In Re Appeal of Dixie Building, LLC

NO. COA13-1170

NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS

Filed: 15 July 2014

IN THE MATTER OF:

APPEAL OF: DIXIE BUILDING, LLC North Carolina Property
from the decision of the Tax Commission
Guilford County Board of No. 13 PTC 124
Equalization and Review

Appeal by appellant from order entered 28 June 2013 by the

North Carolina Property Tax Commission sitting as the State

Board of Equalization and Review. Heard in the Court of Appeals

19 February 2014.

Tuggle Duggins, P.A., by Michael S. Fox, J. Nathan Duggins
III, Martha R. Sacrinty, and Sarah J. Hayward, for
appellant Dixie Building, LLC.

Guilford County Attorney J. Mark Payne and Deputy County
Attorney Matthew J. Turcola, for appellee Guilford County.

GEER, Judge.

Dixie Building, LLC appeals from an order entered by the

North Carolina Property Tax Commission ("the Commission")

dismissing Dixie Building's appeal from the Guilford County

Board of Equalization and Review ("the Guilford County Board")

on the grounds that Dixie Building's original request to the

Guilford County Board for a hearing was untimely. Although
 -2-
Dixie Building contends that it was permitted, under N.C. Gen.

Stat. § 105-322 (2013), to submit its appeal to the Guilford

County Board at any time prior to the Board's adjournment for

the year, Dixie Building's construction of the statute would

place various subsections of the statute in conflict with each

other.

Reading the statute as a whole and in a manner that gives

each provision meaning leads to the conclusion that the

legislature intended to allow boards of equalization and review

to set deadlines for the filing of hearing requests. Because

Dixie Building failed to comply with the Guilford County

deadline, the Commission properly concluded that Dixie

Building's appeal was untimely. We, therefore, affirm.

Facts

Dixie Building owns real property in Guilford County. In

2012, Guilford County performed a revaluation of all property

within its boundaries as it was required to do pursuant to N.C.

Gen. Stat. § 105-286(a)(1) (2013). The Guilford County Board

established a deadline of 2 July 2012 for appealing revaluations

and assessments for the 2012 year.

Following the 2012 revaluation, Dixie Building disputed the

resulting appraisal values of six properties ("the Dixie

properties"). However, Dixie Building did not appeal the
 -3-
revaluations of the Dixie properties by the 2 July 2012

deadline. Instead, almost five months later, on 30 November

2012, Dixie Building filed a written notice with the Guilford

County Board formally requesting an appeal of the 2012

revaluations of the Dixie properties. In addition, counsel for

Dixie Building, while representing other clients with

revaluation appeals, attended a Guilford County Board meeting on

16 January 2013. During that meeting, Dixie Building's counsel

made an oral request for the Guilford County Board to review the

2012 revaluations of the Dixie properties.

On 22 January 2013, the Guilford County Board notified

Dixie Building in writing that it was denying Dixie Building's

request to challenge the 2012 reappraisal values on the grounds

that its appeal "was not timely." Dixie Building timely

appealed that denial to the Commission on 18 February 2013. On

28 June 2013, the Commission entered an order granting Guilford

County's motion to dismiss on the grounds that the appeal to the

Guilford County Board was in fact untimely. Dixie Building has

timely appealed the Commission's order to this Court.

Discussion

In an appeal from the Commission, "[q]uestions of law

receive de novo review, while issues such as sufficiency of the

evidence to support the Commission's decision are reviewed under
 -4-
the whole-record test." In re Appeal of the Greens of Pine Glen

Ltd. P'Ship, 356 N.C. 642, 647, 576 S.E.2d 316, 319 (2003).

Dixie Building contends on appeal that the Commission erred in

construing the pertinent statutes when it concluded that Dixie

Building's appeal to the Guilford County Board was untimely.

Questions of statutory interpretation, such as Dixie

Building poses, "are questions of law[.] . . . The primary

objective of statutory interpretation is to give effect to the

intent of the legislature." First Bank v. S & R Grandview,

L.L.C., ___ N.C. App. ___, ___, 755 S.E.2d 393, 394 (2014). In

construing a statute, "[t]he plain language of a statute is the

primary indicator of legislative intent." Id. at ___, 755

S.E.2d at 394. However, when statutory language is ambiguous,

"we are required to examine the entire statute to ascertain its

meaning and to give force and effect to every part of it,

reconciling, when reasonably possible, any seeming conflicts by

comparing its sections and provisions with each other." State

Bd. of Agric. v. White Oak Buckle Drainage Dist., 177 N.C. 222,

226, 98 S.E. 597, 599 (1919).

Pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 105-286, each county is

required to reappraise all real property every eight years. In

years when a general reappraisal of real property has not been

done, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 105-287 (2013) limits the circumstances
 -5-
under which the county may change the appraised value of real

property. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 105-322(g)(1)c provides that the

county board of equalization and review has a duty to review the

tax lists and increase and decrease the appraised value of any

property as appropriate, although "the board shall not change

the appraised value of any real property from that at which it

was appraised for the preceding year except in accordance with

the terms of G.S. 105-286 and 105-287."

