Appeal of Wilson
161 N.H. 659
| N.H. | 2011Background
- Ned and Theresa Wilson sought real estate tax abatement in Sugar Hill in Feb 2009 through non-attorney Mark Lutter, using the BTLA form; they did not sign the form themselves.
- Lutter wrote 'See agent form' on the signature line and attached an agent authorization form signed by the petitioners, but that form lacked the petitioners' certification that the information was true.
- Town denied the abatement; the BTLA dismissed the petition for lack of the petitioners' signatures, citing RSA 76:16, III and Tax 203.02(b),(d), finding willful neglect by Lutter.
- Petitioners appealed to BTLA; BTLA affirmed dismissal and denied reconsideration; petitioners timely appealed to the NH Supreme Court.
- Petitioners argue Rule 203.02(d) is unlawful as it conflicts with RSA 76:16, IV; they contend signatures and certification should not be required, especially when a representative is involved.
- Court reviews BTLA decisions de novo, applying statutory interpretation to determine whether Rule 203.02(d) conflicts with or complements the statutory scheme.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rule 203.02(d) conflicts with RSA 76:16, IV? | Wilson argues rule conflicts with right to seek relief without signature. | BTLA argues rule is a reasonable carry-out of its functions and does not modify RSA 76:16, IV. | No conflict; rule reasonable and consistent with statute. |
| RSA 76:16, III(g) signature requirement valid when a representative signs? | Lutter's signature should suffice to satisfy RSA 76:16, III(g). | Only the taxpayer's signature and certification satisfy RSA 76:16, III(g). | Taxpayer must sign and certify; representative signature alone does not satisfy. |
| Did BTLA improperly penalize for Lutter's actions without preserving issue of willful conduct? | BTLA erred by holding petitioners responsible for Lutter's willful conduct. | BTLA's ruling was proper given the failure to sign and certify. | Issue not preserved for review; not decided on the merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Appeal of Kat Paw Acres Trust, 156 N.H. 536 (2007) (statutory interpretation and deference to BTLA findings; liberal reading of tax abatement procedures)
- Appeal of Mays, 161 N.H. 419 (2011) (agency rulemaking authority; rules must implement statute without adding or detracting)
- Petition of Mooney, 160 N.H. 607 (2010) (agency regulations must not exceed authority; statutory implementation)
- Appeal of Johnson, 161 N.H. 419 (2011) (statutory interpretation; right to tax relief; effect of form requirements)
- Weare Land Use Assoc. v. Town of Weare, 153 N.H. 510 (2006) (avoid absurd results; interpret statute to carry out legislative purpose)
- Appeal of Barry, 142 N.H. 284 (1997) (avoid readings that render statute meaningless)
- GGP Steeplegate v. City of Concord, 150 N.H. 683 (2004) (threshold for properly completing an abatement application; specificity required)