Request By:
Harold E. Kelley
Kelley, Galloway & Company
Certified Public Accountants
1200 Bath Avenue
Ashland, Kentucky 41101
Opinion
Opinion By: Robert F. Stephens, Attorney General; By William S. Riley, Assistant Attorney General
In your recent letter to the Attorney General, it is stated that the assessment of real estate in Boyd County is grossly unequalized and that the property valuation administrator has known this for many years and has failed to take proper action to correct the unequalized assessments. Two questions are asked as follows.
(1) In an action by a taxpayer to have property appraised so that each property owner bears his fair share of the tax burden and that all of the taxpayers bear their fair share, who is the proper defendant?
Answer: The party to the action would be the property valuation administrator.
(2) Request is made for the time frame for the filing of the action. The property for county and state purposes was assessed as of January 1, 1977. When is the County Board of Equalization appointed and when do they make their report?
Answer: Under KRS 133.040, the property valuation administrator is required to complete the tax roll in the county before the first Monday in May. Within thirty days after the department receives the recapitulations, the department directs the property valuation administrator to make any necessary corrections.
Under KRS 133.045, the tax roll is open for inspection in the property valuation administrator's office for five days beginning on the first Monday in June of each year.
Under KRS 133.030, the County Board of Assessment Appeals convenes to the county seat on the second Monday in June, but no meeting is held until the tax roll is completed and the inspection period has been held as provided by law.
Under KRS 133.120, the Board of Assessment Appeals may review and change any assessment made by the property valuation administrator upon the recommendation of the Department of Revenue, County Judge, Mayor of any city using the county assessment or Superintendent of any school district in which the property is located provided such recommendation is made to the Board in writing specifying the individual properties for review. Where the Board determines that the assessments should be increased, notice must be given to the taxpayer as required under subsection (4) of KRS 132.050.
Any property owner who has listed his property with the property valuation administrator at its fair cash value may likewise ask the Board to review the assessment of properties he believes to be assessed at less than fair cash value, providing such owner specifies in writing the individual properties for review. The Board has no authority to make a blanket review of property. This is specifically spelled out in the statute. It can therefore be seen that the Board has no equalization functions. It has only the power to review assessments as outlined above.
The assessment of property in a county is the sole responsibility of the property valuation administrator. Although a professional appraisal concern may be contracted with to assist the property valuation administrator, under the law and by opinion of the Court of Appeals of Kentucky, he is solely responsible for the assessment. This was specifically stated in Borders v. Cain, 252 S.W.2d 903 (1952) where the Court said:
"Each tax commissioner is required by law, KRS 132.450, to assess, at its fair cash value, all property which it is his duty to assess. This statute does not abrogate that right or relieve him from that duty. The assessment when made is the act of the tax commissioner and he is responsible for it. Tax assessors have always received advice and counsel on the valuation of property. The advice might come from a friend, a neighbor, the owner of the property to be assessed, or even from the personnel of the State Revenue Department. One assessor might use one method and another a different method in arriving at the same result. We know of no law which restricts him to one specific method or limits him in his search for advice and counsel. Nor do we know of any law which gives the taxpayer the right to object to the method used so long as the assessment is fair and equitable. If he is dissatisfied with the assessment, his right to have it reviewed on appeal may not be abridged. But this statute is not vulnerable on that score, as another section of the Act provides a method of appeal. If appellants' assessments are too high, the fault lies not in the statute itself but in the administration of the statute and their remedy is by appeal from the assessment." (Emphasis ours)