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 105-322(e) sets out the provisions

regarding when a board of equalization and review shall meet and

regulates the starting date and the ending date for a board's

meetings:

Time of Meeting. -- Each year the board of
equalization and review shall hold its first
meeting not earlier than the first Monday in
April and not later than the first Monday in
May. In years in which a county does not
conduct a real property revaluation, the
board shall complete its duties on or before
the third Monday following its first meeting
unless, in its opinion, a longer period of
time is necessary or expedient to a proper
execution of its responsibilities. Except
as provided in subdivision (g)(5) of this
section, the board may not sit later than
July 1 except to hear and determine requests
made under the provisions of subdivision
(g)(2), below, when such requests are made
within the time prescribed by law. In the
year in which a county conducts a real
property revaluation, the board shall
complete its duties on or before December 1,
except that it may sit after that date to
hear and determine requests made under the
 -6-
provisions of subdivision (g)(2), below,
when such requests are made within the time
prescribed by law. From the time of its
first meeting until its adjournment, the
board shall meet at such times as it deems
reasonably necessary to perform its
statutory duties and to receive requests and
hear the appeals of taxpayers under the
provisions of subdivision (g)(2), below.

(Emphasis added.)

Our Supreme Court has explained that "[t]he reason why the

Board of Equalization is required to act within a fixed time is

apparent. The taxing authority must know the value of the

taxable property before it can fix a rate sufficient to meet

governmental needs." Spiers v. Davenport, 263 N.C. 56, 59, 138

S.E.2d 762, 764 (1964). See also N.C. Gen. Stat. § 105-347

(2013) (providing that county must set property tax rate "not

later than the date prescribed by applicable law or, in the

absence of specific statutory provisions, not later than the

first day of August" so as to provide revenues "necessary to

meet the general and other legally authorized expenses of the

taxing units"); N.C. Gen. Stat. § 105-360(a) (2013) (providing

that property taxes are due and payable on September 1 of fiscal

year for which taxes are levied with interest accruing if taxes

are paid on or after January 6).

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 105-322(g) sets out the powers and duties

of a board of equalization and review, including the duty to
 -7-
review tax lists, the duty to hear taxpayer appeals, the power

to appoint committees, the power to issue subpoenas, and the

power to examine witnesses and documents. With respect to the

duty to hear taxpayer appeals, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 105-322(g)(2)

provides:

Duty to Hear Taxpayer Appeals. -- On
request, the board of equalization and
review shall hear any taxpayer who owns or
controls property taxable in the county with
respect to the listing or appraisal of the
taxpayer's property or the property of
others.

a. A request for a hearing under this
subdivision (g)(2) shall be made
in writing to or by personal
appearance before the board prior
to its adjournment. However, if
the taxpayer requests review of a
decision made by the board under
the provisions of subdivision
(g)(1), above, notice of which was
mailed fewer than 15 days prior to
the board's adjournment, the
request for a hearing thereon may
be made within 15 days after the
notice of the board's decision was
mailed.

(Emphasis added.)

In arguing that its request for a hearing before the

Guilford County Board was timely, Dixie Building points to N.C.

Gen. Stat. § 105-322(g)(2), asserting that it should be

construed as providing that any request made prior to a board's

adjournment is timely. Dixie Building further contends that
 -8-
"the time prescribed by law" referenced in N.C. Gen. Stat. §

105-322(e) is defined by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 105-322(g)(2) as the

date of the Guilford County Board's adjournment for the year.

Consequently, Dixie Building asserts, its request for a hearing,

presented prior to the Guilford County Board's adjournment, was

timely. We disagree.

The plain language of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 105-322(e) cannot

be reconciled with Dixie Building's interpretation of the

statute. In N.C. Gen. Stat. § 105-322(e), the General Assembly

provided generally that "the board shall meet at such times as

it deems reasonably necessary to perform its statutory duties

and to receive requests and hear the appeals of taxpayers under

the provisions of subdivision (g)(2), below." (Emphasis added.)

However, the legislature also mandated that in years involving a

real property revaluation, as occurred in 2012, "the board shall

complete its duties on or before December 1 . . . ." Id. The

only exception is that the board "may sit after that date to

hear and determine requests made under the provisions of

subdivision (g)(2), below, when such requests are made within

the time prescribed by law." Id. (emphasis added).

Thus, the plain language of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 105-322(e)

limits the board's authority after 1 December to only hearing

and determining requests for review under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 105-
 -9-
322(g)(2). The General Assembly did not authorize a board of

equalization and review to receive requests for hearings under

subdivision (g)(2) after 1 December. Under N.C. Gen. Stat. §

105-322(e), the board may only receive requests prior to 1

December. However, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 105-322(e) adds a further

limitation that hearings after 1 December may only be held for

those requests "made within the time prescribed by law,"

suggesting that the deadline for requests could be a date other

than 1 December.

