{ "id": 9248791, "name": "IN THE MATTER OF: APPEAL OF THE LANE COMPANY-HICKORY CHAIR DIVISION FROM THE DECISION OF THE CATAWBA COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION AND REVIEW CONCERNING REAL PROPERTY TAXATION FOR TAX YEAR 1999", "name_abbreviation": "In re Appeal of the Lane Co.-Hickory Chair Division", "decision_date": "2002-09-17", "docket_number": "No. COA01-1343", "first_page": "119", "last_page": "128", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "153 N.C. App. 119" } ], "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": "444 S.E.2d 689", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "692" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "115 N.C. App. 469", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 12133086 ], "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "475" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/115/0469-01" ] }, { "cite": "296 S.E.2d 463", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "467" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "59 N.C. App. 119", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8525886 ], "year": 1985, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/59/0119-01" ] }, { "cite": "192 S.E.2d 811", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1972, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "816-17" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "282 N.C. 402", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8565405 ], "year": 1972, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "410" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/282/0402-01" ] }, { "cite": "215 S.E.2d 752", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 4, "year": 1975, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "761" }, { "page": "762" }, { "page": "762" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "287 N.C. 547", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8564265 ], "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/287/0547-01" ] }, { "cite": "519 S.E.2d 52", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1999, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "351 N.C. 1", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 1155593 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1999, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/351/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "328 S.E.2d 235", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "239" }, { "page": "239" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "313 N.C. 177", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4724189 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "181" }, { "page": "182" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/313/0177-01" ] }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 105-283", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "273 S.E.2d 300", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "301 N.C. 107", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8564256, 8564233, 8564290, 8564187 ], "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/301/0107-03", "/nc/301/0107-02", "/nc/301/0107-04", "/nc/301/0107-01" ] }, { "cite": "269 S.E.2d 547", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "565" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "300 N.C. 381", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8562647 ], "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "406" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/300/0381-01" ] }, { "cite": "401 S.E.2d 391", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "393", "parenthetical": "citing Comr. of Insurance v. Rate Bureau, 300 N.C. 381, 406, 269 S.E.2d 547, 565, reh'g denied, 301 N.C. 107, 273 S.E.2d 300-01 (1980)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "102 N.C. App. 38", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8521822 ], "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "40", "parenthetical": "citing Comr. of Insurance v. Rate Bureau, 300 N.C. 381, 406, 269 S.E.2d 547, 565, reh'g denied, 301 N.C. 107, 273 S.E.2d 300-01 (1980)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/102/0038-01" ] }, { "cite": "233 S.E.2d 538", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1977, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "544", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "292 N.C. 406", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8569880 ], "year": 1977, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "414", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/292/0406-01" ] }, { "cite": "339 S.E.2d 681", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 4, "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "684" }, { "page": "685" }, { "page": "685" }, { "page": "686" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "79 N.C. App. 335", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8520687 ], "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "341" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/79/0335-01" ] }, { "cite": "519 S.E.2d 60", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "59" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "135 N.C. App. 122", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11239402 ], "year": 1999, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/135/0122-01" ] }, { "cite": "325 S.E.2d 260", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "266" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "72 N.C. App. 372", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8526819 ], "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "375-76" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/72/0372-01" ] }, { "cite": "340 S.E.2d 755", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "750-760" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "79 N.C. App. 678", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8523105 ], "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "684" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/79/0678-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 859, "char_count": 21111, "ocr_confidence": 0.75, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.690110720644096e-07, "percentile": 0.9284079882649529 }, "sha256": "ae321159e0079f0de22f1b3db224afa930687b3077df9e58fc01dc150ca3c935", "simhash": "1:aa6174394f3f3554", "word_count": 3357 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:17:05.865609+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges MARTIN and THOMAS concur." ], "parties": [ "IN THE MATTER OF: APPEAL OF THE LANE COMPANY-HICKORY CHAIR DIVISION FROM THE DECISION OF THE CATAWBA COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION AND REVIEW CONCERNING REAL PROPERTY TAXATION FOR TAX YEAR 1999" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "TYSON, Judge.\nCatawba County appeals the Final Decision of the North Carolina Property Tax Commission (\u201cCommission\u201d), entered 11 June 2001 which valued the subject property at $2,020,000.00. We affirm the decision of the Commission.\nI. Facts\nA. Description of Property\nThe Lane Company (\u201cTaxpayer\u201d) owns a multistory manufacturing facility of approximately 573,980 feet located on 10.54 acres in Catawba County.\nThe original facility was built in the 1920\u2019s. Multiple additions were made in the 1950\u2019s and 1960\u2019s, with one addition built as recently as 1980. The facility\u2019s use is devoted to the manufacturing of residential furniture products, one of the businesses of the taxpayer. The overall age of the building is estimated to be fifty years with a remaining life of fifteen to twenty years.\nTestimony before the Commission tended to show that the overall condition of the building is physically poor due to cracked floors and walls and sags in the ceilings. The Commission found that the improvements are functionally obsolete due to ceiling heights and varying levels of the floors, and that certain areas of the building are not used for these reasons.\nCatawba County assessed the property at a total value of $3,820,000; $3,360,900 for the improvements and $459,100 for the land for the year 1999. Taxpayer appealed the county\u2019s assessment of the property to the county board of equalization and review, and the board affirmed the county\u2019s value. At the hearing before the Commission, the county adjusted the total assessment to $3,459,500.\nB. Valuation Procedures\nCatawba County employs three appraisal methods including cost, income capitalization, and sales comparison to value property for assessment of ad valorem taxes. The county utilized the income approach to value the subject property with an initial assessment of $3,820,000. The income approach is used to measure the present worth of the future benefits of a property by the capitalization of a net income stream over the remaining economic life of the property. According to Billy E. Little (\u201cLittle\u201d), a real estate appraiser employed by Catawba County and the county\u2019s expert at the hearing, the income capitalization approach is used to value 90-95% of all commercial property in Catawba County. The income method was applied to information supplied by the owners of manufacturing facilities who responded to a questionnaire. Six of the responders owned facilities containing more than 100,000 square feet of manufacturing space. Mr. Little testified that the county used 20 different property record cards while employing the income approach to consider the varying age and condition of this property.\nJames Marlow, MAI SGA (\u201cMarlow\u201d), qualified as an expert witness, and testified that use of the income capitalization method was improper to assess the value of the subject property. Marlow explained that the income method did not reflect the motivations of buyers and sellers of this type of property. Marlow further explained that the cost method was improper because of the substantial accrued depreciation, physical deterioration, and functional obsolescence associated with the building. Marlow testified that the sales comparison approach was the best method for valuing the subject property, as it is direct evidence of the marketplace and the subject property\u2019s position in the market. Marlow stated that the sales comparison approach was particularly appropriate here due to the facility being used by the owner.\nThe sales comparison approach compares the subject property with market data based upon an appropriate unit of comparison. Marlow\u2019s investigation of the subject property\u2019s value produced few local sales of properties. Marlow testified that the market for manufacturing facility property is regional in scope. Marlow cited eight representative sales, used these comparables with adjustments to determine the market value for the subject property, and opined the fair market value at $3.50 per square foot of building area. The Commission relied on Marlow\u2019s testimony to hold that Catawba County employed an arbitrary method of appraisal in reaching the assessed value. A divided Commission (3-2) valued the property at $2,020,000. Catawba County appeals.\nII. Issues\nCatawba County contends the Commission erred by (1) finding that the county employed an arbitrary method of valuation of the subject property and in deciding that the finding was supported by competent, material and substantial evidence, (2) failing to afford a presumption of correctness to the county\u2019s valuation of the subject property using the comparable sales method of assessment, (3) allowing Taxpayer to challenge the county\u2019s Schedule of Values during its appeal of the assessment of the subject property, and (4) finding that the true value of the subject property as of 1 January 1999, was two million twenty thousand dollars ($2,020,000).