170 et seq.\nAppeal by taxpayer Lee Memory Gardens, Inc. from the final decision of the North Carolina Property Tax Commission entered 24 February 1992 by Vice-Chairman John A. Cocklereece. Heard in the Court of Appeals 15 April 1993.\nLee Memory Gardens, Inc. (the \u201cTaxpayer\u201d) is a corporation licensed to operate a perpetual care cemetery under the North Carolina Cemetery Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7\u00a7 65-46 to 65-73. Taxpayer is appealing the assessed valuation of its 14.14 acre tract of land (the \u201cTract\u201d) for ad valorem taxes effective 1 January 1990.\nIn 1990, the Lee County Assessor assessed a total valuation to the Tract of $171,500 for ad valorem tax purposes, broken down into the following valuations: (1) $2,500 per acre for the 7.14 undeveloped, unplotted acres for a total valuation of $17,900; (2) $2,500 per acre for the 1,216 unsold burial sites consisting of 1.40 acres, amounting to a total valuation of $3,500; (3) $927 for each of the 162 unsold crypts, amounting to a total valuation of $150,100.\nSubsequently, the Lee County Board of Equalization and Review (the \u201cBoard\u201d) declined to reduce this assessment value upon Taxpayer\u2019s petition. From the Board\u2019s decision, the Taxpayer appealed to the North Carolina Property Tax Commission (the \u201cCommission\u201d). On 24 February 1992, the Commission entered a Final Decision affirming the Board\u2019s decision. From this decision, the Taxpayer appeals.\nCounty Attorney Kenneth R. Hoyle, Sr. for appellee Lee County.\nHern\u00e1n R. Clark for appellant Lee Memory Gardens, Inc." }, "file_name": "0541-01", "first_page_order": 571, "last_page_order": 581 }