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 105-322(g)(2)a, the subsection on which

Dixie Building relies, can be read in a manner that is

consistent with the plain language of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 105-

322(e). The focus of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 105-322(g)(2)a is on how

"[a] request for a hearing under this subdivision (g)(2) shall

be made . . . ." The statute specifies that the hearing request

may be made in two ways: in writing to the board or by a

personal appearance before the board. The subsection, rather

than granting the taxpayer the absolute right to make a request

up until the board's adjournment for the year (a construction

that would place § 105-322(g)(2)a in conflict with § 105-

322(e)), can be read instead as providing an outside limit on

when a board of equalization may allow requests for hearings to

be made. The subsection establishes that the board has no
 -10-
authority to grant a hearing for a request made after

adjournment.1

Such a construction is also consistent with N.C. Gen. Stat.

§ 105-322(f), which requires a board to publish a notice of

certain dates prior to the board's first meeting for the year.

In addition to announcing the date, hours, place, and purpose of

the first meeting of the board, the notice must also "state the

dates and hours on which the board will meet following its first

meeting and the date on which it expects to adjourn . . . ."

Id. (emphasis added). If a board subsequently decides to

adjourn at a later date than was originally announced, it must

provide notice "published at least once in the newspaper in

which the first notice was published, such publication to be

prior to the date first announced for adjournment." Id.

(emphasis added).

The notice requirements of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 105-322(f)

regarding adjournment can only be effective if a board has the

authority to set deadlines prior to the time of adjournment for

the submission of requests for a hearing. It would be difficult

for a board to identify an adjournment date in advance that

would allow adequate time to conduct hearings without setting a
1
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 105-322(g)(2)a includes an exception, not
applicable here, when the board has made a decision under § 105-
322(g)(1) and notice was sent out less than 15 days prior to the
board's adjournment.
 -11-
deadline for requests for hearings sufficiently in advance of

the projected adjournment date. In addition, under Dixie

Building's construction of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 105-322(g)(2)a, an

aggrieved taxpayer could request a hearing on the scheduled date

of adjournment, but that would require that the board then

postpone adjourning until the hearing could be conducted.

However, the board would then be unable to comply with the

notice provision for adjournment set out in N.C. Gen. Stat. §

105-322(f).

Dixie Building nonetheless urges that a board could hear an

appeal the same day it was requested, thus avoiding any

deviation from the statute's notice requirements. N.C. Gen.

Stat. § 105-322(g)(2)c, however, provides that "[u]pon the

request of an appellant, the board shall subpoena witnesses or

documents if there is a reasonable basis for believing that the

witnesses have or the documents contain information pertinent to

the decision of the appeal." In addition, the General Assembly

has granted a board of equalization and review the power to

"subpoena witnesses or documents on its own motion . . . ."

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 105-322(g)(3)b. A hearing occurring on the

same day as a request for a hearing would preclude the board

from exercising these powers.
 -12-
Further, it is entirely plausible that if an announced

adjournment date were the deadline for requests for hearing

rather than the deadline set by a board, many taxpayers would

wait until the last day to make their requests. An inability to

conduct all the requested hearings in one meeting would then

force a postponement of the adjournment date and violation of

the notice provisions.

We can see no basis for concluding that the General

Assembly intended to strip a board of equalization and review of

the power to set a reasonable schedule for receiving requests

for a hearing that would ensure a full and careful consideration

of a taxpayer's appeal. Indeed, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 105-322(e)

mandates that "[f]rom the time of its first meeting until its

adjournment, the board shall meet at such times as it deems

reasonably necessary to perform its statutory duties and to

receive requests and hear the appeals of taxpayers under the

provisions of subdivision (g)(2), below." (Emphasis added.)

In short, Dixie Building's proposed construction of N.C.

Gen. Stat. § 105-322(g)(2) to allow requests for hearing through

the date of adjournment would place that subsection in conflict

with numerous other subsections. When the statute is read as a

whole giving effect to all of its provisions, we hold that the

Guilford County Board and the Property Commission properly
 -13-
concluded that the legislature intended for a local board of

equalization and review to have the authority to set a

reasonable deadline prior to its adjournment for accepting

requests for revaluation appeals and that such time is "the time

prescribed by law" provided for in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 105-322(e).

See Rhyne v. K-Mart Corp., 358 N.C. 160, 188, 594 S.E.2d 1, 20

(2004) (holding that "this Court does not read segments of a

statute in isolation. Rather, we construe statutes in pari

materia, giving effect, if possible, to every provision.").

Because 2012 was a revaluation year for Guilford County,

the Guilford County Board set 2 July 2012 as the deadline for

appeal requests for that year and because Dixie Building did not

submit its hearing request by that date, Dixie Building did not

timely request an appeal of the revaluation of the Dixie

properties for the tax year 2012. The Commission, therefore,

properly dismissed Dixie Building's revaluation appeal.

Affirmed.

Judges ROBERT C. HUNTER and McCULLOUGH concur.