We do not have a sale each week. Consequently, there are times when there is nothing posted at the courthouse nor published in newspapers as to the properties upon which we are foreclosing. In addition, the successful bidder will be required to pay the balance of the purchase price, as well as the recording fees and revenue stamps assessed by the County Register of Deeds, before the sale is confirmed. Listings on this Web-Site. In addition to posting and publishing the notices of sale at the courthouse and in the newspaper as referenced above, we may also post notices on this web-site.
You may access them if you agree to the terms of sale set forth on this page in red by clicking here:. Property for Sale. Alexander, supra; In re Reeves Broadcasting Corp. Accordingly, applying the above stated rules to the instant case, the basic issue for determination is whether the decision of the State Board was supported by "competent, material, and substantial evidence.
Johnson, N. It is also a sound and a fundamental principle of law in this State that ad valorem tax assessments are presumed to be correct. Alexander, supra. See also 7 Strong, N. Index 2d, Taxation 25 The good faith of tax assessors and the validity of their actions are presumed. See also 84 C.
- iowa law - home ownership in divorce.
- Bevor Sie fortfahren....
- texas emergency medical technician felony limitations.
- Verifying the Street Address!
- Loading...!
- Vehicle Property Taxes.
Taxation As a result of this presumption, when such assessments are attacked or challenged, the burden of proof is on the taxpayer to show that the assessment was erroneous. See 72 Am.
AOL ist jetzt Teil von Verizon Media
Accord, Albemarle Electric Membership Corp. Alexander, supra, N.
- town of west seneca public records.
- look again mail order catalogue.
- fatal car crashes in illinois and drunk driving.
- tracing ip address in yahoo messenger.
- Guilford County, NC Property Tax Search by Address!
- how to search for death.
The purpose underlying this presumption of correctness arises out of the obvious futility of allowing a taxpayer to fix the final value of his property for purposes of ad valorem taxation. If the presumption did not attach, then every taxpayer would have unlimited freedom to challenge the valuation placed upon his property, regardless of the merit of such challenge. Of course, the presumption is only one of fact and is therefore rebuttable.
But, in order for the taxpayer to rebut the presumption he must produce "competent, material and substantial" evidence that tends to show that: 1 Either the county tax supervisor used an arbitrary method of valuation; or 2 the county tax supervisor used an illegal method of valuation; AND 3 the assessment substantially exceeded the true value in money of the property. See Albemarle Electric Membership Corp. Simply stated, it is not enough for the taxpayer to show that the means adopted by the tax supervisor were wrong, he must also show that the result arrived at is substantially greater than the true value in money of the property assessed, i.
For the reasons hereinafter set forth, we agree. We find nothing in this record tending to show that the county tax supervisor employed an "arbitrary" method of valuation. On the other hand, the record clearly shows that the county tax supervisor used an "illegal" method of valuation. Specifically, we point to the following testimony of the witness Brooks Guilford Tax Supervisor on cross-examination:. The Tax Department tries to follow the Statutes as set out in the North Carolina Machinery Act which governs the listing of ad valorem taxes. I do not know the State's requirements for its tax returns insofar as whether they call for cash value or book value is concerned.
Business Personal Property Tax Requirements
I was not an Accountant. I have never held a position as an Accountant. I have examined the State tax returns of other taxpayers. I am not familiar with the requirements of the State. There is no difference between the reporting on the State corporate income tax returns, income and franchise returns, and that reported on the ad valorem listings because of the cash factor, although I have personally not made any investigation to determine it. In this State there is no statutory authority that permits the county tax supervisor, as a per se rule, to equate "book value" with true value in money as a uniform measure of assessment for purposes of ad valorem tax valuation.
See G. The legislative intent on this matter is crystal clear. The General Assembly specifically rejected with an unfavorable report the following proposed legislation H. Tax Supervisor Brooks "assumed" that State income tax reporting and county ad valorem tax reporting were on the same basis, "or should be on the same basis. Additionally, we point out that the North Carolina General Assembly, and no one else, determines how property in this State "should" be valued for purposes of ad valorem taxation. The North Carolina General Assembly has specifically rejected a per se rule that would equate inventory value as reported on State tax returns with the value of such inventory as reported for purposes of ad valorem taxation.
Hence, in requiring the taxpayers of Guilford County to list their property at the value reported on State tax returns i. Such procedure constituted an "illegal" method of valuation. The next question presented is whether AMP produced competent, material and substantial evidence that tended to show the assessment increasing the valuation of its inventories for the years through was substantially greater than the true value in money of the property as originally stated on its abstracts filed with the county.
In the judgment filed on 25 January Judge Exum concluded that there was "competent, material and substantial evidence in the record to justify the ad valorem tax valuations listed by" AMP in the abstracts for the years through We find nothing in the record to support such a conclusion.
