*1
IDAHO STATE
Petitioner, AKER, Auditor; Canyon County
Bill ST Pence, County
Richard Audi Twin Falls
tor; Lilya, County Au Marie Ivie Blaine
ditor; Clements, Margaret Gooding F. Auditor; Johnson,
County Elaine S. Car County Auditor; Long
ibou and Ronald
more, Auditor; County The Bonneville Kramer; Douglas
Honorable D. The Doolittle;
Honorable Jim R. Honor Newhouse;
able Robert and the Hon G. Rasmussen, Respon
orable Francis J.
dents.
No. 14740.
Supreme Court of Idaho.
Oct. 5, 1982.
Dissenting Opinion Nov. Gen., Theodore V. Leroy, Atty.
David H. Deputy Attys. Spangler, High, David G. Gen., Boise, petitioner. Caldwell, Morrow, Harry C. A.
William Roark, Falls, DeHaan, VI, Keith Ray Twin Shoshone, Rose, Clyde G. F. Hailey, Douglas Thomas, E. Nelson, Lynn Springs, Soda Henderson, Hailey, Boise, Michael Arnold Ketchum, J. William Gariepy, Richard N. Brauner, Caldwell, respondents. Mal- Kenneth L. Charles F. McDevitt Webb, McDevitt, lea, Givens, Pursley & Taxpay- Boise, Associated for amicus curiae ers.
PER CURIAM. court on This matter is before for alterna- petition and amended petition the Idaho State of mandamus tive writ Tax Commission. *2 county requiring tive auditors originally was instituted
The action
proper-
six counties and
real
against
upon
the auditors of
auditors enter
county
re-
incorporate
coun-
ultimately
respective
amended
assessment rolls of their
ty
in four of
judges sitting
spondents
accomplish
district
adjustments
ties certain
counties.
respective
Boundary
The auditor
equalization.
six
the auditors of
complied
County
this court
Upon receipt
petitions,
of the
complied, either on
other counties have not
responses
to file
respondents
directed the
not to
their individual decisions
the basis of
briefs,
attorneys repre-
and
supporting
and
commissioners,
so,
request by
do
curiae,
amicus
senting
parties, including
all
restrain-
temporary
or in obedience to
Idaho,
Taxpayers
the Associated
made
is-
injunctions
ing
preliminary
orders and
relative
oral
before the court
presentations
judges
district
respondent
sued
respective positions.
to their
This ac-
compliance.
their
prohibited
this court
is in-
Original jurisdiction of
the counties of
respect
proceeds
tion
1, Chapter 2 of the
pursuant
voked
to Title
Falls, Blaine, Gooding, and
Canyon, Twin
proceeded
has
Idaho Code and the matter
removed
has been
Caribou. Bonneville
I.A.R.
pursuant
seq.
to I.C.
7-301 et
§
by stipulation.
from the case
43.
primarily
There are
three central
issues
think it
Issue No. we
Regarding
raised in this proceeding:
clear,
respon
for some of the
and counsel
1. Whether the
Tax
State
acknowledge
hearing
before
dents
empowered
equalize
and authorized to
court,
the tax commission is consti
the assessments
in all the
property
empowered and
tutionally
statutorily
Idaho,
counties of the state of
and has
the assessments of
equalize
authorized to
State
Commission in this case
of the
among the various counties
property
power
authority
exercised that
Const. Art.
State of Idaho.
Idaho
§
accordance with the statutes of the State
Bottolfsen,
County v.
I.C.
