{ "id": 4364777, "name": "IN THE MATTER OF APPEAL OF Family Tree Farm, LLC from the decision of the Halifax County Board of Equalization and Review concerning the valuation of certain property for tax year 2007", "name_abbreviation": "In re Appeal of Family Tree Farm, LLC", "decision_date": "2012-02-07", "docket_number": "No. COA11-540", "first_page": "577", "last_page": "583", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "218 N.C. App. 577" } ], "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": "664 S.E.2d 1", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12641574 ], "weight": 3, "year": 2008, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "3", "parenthetical": "quotations and citations omitted" }, { "page": "6" }, { "page": "7-8" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/664/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 105-317", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "weight": 3, "year": 2011, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(a)(l)" }, { "page": "(a)(1)" }, { "page": "(a)(l)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "283 S.E.2d 115", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "120" }, { "page": "120", "parenthetical": "quotations and citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "304 N.C. 68", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8565314 ], "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "75" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/304/0068-01" ] }, { "cite": "289 S.E.2d 83", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "84-85", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "56 N.C. App. 412", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8521464 ], "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "413", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/56/0412-01" ] }, { "cite": "599 S.E.2d 888", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "903-04", "parenthetical": "quotations and citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "358 N.C. 649", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2987357 ], "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "674", "parenthetical": "quotations and citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/358/0649-01" ] }, { "cite": "191 N.C. App. 313", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 4159560 ], "weight": 3, "year": 2008, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "316", "parenthetical": "quotations and citations omitted" }, { "page": "320-21" }, { "page": "323" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/191/0313-01" ] }, { "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 }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 105-277.6", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "year": 2011, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(b)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 105-283", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "year": 2011, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "\"[T]he words 'true value' shall be interpreted as meaning market value, that 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[.]\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7\u00a7 105-277.4", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(a)" }, { "page": "(c)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 105-277.2", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "year": 2011, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(2)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 105-277.2-277", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 692, "char_count": 14234, "ocr_confidence": 0.749, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.14892818075493977 }, "sha256": "9056a4bab3a9c703bec711239acc0545dae3d3be1f3d59cbae0db949f88f03b9", "simhash": "1:0d4e64439a6d3e5a", "word_count": 2249 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:21:59.538017+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges BRYANT and STEPHENS concur." ], "parties": [ "IN THE MATTER OF APPEAL OF Family Tree Farm, LLC from the decision of the Halifax County Board of Equalization and Review concerning the valuation of certain property for tax year 2007" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "ELMORE, Judge.\nFamily Tree Farm, LLC (taxpayer), appeals from the final decision of the North Carolina Property Tax Commission (Commission) affirming the decision of the Halifax County Board of Equalization and Review (Board) assigning a market value of $471,390.00 and a present-use value of $158,064.00 to property owned by taxpayer. Because taxpayer has not shown that the Commission\u2019s decision was unsupported by competent, material, and substantial evidence or that the Commission\u2019s decision was arbitrary or capricious, we affirm the Commission\u2019s final decision.\nTaxpayer owns 538.75 acres in a rural area of Halifax County. The property is part of the present-use value program (program), which gives preferential tax treatment to property owners who use their property for particular purposes. See generally N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 105-277.2-277.7 (2011). The subject property has been designated as forestland under the program, meaning that the land is \u201cpart of a forest unit that is actively engaged in the commercial growing of trees under a sound management program.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 105-277.2(2) (2011). There is no question here as to the property\u2019s designation as forestland or its membership in the program. The sole issue before us is one of valuation.\nUnder the program, properties are taxed \u201con the basis of the value of the property in its present use\u201d (present-use value) rather than its \u201ctrue value.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7\u00a7 105-277.4(a), 105-277.6(b) (2011); see also N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 105-283 (2011) (\u201c[T]he words \u2018true value\u2019 shall be interpreted as meaning market value, that 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[.]