The Ins and Outs of Business Personal Property Tax
The evidence before the State Board indicated that all the abstracts for the years in question were filed for the taxpayer by the appraisal firm of Dawson, Desmond and Van Cleve. The witness Price testified that AMP procured the services of this firm because "at that time" AMP did not know how to compute the true cash value of its own inventories.
Specifically, Price testified:. They were qualified at that point and I was not. I thought Dawson, Desmond and Van Cleve was doing the job and that they had worked out all right and agreed on the listings. The witness Price also testified that the professional appraisal firm of Dawson, Desmond and Van Cleve specialized in appraising personal property "throughout the country" and he guessed "they did the best they could" in appraising AMP's inventories during the years in question. However, Price added that after AMP learned how to appraise its own inventories following notification of the increased assessment, he came to realize that "Dawson, Desmond and Van Cleve, using their judgment in all those years, were too high except one time.
The record does not reveal one scintilla of evidence offered by AMP to substantiate the amounts reported by the Dawson firm in the abstracts filed for the years through The only explanation for the absence of such evidence was offered by the witness Price. He testified as follows:. I don't know that they added anything for labor or overhead. I can see this one point that they didn't know that those raw materials were scrap value.
In the absence of any evidence in the record, we find error in Judge Exum's conclusion that there was competent, material and substantial evidence to justify the ad valorem valuations listed by AMP in the abstract forms. The next question is whether AMP offered competent, material and substantial evidence that the increased assessment "substantially exceeded" the true value in money of its inventories as such inventory values were computed by AMP subsequent to notification of the assessment. Judge Exum concluded that AMP had met its burden in this regard. For the reasons hereinafter stated, we believe this conclusion was erroneous.
Initially, it is important to note that the inventories involved do not include finished goods except for the years and , but are exclusively inventories of non-defective inprocess items and of undamaged raw materials. Accordingly, all references hereinafter made to AMP's "inventories" are to be understood, except where qualified, as being limited to such raw materials and goods in-process. The only evidence offered by AMP as to the "true value in money" of these inventories was the testimony given by Messrs.
Price, all officers employed by AMP.
Nc vehicle tax records guilford county
These witnesses, through their combined testimony, asserted that all of AMP's inventories constituted "scrap" so far as "true value in money" was concerned. All of this testimony was designed to support AMP's theory that the only value its inventories had was scrap value. AMP's desired interpretation of G. Our interpretation of G. We believe that the best and most reasonable test of true value in money, in such manner as such property is usually sold, but not by forced sale thereof, is the price estimated in terms of money at which the property would change hands between a willing and financially able buyer and a willing seller, neither being under any compulsion to buy or sell and both having reasonable knowledge of all the uses to which the property is adapted and for which it is capable of being used.
The present statute, G. The amendment, effective 1 January , and referred to by the Court of Appeals, had no relation to the statutory test for determining true value in money. See Section 11, Chapter , Session Laws. In applying our interpretation of G. The evidence before the State Board tended to show that AMP's Greensboro plant generated substantial amounts of scrap metal during the course of a normal work week.
For example, the witness Cole testified that the slitting, pancaking, stamping and metal plating processes all produced substantial amounts of scrap. Also, Cole pointed out that when a coil of brass or copper raw material was damaged during one of the various "handling" operations e. It appears, however, that the vast majority of scrap resulted from numerous malfunctions occurring during the manufacturing process, i. The witness Beck testified that during the years through approximately one-half of every pound of raw material received at AMP's Greensboro plant was reduced to scrap from all of the above listed causes.
Under G. Therefore, if Guilford County had attempted to assess this property at "book value" then it is clear that AMP produced sufficient evidence to show that such assessment "substantially exceeded the true value in money" of this property. But, as previously noted, there is no evidence in this record that AMP's inventories on 1 January of the pertinent years included any of these type properties, i.
Perhaps AMP had no such property on hand at these dates because it regularly shipped out the accumulated scrap each week. Therefore, the fact that AMP carried its burden of proof as to this property is of no consequence. Even if AMP had had such inventories on hand, its value, as compared to the other inventories, would be insignificant, since AMP never allowed over 40, pounds of scrap to accumulate at its Greensboro plant. In the hearing before the State Board, AMP contended that this property should likewise be valued with reference to the "scrap prices" since it supplying mills provided the only possible market for these materials.
We find no merit whatsoever in this argument. As to this type of inventory, the record is totally devoid of any evidence that AMP "usually" and "freely" sold such materials back to its supplier for scrap prices. In this connection, AMP's taxation expert, Mr. Westphal, stated that, with the exception of scrap metal, AMP did not "usually" sell its in-process inventory.
Westphal added that he knew of "almost no firms that did so. It would be ridiculous to do so. Of course, AMP does not seriously contend that it would sell its entire in-process inventory at scrap prices.