\nIII. Motion to Dismiss\nTaxpayer moved to dismiss the county\u2019s appeal based on alleged violations of Rules 10 and 28 of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure. Rule 10 sets forth the requirements for assigning error on appeal and Rule 28 outlines the function and content of the appellate briefs. \u201c[T]he appellant must except and assign error separately to each finding or conclusion that he or she contends is not supported by the evidence, then state which assignments support which questions in the brief.\u201d Concrete Service Corp. v. Investors Group, Inc., 79 N.C. App. 678, 684, 340 S.E.2d 755, 750-760 (1986).\nCatawba County\u2019s assignments of error on appeal as found in the record are broad, vague, and unspecific. They allege the final decision of the Commission to be \u201c[unsupported by competent, material and substantial evidence in view of the entire record... and [a]ffected by other errors of law, to wit: failure to follow the mandate of clearly applicable and controlling decisions of the North Carolina Supreme Court and Court of Appeals.\u201d\nThese assignments of error do not comply with the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure: \u201c[e]ach assignment of error shall, so far as practicable, be confined to a single issue of law; and shall state plainly, concisely and without argumentation the legal basis upon which error is assigned.\u201d N.C. R. App. P. 10(c)(1). \u201cA single assignment generally challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support numerous findings of fact, as here, is broadside and ineffective.\u201d Wade v. Wade, 72 N.C. App. 372, 375-76, 325 S.E.2d 260, 266 (1985).\nHere, the assignments of error contend four separate and distinct errors in two general assignments of error (one as to the facts and the other as to the conclusions of law) in violation of the rule.\nThe Rules of Appellate Procedure are designed to expedite appellate review. Catawba County\u2019s failure to observe the requirements of the Rules subjects their appeal to dismissal. See Bowen v. N.C. Dep\u2019t. of Health and Human Servs., 135 N.C. App. 122, 519 S.E.2d 60 (1999); N.C. R. App. P. 25(b), 34(b)(1). Nevertheless, we will consider the arguments pursuant to N.C. R. App. P. 2. Taxpayer\u2019s motion to dismiss is denied.\nIV. Standard of Review\nOur standard of review of a decision of the Commission is the \u201cwhole record\u201d test. See N.C.G.S. \u00a7 105-345 (d), N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-29 (2001). The reviewing court is not allowed to substitute its own judgment in place of the Commission\u2019s judgment even where there are two reasonably conflicting views. Rainbow Springs Partnership v. County of Macon, 79 N.C. App. 335, 341, 339 S.E.2d 681, 684 (1986). A reviewing court must determine whether the decision of the Commission is supported by substantial evidence when using the whole record test. Id. at 341, 339 S.E.2d at 685.\n\u201c \u2018Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.\u2019 \u201d Id. at 341, 339 S.E.2d at 685 (quoting Thompson v. Board of Education, 292 N.C. 406, 414, 233 S.E.2d 538, 544 (1977) (citations omitted)). \u201c[T]he credibility of the witnesses and resolution of conflicting testimony is a matter for the administrative agency to determine.\u201d In re Appeal of General Tire, 102 N.C. App. 38, 40, 401 S.E.2d 391, 393 (1991) (citing Comr. of Insurance v. Rate Bureau, 300 N.C. 381, 406, 269 S.E.2d 547, 565, reh\u2019g denied, 301 N.C. 107, 273 S.E.2d 300-01 (1980)). If the Commission\u2019s decision is supported by substantial evidence, this Court must affirm the Commission\u2019s decision. Rainbow Springs, 79 N.C. App. at 343, 339 S.E.2d at 686.\nV. Sufficiency of Evidence\nCatawba County contends that the Commission erred in finding that the county employed an arbitrary method of valuation as unsupported by competent, material and substantial evidence in the entire record. The county asserts there is a lack of substantial evidence because there are no findings of fact supporting the decision of arbitrariness in the final decision. Secondly, the county relies on its schedule of values to show the assessment is not arbitrary. We disagree.\nThe Commission made clear findings of fact that it gave greater weight to the testimony of Marlow than to Little. The Commission found that the county\u2019s assessment did not reflect the \u201ctrue value\u201d of the property. \u201cTrue value\u201d is defined as \u201cmarket value\u201d:\n[T]hat is, the price estimated in terms of money at which the property would change hands between a willing and financially able buyer and a willing seller, neither being under any compulsion to buy or to sell and both having reasonable knowledge of all the uses to which the property is adapted and for which it is capable of being used.\nN.C.G.S. \u00a7 105-283 (2001).\nSince \u201c[a]n illegal appraisal method is one which will not result in \u2018true value\u2019 as that term is used in [N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 105-283]\u201d, it follows that such method is also arbitrary. In re Southern Railway, 313 N.C. 177, 181, 328 S.E.2d 235, 239 (1985). The Commission made sufficient findings of fact to show that the method employed by the county was arbitrary.