You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

State Ex Rel. Baker Manufacturing Co. v. City of Evansville

Citations: 261 Wis. 599; 53 N.W.2d 795; 1952 Wisc. LEXIS 334

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court; June 3, 1952; Wisconsin; State Supreme Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

The case involves Baker Manufacturing Company's challenge to a tax assessment by the Evansville board of review. The company contended that its property was assessed at a higher percentage of its full value compared to other properties, leading to an unfair tax burden. Despite presenting evidence of assessment discrepancies, the company's attempts to examine the city assessor on valuation methods were obstructed, violating statutory rights. The board's failure to provide adequate notice for a crucial meeting invalidated its proceedings, and the exclusion of evidence related to omitted properties was held to be improper. Additionally, the court criticized the informal nature of hearings and underscored the necessity of uniform property tax assessments as mandated by law. The judgments were reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings to ensure compliance with legal standards and statutory requirements. The court's decision highlights the importance of procedural fairness and adherence to constitutional principles in tax assessment cases.

Legal Issues Addressed

Assessment of Omitted Properties

Application: The court held that properties omitted from previous tax rolls must be re-entered for each year of omission, and excluding taxpayer objections regarding these omissions was erroneous.

Reasoning: Sec. 70.44 clarifies that omitted properties must be re-entered for each year of omission, and taxpayer objections regarding these omissions were improperly excluded from evidence.

Notice Requirement for Assessment Hearings

Application: The failure to provide the statutory forty-eight hours’ notice for the October 18 meeting invalidated the proceedings and any actions taken therein, as the meeting was not a continuation of a prior meeting.

Reasoning: The October 18 meeting was not an adjournment of the prior meeting and required statutory notice, which was not provided.

Role of Experts in Property Assessments

Application: The employment of experts to assist in property assessments was deemed permissible; however, assessment decisions must be made by the board as a whole rather than relying on a single expert.

Reasoning: The city is allowed to employ experts to assist the assessor, but the assessment board's decisions must be made by a majority, not solely by one expert.

Taxpayer’s Right to Examine Assessor

Application: The court found that the taxpayer's right to question the assessor on valuation methods was unlawfully restricted, contradicting statutory mandates that allow such examinations.

Reasoning: The court determined this was contrary to the law, as the board’s rulings violated the taxpayer’s statutory rights.

Uniformity in Property Tax Assessments

Application: The court emphasized the constitutional requirement for equal treatment of all real and personal property in tax assessments, highlighting discrepancies in assessment rates as potential evidence of discrimination.

Reasoning: Uniformity in taxation is not achieved if different fractions of value are applied across property classes; instead, uniformity must adhere to the constitutional requirement of equal treatment for all real and personal property based on value.