\u201d). However, during revaluation years, counties reappraise subject properties at both the present-use value and the true value. N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 105-277.6(b) (2011). \u201cThe difference between the taxes due on the present-use basis and the taxes that would have been payable\u201d without the designation \u201care a lien on the real property\u201d and are \u201ccarried forward in the records of the taxing unit or units as deferred taxes.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 105-277.4(c) (2011). When the property loses its program eligibility, \u201c[t]he deferred taxes for the preceding three fiscal years are due and payable[.]\u201d Id.\nHere, taxpayer\u2019s property was appraised in 2007. The appraiser assessed the property\u2019s market value to be $471,390.00 and its present-use value to be $158,064.00. Taxpayer appealed the market value assessment, arguing that the County had used an unlawful valuation method to calculate the property\u2019s true market value, resulting in an inequitable and arbitrary allocation of the ad valorem property tax burden. Taxpayer asserted that the property\u2019s true market value was $188,500.00. Taxpayer based this calculation on a fifty percent value adjustment based on the property\u2019s frequent flooding, legal restrictions, and topographical hmitations. The Board heard taxpayer\u2019s appeal but decided that no change in value was justified. Taxpayer then appealed to the Commission, which affirmed the Board\u2019s decision.\nOn appeal to this Court, taxpayer argues that the Commission erred by affirming the Board\u2019s decision not to adjust the market value assessment. Taxpayer does not appeal the Board\u2019s present-use value assessment. We review Commission decisions pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 105-345.2, which provides, in relevant part, as follows:\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* * *\n(5) Unsupported by competent, material and substantial evidence in view of the entire record as submitted; or\n(6) Arbitrary or capricious.\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 105-345.2(c) (2011). \u201cQuestions of law receive de novo review, while issues such as sufficiency of the evidence to support the Commission\u2019s decision are reviewed under the whole-record test.\u201d In re Appeal of Parker, 191 N.C. App. 313, 316, 664 S.E.2d 1, 3 (2008) (quotations and citations omitted). \u201c[T]he \u2018whole record\u2019 test is not a tool of judicial intrusion; instead, it merely gives a reviewing court the capability to determine whether an administrative decision has a rational basis in the evidence.\u201d N.C. Dep\u2019t of Env\u2019t & Natural Res. v. Carroll, 358 N.C. 649, 674, 599 S.E.2d 888, 903-04 (2004) (quotations and citation omitted).\n\u201c[A]d valorem tax assessments are presumed correct,\u201d and \u201c[t]his presumption places the burden upon the taxpayer to prove that the assessments are incorrect.\u201d In re Appeal of Odom, 56 N.C. App. 412, 413, 289 S.E.2d 83, 84-85 (1982) (citations omitted). On appeal, \u201cthe good faith of tax assessors and the validity of their actions are presumed[.]\u201d In re McElwee, 304 N.C. 68, 75, 283 S.E.2d 115, 120 (1981).\n[I]n order for the taxpayer to rebut the presumption [of correctness] he must produce competent, material and substantial evidence that tends to show that: (1) Either the county tax supervisor used an arbitrary method of valuation; or (2) the county tax supervisor used an illegal method of evaluation; AND (3) the assessment substantially exceeded the true value in money of the property. 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.\nId. at 75, 283 S.E.2d at 120 (quotations and citations omitted). Here, we note that taxpayer\u2019s appeal is, to some degree, hypothetical, because the assessment being challenged \u2014 the property\u2019s market value \u2014 would only be used to calculate deferred taxes should the property leave the program.\nTaxpayer argues that the County tax assessor, Charles Graham, failed to account for certain restrictions that reduced the property\u2019s market value. Specifically, taxpayer argues that Graham should have considered (1) wetland restrictions imposed on the property by the federal Clean Water Act, the federal Food Security Act, and the North Carolina Sedimentation Pollution Act; (2) the property\u2019s frequent flooding; and (3) the property\u2019s topography and tract size. Taxpayer also argues that the valuation was.based on false data and comparables as well as incorrect appraisal standards. Finally, taxpayer argues that the Use Value Advisory Board requires a value of $40.00 per acre of wasteland, rather than the value of $100.00 per acre of wasteland used by the County.\nOur General Statutes set out guidelines for the proper appraisal of real property:\n(a) Whenever any real property is appraised it shall be the duty of the persons making appraisals:\n(1) In determining the true value of land, to consider as to each tract, parcel, or lot separately listed at least its advantages and disadvantages as to location; zoning; quality of soil; waterpower; water privileges; dedication as a nature preserve; conservation or preservation agreements; mineral, quarry, or other valuable deposits; fertility; adaptability for agricultural, timber-producing, commercial, industrial, or other uses; past income; probable future income; and any other factors that may affect its value except growing crops of a seasonal or annual nature.\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 105-317(a)(l) (2011). \u201cRestrictions on land use, including governmental restrictions, while not specifically included in N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 105-317(a)(1), certainly fall within the catch-all category of \u2018any other factors that may affect its value except growing crops of a seasonal or annual nature[.]\u2019 \u201d Parker, 191 N.C. App. at 320-21, 664 S.E.2d at 6 (quoting N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 105-317(a)(l)).\nThe Commission made the following findings of fact with respect to the property\u2019s physical characteristics and government restrictions:\n7. When determining the assessed value for the subject woodland, Halifax County considered a riparian area consisting of 16 acres and adjusted the property\u2019s value accordingly. Halifax County did not adjust the value of the property to reflect 90 acres of wasteland when Appellant\u2019s Forest Management Plan makes no such reference to 90 acres of wasteland, and there were no documents or maps to show delineation for wasteland.