Georgia’s “Property Tax Reform” Bill
Friday
Mar 12, 2010
Well, my alerts started pouring in yesterday from Twitter and email regarding the Georgia Senate’s unanimous approval of S.B. 346. The bill is being touted as major reform to the state’s property tax system. The summary of the bill on the General Assembly’s website states:
“A BILL to be entitled an Act to amend Title 48 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to revenue and taxation, so as to revise comprehensively provisions regarding ad valorem taxes; to change certain provisions regarding ad valorem tax returns of taxpayers; to require annual notice regardless of changes; to provide for uniform notice forms and uniform appeal forms; to provide for powers, duties, and responsibilities of the state revenue commissioner; to provide for powers, duties, and responsibilities of the Department of Revenue regarding training of certain local tax officials and staff;to provide for an effective date; to repeal conflicting laws; and for other purposes.”
Most of the news points to the portions of the bill that call for extending the deadline to file an appeal to 45 days, instead of the current 30 days and the requirement for counties to issue annual valuation notices. Maybe it’s just me, but I do not find either of these changes to be extraordinary or innovative. I certainly wouldn’t consider them comprehensive reform.
The two portions of the bill that I do find interesting are the sections dealing with changes to appeal arbitration and what information the assessor’s must consider when arriving at their valuations.
Binding Arbitration:
Georgia previously allowed for a taxpayer to elect arbitration, but this bill significantly changes the mechanics of arbitration. The most notable changes are that the arbitration is now binding, the taxpayer is now required to submit an appraisal within 45 days of the assessor’s response to the appeal, and there will now be a single arbitrator, either agreed upon by the taxpayer and county or appointed by a judge.
Distressed Sales:
The bill introduces new language regarding the information the assessor’s must consider when arriving at their valuation. The new language states:
“(.1) ‘Arm’s length, bona fide sale’ means a transaction carried out by unrelated or unaffiliated parties, as by a willing buyer and a willing seller, each acting in his or her own self-interest, including a bona fide distress sale or sale at public auction.”
“(2.1) ‘Distress sale’ means a transaction which has occurred in good faith without fraud or deceit and includes, but is not limited to, a foreclosure, short sale, or bank sale.”
If the bill passes the House it will be interesting to see how this will work in reality.
Overall, in my opinion, this bill constitutes tweaks far more than reform.



Comments
Russ Madison
March 15th, 2010 at 8:05 am
The bill’s requirement that the purchase price of the property will be the set value of the property for tax purposes for one year after the sale seems significant to me.
Also, right now, you can only appeal your property value if you received an assessment notice. Many Georgia counties currently send a notice every three years, which limits property owners’ opportunities to appeal, but this bill would mandate annual notices.
I read those as more important because Georgia appraisers have already been taking distressed sales into account.
Brett Harrington
March 15th, 2010 at 11:44 am
Thanks for the comment, Russ. Regarding the purchase price requirement, I agree, it could be significant. However, I am not 100% sure it is entirely taxpayer friendly. In some respects it places an emphasis on the purchase price, which can be problematic. This has been the case in places like CA & OH. When it comes to commercial/industrial transactions, the purchase price is not always the best indicator of market value for property tax purposes.
I believe the annual notice requirement is a favorable requirement. However, I think that changing/eliminating the “annual return” requirement would be much better. Taxpayers can file a return annually to initiate an appeal, but most taxpayers do not know this. What about eliminating the return requirement and allowing taxpayers to appeal after they receive their tax bills? Not only would it provide the opportunity to appeal, it would also be more cost and time effective for the municipalities.
As with any legislation, I think the proof will be in how it actually plays out in reality.
Russ Madison
March 15th, 2010 at 4:43 pm
Thanks, Brett, for that reply & good insights. Perhaps those points will be considered when the Georgia House of Representatives takes their crack at it.
Glad I found your blog!