Shut up and Pay Your Taxes
Fred Dooley is sounding the alarm about a potential change in the law regarding assessments.
Under current law if you disagree with your property tax assessment you have the right to a hearing in front of a local board on that issue. If you disagree with the ruling of that board you have the right to appeal to the Circuit Court.
Under the current situation people had a nasty habit of winning those appeals at the Circuit Court level. Well, the assessors got together and lobbied the legislature for changes to the current system and AB 580 was passed by a vote of 94 to 3 in the Assembly and 32 to 1 in the Senate.
Huge kudos to Senator Lazich, and Assemblymen Schneider and Albers for voting no on this (Gundrum and A.Williams no-voted the bill). Every other member of the Assembly and Senate voted in favor of the assessors and against home owners. You were probably asleep as this was one of those 12:46 am passed in the middle of the night laws that everyone misses.
And now the bad news…
Under AB 580 the review board must now grant a 60-day extension to the tax payers objection. The board also gets to assess a new snappy $100 fee to that rabble rousing tax payer (assuming the municipality allows the extension). A hundred bucks for disagreeing with the assessor, isn’t that special!
Under the new bill the court is forced to make the assumption that the valuation by the assessor is correct.
Read the rest!
Diligent and honest taxpaying is the outgrowth of healthy legislation. Just as long as people get to see where their taxes go, there shold be no problem regarding these new policies.
Posted by JJ on March 04, 2008 at 0602 hrs
Umnnhhh…I think that Fred’s take is a bit overwrought.
Posted by dad29 on March 04, 2008 at 0932 hrs
This is disgusting, and I have emailed my Senator and Representative to let them know that I feel betrayed and disenfranchised by their vote.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 04, 2008 at 0936 hrs
Do you Dad?
Having us enter court with the presumption that the assessor is correct?
So much for impartial justice.
Posted by Fred on March 04, 2008 at 1105 hrs
Having us enter court with the presumption that the assessor is correct?
I completely agree. It would be like getting a speeding ticket, and then having to pay $100 up front to go into court and then have to prove that you were not speeding. I love this state :(
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 04, 2008 at 1143 hrs
Email-call-write the governor. It may be a long shot but as its at his desk now its too late to do anything else.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 04, 2008 at 1235 hrs
I emailed Doyle, dunno if it’ll do any good or not, can’t hurt though.
Posted by Matt on March 04, 2008 at 1710 hrs
AB 580 is supported by Wisconsin Property Taxpayers, Inc. Why? Because it protects all property tax payers by assuring the assessments are accurate, fair, and based on the value of the property, not just simply some number negotiated to settle a court case.
Here’s how the process currently works for residential and commercial property: If a property owner disagrees with the assessment, he files an objection with the board of review and presents his case. The board of review makes a decision. If the property owner disagrees with that decision, he has two options: He can file an appeal and pay $100 to the Department of Revenue (DOR), or he can file an appeal with the circuit court. Most homeowners file with DOR. Many commercial properties go to circuit court.
What is happening currently is that some property owners come in to the board of review, and don’t present any case at all. Then – using the information provided by the assessor at the board of review – they appeal directly to the circuit court. Judges don’t like these cases. They (the cases) are boring and technical, and can last for days. Judges would prefer that these matters be resolved where they should be: at the board of review.
The bill would allow for change in the board of review process. It creates a new option that municipalities could adopt, by ordinance, to make the board of review more meaningful and effective, and hopefully reduce the number of cases that would be appealed to circuit court. This new process is not a mandate. No municipality would be required to adopt it. Many communities probably would not.
Key points of the bill:
First, the property owner can request an extension of up to 60 days, if he needs time to prepare his case. Additional extensions are available, if needed.
Second, in advance of the board of review, the assessor and the property owner must exchange information. That way, the property owner can know what the assessor is going to present and be better prepared for the board of review.
Third, the bill requires that the board allow a reasonable amount of time for a hearing, sufficient for both sides to present their case. (Some claim that this has not always been the case in all communities throughout the state.)
Fourth, under the process created by the bill, a person who objects to the assessment is required to present a full case at the board of review. (How could the board of review be expected to change an assessment if they haven’t received any information in support of changing the assessment?)
Fifth, the bill empowers a judge to remand a case back to the board of review.
Finally, the decision of a board of review could still be appealed to the DOR or to circuit court. However, the court can only hear (1) information that was presented at the board of review, (2) information that the board of review wrongly refused to consider, (3) information that wasn’t available at the board of review (like a recent sale of a comparable property), and (4) any other information that the judge considers relevant.
There are other provisions in the bill that were specifically designed to protect property owners and assist them at the board of review. The bill allows for depositions, which do not occur under current law. In addition, the bill has increased notice requirements. (Unless your property has been recently reassessed you won’t receive a notice, and may find it difficult to learn when the open book and board of review are being held. If a municipality is using this new process, they are required to post the date on their web site, so anyone who wishes to contest an assessment may do so, even if there haven’t been changes to that assessment.
Representatives of the Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, along with city, village, and town representatives were involved in the drafting of this bill. The goal was to make the board of review process more effective, while protecting property owners.
That is why the bill passed. It allows – but doesn’t force – municipalities to adopt an improved process to reach an accurate assessment, giving property owners more time and more information for their appeals at the board of review.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 04, 2008 at 1855 hrs
Fred, I’ll let Denise’ comprehensive answer stand as the reason I think your post is overwrought.
All that info is available at the LRB summary, too.
It’s no big deal, Fred.
Posted by dad29 on March 04, 2008 at 1904 hrs
After that explanation, it makes sense to me.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 04, 2008 at 2319 hrs
Total Entries: 19656
Total Comments: 129831
Most Recent Entry: 02/11/2012 09:52 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 02/11/2012 04:55 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 108
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 02/12/2012 12:36 am
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).