Nevada Property Tax Revolt

Wednesday, March 05, 2008
To: Wayne Fischer; Suellen Fulstone; Maryanne Ingemanson

Dear Suellen (and Maryanne & Wayne):

Thanks for the update. We received notice of the County's decision number 08-xxxx regarding our petition for review just heard.

As I was preparing the appeal document for Suellen, my review of the above notice seems to indicate that we were not represented in the aforementioned petition by Suellen, or anyone else. The findings of law in the minutes were very narrow, i.e. that the County and the Assessor have jurisdiction and that in our absence and in the absence of any support for our review, we were denied ... the assessed values upheld. While the outcome is not a surprise, I am surprised that we were apparently not noted as represented by Suellen with the rest of the group. Last year's version of the same exercise did so note.

Were we not, for some reason, included in the general representation including the contention that the assessor is not following the intent of NRS? We have for several years been part of the appellant group. The minutes do not record that any arguments were advanced on our behalf (either individually or collectively). When we filed the petition for review we recorded the Village League, et al, as our representative as in the past.

I have reviewed the assessed land values for the APN's on our immediate block and once again concluded that the County is applying its own "logic" to parcels, such as whether or not a parcel backs onto the golf course. This practice is perfectly analogous to the "lake view" distinctions which the courts have ruled inappropriate, in the only successful taxpayer litigation to date. I thought these kinds of arguments were at least placed in the record for the benefit of appeal. I emailed Maryanne and Suellen last year with this data.

If we were left out of the "mass representation" this year for some reason, do I assume that we cannot designate Suellen as our agent/counsel for purposes of the appeal? We need to file the appeal form soon, so it would be helpful to hear from you to confirm whether (a) we were missed in the petition for review process, and (b) what our representation options are for an appeal going forward.

Thanks for any input you have on this.
Taxpayer

From: Suellen Fulstone
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008

Dear Taxpayer,

As the Village League stated in “alerts” to taxpayers, the 2008-2009 appeals from Incline Village/Crystal Bay to the County Board of Equalization were handled in a different way from the last couple of years. Under Nevada’s property tax system as implemented in Washoe County, the last couple of years were “factor” years, which meant that the County Assessor simply applied a multiplier to every Incline Village/Crystal Bay homeowner’s land value. The Village League opposed that multiplier on a group basis for the 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 tax years. The League also was able to oppose the underlying 2003-2004 base values on a group basis under the Carson City District Court decision in January of 2006 and the Supreme Court decision in December of 2006.

The 2008-2009 tax year, however, was a reappraisal year for Incline Village and Crystal Bay which means new individual valuations on everyone’s property. Since it was impossible for the League to represent every taxpayer on individual issues, they tried to assist any taxpayer that filed an individual appeal with an outline of the legal issues and with a form request for valuation information in order to create a record for the legal issues to be argued before the State Board and ultimately in the courts. You will find those materials in the prior alerts. Independently of the individual petitions, the Village League filed six class petitions on behalf of all residential properties at Incline Village and Crystal Bay. Those petitions were denied by the County Board on the basis that the Board did not have jurisdiction to hear class petitions. There was no hearing on the merits of the class petitions.

Since the County Board hearings are over, the League is now trying to assist individual taxpayers whose petitions were denied by the County Board with their appeals to the State Board. On behalf of the Village League, I will represent those taxpayers who authorize my representation with the presentation of the legal issues to the State Board. Individual taxpayers who designate me as their representative will still be able to present themselves any individual issues regarding their respective properties.

I am sorry if you were confused about how to proceed with your 2008-2009 appeal. The League communicates as best it can through its alerts and by answering any follow-up questions by e-mail and phone. My recommendation is that you still file a notice of appeal with the State Board of Equalization and designate me as an authorized agent to speak on your behalf. Even though the lack of a record below may present a problem, if I were you, I wouldn’t just give up at this point. The worst that can happen is that you lose at the State Board. You won’t be any worse off. The legal issues will be argued as to all the properties and the relief, if any, granted by the State Board or subsequently by the courts is likely to apply to all the properties involved in the proceeding.

Suellen Fulstone