\nSecondly, the county argues that the schedule of values, as first proposed to the County Commissioners and the public in 1998, shows the Tax Assessor spent years preparing for its 1999 octennial reevaluation. County relies on In re Allred, 351 N.C. 1, 519 S.E.2d 52 (1999) in arguing that the use of a schedule of values indicates an objective and consistent evaluation.\nIn Allred, the Supreme Court held that the taxpayer did not present any evidence of \u201cmisapplication of the schedules, standards and rules used in the county\u2019s most recent general reappraisal or horizontal adjustment. . . .\u201d Id. at 11-12, 519 S.E.2d at 58. The Court stated, \u201c[t]he use of schedules and values and rules of application not only makes the valuation of a substantial number of parcels of property feasible, but also ensures objective and consistent countywide property valuations and corollary equity in property tax liability.\u201d Id. at 10, 519 S.E.2d at 57.\nAlthough the schedule of values shows an objective process in the county\u2019s valuation procedures as a whole, it does not prove that the valuation and assessment of the subject property was itself not arbitrary. The schedule of values standing alone does not support reversing the Commission\u2019s ruling that the valuation method employed by the county was arbitrary. This assignment of error is overruled.\nVI. Presumption of Correctness\nCatawba County cites In Re Appeal of Amp, Inc., 287 N.C. 547, 215 S.E.2d 752 (1975) to support the presumption of correctness of the assessments. In Amp, our Supreme Court held that ad valorem tax assessments are presumed to be correct. Id. at 562, 215 S.E.2d at 761. To rebut the presumption, the taxpayer must present \u201ccompetent, material and substantial evidence that tends to show that: (1) [e]ither 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.\u201d Id. at 563, 215 S.E.2d at 762.\nMarlow testified that he considered, but excluded, the income approach in his analysis because it would not reflect the motivations of buyers and sellers in the marketplace, and that the county\u2019s assessment did not represent the \u201ctrue value.\u201d This evidence supports the Commission\u2019s finding that the county\u2019s use of the income approach to value was an arbitrary method. This evidence is also sufficient to rebut the first prong of presumption of correctness.\nThe other prong of the Amp presumption is whether the assessment substantially exceeded the true value in money of the property. Id. at 563, 215 S.E.2d at 762. The taxpayer must show that the valuation was unreasonably high. Electric Membership Corp. v. Alexander, 282 N.C. 402, 410, 192 S.E.2d 811, 816-17 (1972).\nHere, the county\u2019s original assessment was $3,820,000. Catawba County admitted this exceeded the fair market value by conceding before the Commission that the value of the property did not exceed $3,459,500, a difference of $360,500. Marlow\u2019s appraisal valued the property at $2,020,000. The difference in value between the original assessment is $1,800,000. The difference between the modified assessment by the county and that of Taxpayer is $1,439,500. Either difference is a substantial difference. Taxpayer satisfied its burden to prove to the Commission that the county\u2019s assessment substantially exceeded the true value of the property.\nWe hold that the Commission\u2019s findings of fact axe based on substantial evidence, and that its findings of fact support its conclusions of law. Taxpayer successfully rebutted the presumption of correctness of the county\u2019s assessed value.\nVIL Effect of Challenge to Schedule of Values\nCatawba County contends that Taxpayer\u2019s arguments are attacks on the schedule of values and not on the appraisal of the property being evaluated. Taxpayer argued before the Commission that insufficient data was available to the county for the purpose of creating a schedule of values for use in an income capitalization assessment.\nThere is no indication in the Commission\u2019s order that it relied in any way on the insufficiency of the data to determine the income method was arbitrary. The order indicates the Commission\u2019s finding that the value reached under the income method was not the \u201ctrue value\u201d. This is the basis the Commissioners used to find the income method arbitrary. The lack of sufficient data merely bolsters the argument for arbitrariness and is not an attack on the schedule of values.\nThe Commission determines the weight and sufficiency of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses. The Commission draws inferences to appraise the conflicting evidence. In re Southern Railway, 59 N.C. App. 119, 123 296 S.E.2d 463, 467, rev\u2019d on other grounds, 313 N.C. 177, 328 S.E.2d 235 (1985). Since the Commission\u2019s decision was not solely based on the insufficiency of data and is based on substantial evidence in the record, we overrule this assignment of error.\nVIII. True Value\nCatawba County assigns error to the Commission\u2019s valuation of the property. The Commission assigned the value of $2,020,000 as appraised by Taxpayer\u2019s expert witness. The county argues that the county\u2019s tax appraiser was not afforded the substantial rights a presumption of correctness creates. See In re Appeal of Camel City Laundry Co., 115 N.C. App. 469, 475, 444 S.E.2d 689, 692 (1994).\nThis argument fails because the substantial rights afforded by the presumption of correctness are lost when the taxpayer offers substantial rebutting evidence. The burden of producing evidence to show the tax assessment is correct now rests on the county. See In re Southern Railway, 313 N.C. 177, 182, 328 S.E.2d 235, 239 (1985).\nThe county further contends that the use of Taxpayer\u2019s appraisal report was inappropriate because two of the eight comparative sales used were not made until after the effective date of the county\u2019s octennial reevaluation. County relies on the Allred case in support of its position. In re Allred, 351 N.C. 1, 519 S.E.2d 52 (1999).