|
By Rose Hooper
Saying that they found "no merit" in U.S. Rep. Charles
Taylor's appeal, a three-judge panel ruled that the congressman
will not recoup some $18,000 in back taxes from Jackson County.
The N.C. Court of Appeals ruling, which came Tuesday, Nov. 4,
was in accord with Jackson County's decision to remove six parcels
of land owned by the congressman from tax-deferred status.
Taylor could appeal the ruling to the N.C. Supreme Court.
In June last year the N.C. Property Tax Commission sided with
the county, stating that then-Tax Assessor Cecil Dills correctly
removed the property from tax-deferred status after Taylor failed
twice to provide a forest management plan.
Since Taylor's property, known as Transylvania Tree Farms, did
not have a forest management plan, he was considered by the county
tax collector to be in arrears.
Property under the tax-deferred status is valued at about $300
an acre and taxed accordingly, said Dills.
Should the real value of the property be $1,000 an acre - a low
value for most land in Jackson County, according to Dills - a
landowner could realize a tax savings on $700 worth of property.
When Taylor's property, land he owns jointly with his wife, Elizabeth,
was removed from the tax-deferred status in 1999, Taylor was billed
for the full value of his land based on that year and three years
prior. The total owed was just under $18,000.
Under protest, Taylor paid the amount in 2000, then sued to recover
the money.
Due to Tuesday's court decision, Tax Collector Beverly Buchanan
said Taylor would also owe $6,126 for 2000.
In writing the decision for the three-judge panel, Judge Rick
Elmore said that Dills did not change the true value of Taylor's
land, only the reclassification and was justified in doing so
under state statutes.
Elmore further wrote that Taylor was "given sufficient notice
of the subject properties' review by the tax assessor and had
ample opportunity, as required by statute, to request a hearing
before reclassification of the subject properties in 1999."
"I am relieved with the court's decision this week,"
said Dills, who is now retired as assessor but works part time
in the office. "I hope we can get all of this behind us.
I felt it was a process we needed to do in bringing properties
in compliance."
The case had its origins in 1997 when a local logger asked the
assessor's office to review 10 parcels he said were reaping the
benefits of tax-deferred status illegally since the landowners
either did not have forest management plans on file, or were not
following them.
That request for a review prompted Dills to look at all property
under forestry present-use value, a process required by law on
a continuing basis.
He found that although Taylor's land had been listed as tax deferred
since the 1970s, the congressman had not submitted a forest management
plan for the property.
Landowners wishing to benefit from forestry present-use value
status must file a forest management plan, which outlines how
the timber on a tract of land will be managed and when a harvest
will be scheduled.
|