\n8. ... Halifax County did not consider governmental restrictions to determine the assessed value for the woodland when there were no documents or information showing that the property was subject to governmental restrictions, as of January 1, 2007.\nHaving reviewed the exhibits and transcripts, we must agree with the Commission. Taxpayer\u2019s Forest Management Plan makes no reference to either wasteland or government restrictions, with the exception of the Tar-Pamlico Buffer protection rules.\nThe plan includes a map showing the property\u2019s nine forest management blocks, and that map does not indicate any areas that are not part of a forest management block or that should otherwise be considered wasteland. The plan also makes no reference to lost productivity due to flooding. The plan, written in August 2006, indicates that any growth problems within forest management blocks resulted from overcrowding rather than flooding or ground saturation. The Halifax County 2007 Schedule of Values, which taxpayer unsuccessfully challenged and which this Court upheld, see Parker, 191 N.C. App. at 323, 664 S.E.2d at 7-8, states that parcels may be \u201csubject to a loss of value due to the potential for periodic flooding when compared to similar lots in the area where this problem does not exist.\u201d However, the discounts apply only when flooding limits the property\u2019s development. The discount recognizes \u201cthe degree of loss of value from none to rendering the parcel unbuildable for parcels in flood plain areas.\u201d However, here, there is no dispute that the subject property has been and will be used for forestry; the property has been maintained as an ongoing forestry operation since 1958. Taxpayer presented no evidence supporting its position that the Commission should have increased the amount of wasteland or discounted the value of the property because it is within the 100-year flood plain.\nWith respect to governmental restrictions, taxpayer has pointed to no restrictions that are actually in place besides the Tar-Pamlico Buffer protection rules. In its brief, taxpayer argues that the federal Clean Water Act and federal Food Security Act \u201cseverely restrict\u201d its use of the subject property and thus the County should have accounted for those restrictions in its valuation. Even assuming that taxpayer is correct and these two federal acts do severely restrict the property\u2019s use, the restrictions do not appear to affect the land\u2019s use as forestland. By taxpayer\u2019s own descriptions of the acts, they would not affect the property\u2019s value as forestland. In addition, taxpayer cannot show that its property is differently situated with respect to these restrictions than any other property located in the same geographic region. Finally, taxpayer faces a similar obstacle with respect to the North Carolina Sedimentation Pollution Act, which specifically does not apply to land used for forestry. See N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 113A-52.01 (2011).\nWith respect to the actual valuation, Graham, using his \u201cknowledge of the land in that area\u201d and his memory of sales in the area, decided that model number R132, with a woodland rate of $900.00 per acre, was appropriate. The models and their corresponding rates can be found in the Halifax County 2007 Schedule of Values. Graham also testified that he assigned seventeen acres of the property as wastelands because he \u201ccould see standing water on that much of it.\u201d According to the Schedule of Values, the market value of wasteland in a woodland area with model number R132 is $100.00 per acre. Indeed, the market value of wasteland in any agricultural area is set at $100.00 per acre in the Schedule of Values. These values cannot now be challenged, and taxpayer has not shown either that the woodland rate of $900.00 per acre was inappropriate or that the number of acres characterized as wasteland was inappropriate.\nAccordingly, we conclude that taxpayer has not met its burden of showing that the County used an arbitrary or illegal method of valuation or that the assessment substantially exceeded the true value in money of the property. We affirm the decision of the Property Tax Commission.\nAffirmed.\nJudges BRYANT and STEPHENS concur.\n. According to the appraisal report, Graham designated 16.86 acres of the property as wasteland, which accounts for the discrepancy between the sixteen acres noted by the Commission and the seventeen acres noted by Graham in his deposition.", "type": "majority", "author": "ELMORE, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Family Tree Farm, LLC, pro se.", "Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP, by Charles C. Meeker and Katherine E. Ross, for Halifax County." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "IN THE MATTER OF APPEAL OF Family Tree Farm, LLC from the decision of the Halifax County Board of Equalization and Review concerning the valuation of certain property for tax year 2007\nNo. COA11-540\n(Filed 7 February 2012)\nTaxation \u2014 real property \u2014 market value \u2014 present-use value\u2014 not arbitrary \u2014 no illegal method used\nThe North Carolina Property Tax Commission did not err in affirming the decision of the Halifax County Board of Equalization and Review assigning a market value of $471,390.00 and a present-use value of $158,064.00 to property owned by plaintiff taxpayer. Taxpayer failed to meet its burden of showing that the County used an arbitrary or illegal method of valuation or that the assessment substantially exceeded the true value in money of the property.\nAppeal by taxpayer from final decision entered 21 October 2010 by the North Carolina Property Tax Commission. Heard in the Court of Appeals 12 October 2011.\nFamily Tree Farm, LLC, pro se.\nParker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP, by Charles C. Meeker and Katherine E. Ross, for Halifax County." }, "file_name": "0577-01", "first_page_order": 587, "last_page_order": 593 }