\nThe Supreme Court held in Allred that post-octennial sales data of the property under review was an impermissible basis for valuation adjustment as it \u201cimpinge[d] upon the statutory requirement that any adjustment to a general valuation be made \u2018in accordance with the schedules, standards, and rules used in the county\u2019s most recent general reappraisal or horizontal adjustment.\u2019 \u201d Id. at 13, 519 S.E.2d at 59 (quoting N.C.G.S. \u00a7 105-287(c) (2001)). We agree that a post-octennial sale of the property in question cannot be used for a valuation adjustment.\nHere, the post-octennial sales comparisons used by Taxpayer\u2019s expert were not sales of the subject property, but of comparable properties, adjusted by Marlow to compensate for the changing values over time. Also, the post-octennial sale comparisons were properly admitted. The difference in time goes to the weight of the evidence and not its admissibility. We find this case distinguishable from Allred. We hold that the Commission may use post-octennial sales comparables of other properties to base its valuation of the subject property.\nIX. Summary\nThe whole record test only allows us to determine whether the decision of the Commission was based on substantial evidence. The weight and credibility of the evidence remains for the Commission.\nTaxpayer\u2019s expert testimony provided substantial evidence for the Commission to find that the county employed an arbitrary method of valuation. The tax assessment was significantly greater than the valuation offered by Taxpayer\u2019s expert witness and accepted by the Commission. The presumption of correctness was rebutted; once rebutted, the county did not offer additional evidence to meet its burden to show its valuation was the \u201ctrue value\u201d. The Commission\u2019s decision is supported by substantial evidence in the record and is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nJudges MARTIN and THOMAS concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "TYSON, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Jerry E. Hess for Catawba County/Appellant.", "Bell, Davis & Pitt, P.A., by John A. Cocklereece, Jr., Stephen M. Russell and Kevin G. Williams, for Taxpayer/Appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "IN THE MATTER OF: APPEAL OF THE LANE COMPANY-HICKORY CHAIR DIVISION FROM THE DECISION OF THE CATAWBA COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION AND REVIEW CONCERNING REAL PROPERTY TAXATION FOR TAX YEAR 1999\nNo. COA01-1343\n(Filed 17 September 2002)\n1. Appeal and Error\u2014 assignments of error \u2014 too broad and vague\nA motion to dismiss an appeal for violation of the appellate rules was denied despite broad, vague, and unspecific assignments of error.\n2. Taxation\u2014 review of Property Tax Commission \u2014 whole record test\nThe standard of review of a decision of the Property Tax Commission is the whole record test, under which the reviewing court determines whether the decision of the Commission is supported by substantial evidence.\n3. Taxation\u2014 ad valorem \u2014 property valuation \u2014 sales comparison approach adopted over income approach\nThe Property Tax Commission did not err in finding that the county employed an arbitrary method of valuing a furniture manufacturing facility where the Commission made clear findings that it gave greater weight to expert testimony supporting the sales comparison approach rather than to testimony supporting the income approach used by the county. The Commission found that the county\u2019s assessment did not reflect the true value of the property and, while the county\u2019s use of a table of values shows an objective process in the county\u2019s valuation, it does not prove that the valuation and assessment was not arbitrary.\n4. Taxation\u2014 ad valorem \u2014 property valuation \u2014 presumption of correctness \u2014 rebutted\nA taxpayer sufficiently rebutted the presumption of the correctness of the county\u2019s property tax assessment where there was testimony that the county\u2019s use of the income approach did not represent the true value and the county\u2019s original assessment substantially exceeded both the county\u2019s subsequent modified assessment and an appraisal from the taxpayer\u2019s expert.\n5. Taxation\u2014 ad valorem \u2014 property valuation \u2014 arbitrary\nAlthough a county contended in a property tax assessment case that the taxpayer\u2019s argument was an attack on the county\u2019s schedule of values rather than on the appraisal, the Property Tax Commission\u2019s holding that the county employed an arbitrary appraisal method was based on the finding that the county\u2019s income method did not produce a true value. The lack of sufficient data merely bolsters the argument for arbitrariness and was not an attack on the schedule of values.\n6. Taxation\u2014 ad valorem \u2014 property\u2014valuation\u2014post-octen-nial sales\nThe Property Tax Commission did not err by valuing property lower than had the county where the county\u2019s presumption of correctness was lost when the taxpayer offered substantial rebutting evidence. The post-octennial sales comparisons used in the taxpayer\u2019s appraisal were of comparable properties rather than the subject property.\nAppeal by Catawba County from the Final Decision of the North Carolina Property Tax Commission. Heard in the Court of Appeals 22 August 2002.\nJerry E. Hess for Catawba County/Appellant.\nBell, Davis & Pitt, P.A., by John A. Cocklereece, Jr., Stephen M. Russell and Kevin G. Williams, for Taxpayer/Appellee." }, "file_name": "0119-01", "first_page_order": 149, "last_page_order": 158 }