In Re Appeal of Jostens, Inc.

Citations: 508 A.2d 1319; 97 Pa. Commw. 106; 1986 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 2163Docket: 1310 C.D. 1985

Court: Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania; May 7, 1986; Pennsylvania; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania reviewed an appeal by the Centre County Board of Assessment and Revision of Taxes regarding the assessment of a parcel of land owned by Jostens, Inc. The trial court had reduced the Board's assessment of the parcel, located in an industrial park and used for manufacturing school yearbooks, from $169,753 to a final assessed value of $119,540. This adjustment followed a de novo trial that established the parcel's fair market value as $1,390,000 and applied the common level ratio of 8.6% determined by the State Tax Equalization Board (STEB) for calendar year 1983.

The Board argued that the trial court should have used the STEB common level ratio published in 1983, which was 10.1%, rather than the 8.6% ratio published in 1984. The court examined the statutory provisions of the Assessment Law, specifically Section 704(b), which mandates the determination of both current market value and the common level ratio for the tax year in question. The court concluded that the term "last determined" refers to the most recent ratio applicable to the year before the assessment date, affirming the trial court's use of the 8.6% ratio. Consequently, the Board's appeal was denied, and the trial court's decision was upheld.

The trial court is permitted to use the common level ratio last determined by the State Tax Equalization Board (STEB) for a tax year, even if that ratio is published in the year following the tax year in question. The statutory language of Section 704(b)(2) does not require the common level ratio to be published in the same year as the relevant tax year, unlike Section 704(b)(1), which explicitly includes that phrase. The calculations by STEB are based on calendar years, not tax years, and the common level ratio reflects values from the prior calendar year. Consequently, the trial court can utilize the most recent STEB common level ratio as of the appeal's hearing, which allows for consideration of the 1984 ratio (8.6% for the 1983 calendar year) instead of the prior 1983 ratio (10.1% for the 1982 calendar year). Since the tax year in question spans both calendar years 1982 and 1983, the court is within its discretion to use the 1984 published ratio, aligning with the statutory definition of "last determined." Therefore, the Board's argument that the trial court must use a ratio published during the tax year in question is rejected.

The Board's argument regarding uniformity is unpersuasive because it was not raised at the trial level and is untimely on appeal. Additionally, the burden of proof for a uniformity challenge rests with the challenging party. The Board contests Jostens' standing to appeal, claiming Jostens is not the parcel's owner, citing a case that is irrelevant as it pertains to different assessment law. Both the Appeals Board and the trial court determined that Jostens owned the parcel, supported by evidence including the assessment card addressed to Jostens' Tax Department. Consequently, the standing argument fails because the factfinder confirmed Jostens' ownership.

Regarding property value, the Board argues its expert's testimony was more credible than Jostens' expert and claims the trial court erred by not strictly adhering to one estimate. However, the trial court's role in tax assessment appeals is to independently evaluate fair market value based on all relevant evidence, rather than to adopt one expert's opinion entirely. The appellate review is limited to assessing whether the trial court erred in its legal conclusions or abused its discretion. The trial court, as the finder of fact, is entrusted with weighing the evidence, and its findings are upheld unless clear error, abuse of discretion, or insufficient evidence is shown. The Board's argument is essentially a challenge to the trial court's credibility assessments and its acceptance of Jostens' expert's opinion, which was well-supported by substantial evidence in the record.

The Board's challenge is deemed a credibility issue and is thus rejected, affirming the trial court's decision. The ruling from the Court of Common Pleas of Centre County on April 18, 1985 (Docket No. 84-355) is upheld. Judge MacPhail dissents, noting the taxpayer's appeal is based on the Centre County Board of Assessment and Review of Taxes' order, as allowed by Section 704(a) of The Fourth to Eighth Class County Assessment Law. The trial court must assess the current market value and common level ratio for the disputed tax year, which are central to the Board's order. The Board correctly utilized the latest common level ratio from the State Tax Equalization Board (STEB), even though it was for 1982, as required by the definition of 'common level ratio.' While the majority finds merit in the trial court's use of a more relevant STEB figure, Judge MacPhail argues the legislature's intent was not to allow appeals based on later, potentially lower assessments. Instead, the taxpayer must demonstrate the Board's valuation or ratio determination was incorrect. He concludes the Board's assessment was accurate and calls for the trial court's order to be reversed.