63-513. Ada
of Idaho and the constitution of the Unit-
(1940); North
the Idaho State Tax issue, we the second regard With Equalization, Board of convened State prior our it is clear from also conclude that August, the first week of to review jurisdictions other cases and cases from property throughout assessments of re 63-614 which the mandate of I.C. § categories, various as said assess- quires that: ments the various coun- performed by were receives county auditor “As soon as the Board, ty using assessors. The various data certified statements it, the certified supplied property determined that the [the Tax Commis- statement from State categories of of seven counties as to several changes in the showing sion being was assessed at a rate mark- property assessments] enter in the columns ... he shall edly average below the state level appear items to be corrected respec- therefore entered its directive to the which the roll, legal justification the real Board. assessment There is no ink, red made changes all corrections his defiance the district lacked by the state tax commission in the assess- jurisdiction to hear the case. It follows ment ... writs and prohibition of mandamus here appropriate.” imposes “purely duty upon ministerial” the county auditor and that if he refuses to Colorado, Similarly, as in the Idaho State *3 carry out duty a writ of mandamus Tax empowered, Commission is authorized will lie to his compel performance of that equalize and directed the assessments of 139 duty. People Hively, ministerial v. throughout of all counties the 49, 721 Tax (1959); Colo. 336 P.2d State The is state. tax commission a constitu- Johnson, 105, 269 Commission v. 75 Idaho tionally body pursuant to Arti- established (1954). P.2d 1080 constitution, pro- 7 12 of cle the §
The third issue raises a more difficult the commission shall have vides tax question re- concerning whether or not the other powers perform “such other such spondents law, in this action con- judicially can prescribed by duties as includ- order, test the if so tax commission’s the ing supervision the and coordination of what standard of review applicable. is equali- county work of the several boards of pursuant The to the legislature, zation.” Hendrix, Refining In Utah 72 Oil Co. v. mandate, empowered and constitutional has 407, 411, (1952), Idaho 242 P.2d this 124 the equalize directed the tax commission court had under consideration an action through the throughout assessments where a taxpayer sought received a 6, the provisions Chapter Title 63 of of compelling writ of from this mandate court Accordingly, the action of the Idaho Code. County comply the officials of Ada herein, Commission, Tax involved State an order of the Tax State Commission. authorized, but mandated. only issuing the this court writ stated: “... the order of the Tax county Commission assert respondent The auditors immune collateral same attack to the determining for proper that the forum judicial action, extent as decisions ...” actions in this issues involved ’pursuant courts to I.C. before district Colorado, Similarly, Supreme Court of Chap- of the entire reading 63-202A. A § People 49, in Hively, v. 139 Colo. 336 P.2d Title it clear that I.C. ter 6 of 63 makes (1959), 721 action considering mandamus assessment function 63-202A involves the § by against Colorado’s tax commission distinguished from county official county requiring asses- county assessor Tax by equalization process State sor to make additions corrections at issue here. involved, assessment roll of the com- county mented as follows: 63-3811 I.C. legislature § While the Essentially, jurisdictional “... ais appeal specific provision has made county conflict between officers of the the Board assessors to taxpayers ” the state.... of ad Appeals Tax from determination 63- pursuant to I.C. court, then, § valorem taxes made rejecting in Hively, after as a board meeting procedural argu- (county 401 commission and constitutional (appeals 63-2210 I.C. equalization), ments after hold- § raised assessor and I.C. equalization), ing requested acts of the assessor board from assessments) and (income its were ministerial” tax “purely summarized 63-3049 § assessments), the holding (sales at 336 tax as follows P.2d 735: 63-3632 I.C. § provision no made legislature has more “Thus the Assessor here had no the decision to be from appeal taken standing question validity assessments equalizing commission tax court action of the Board than a lower 63-605, seq. et to I.C. pursuant made man- question validity has to legisla- Therefore, apparent obli- reviewing date of a court. He was action that the contemplate did not ture gated carry out mandate assessments, as- are administrative in their equalizing State Tax Commission subject judi- sessments would be to review character and should remain free of fraud, either the district courts or the Board of cial interference in the absence of Appeals. largely oppressive, deter- or conduct so arbi- corruption This fraud. appeal trary capricious mined the central issue of this as to amount to County 1891 decision of Orr v. Board of v. Board of Com- (Harshberger State 190, 416, 5; Equalization, 194, missioners, 592, 28 P. 201 Kan. 442 P.2d Mo- referring 211, Equaliza- to the Board of Corp. McHenry, State bil Oil v. 200 Kan. tion, powers whose now are conferred 982). 436 P.2d pursuant State Tax Commission to S.L. Graves, early Symns In the case of 69, ch. page P. we at Kan. stated pointed
“There is no method of appeal
page
opinion:
constitutional not substitute its for that of by statutory clothed authority with quasi-judicial powers equalization, the board of and this in regard to the impose assessment of certain court cannot its notion of value classes and kinds of property. given upon It is These are fundamental either. power exclusively, taxation, and it required, principles the law of to value and assess the properties pub- cannot be waived aside to meet ’ lic utilities. It has the right to exercise a ... . exigencies any particular ease fair discretion in expressing its judgment fraud, corruption Unless there has been as to the valuation of such property, and oppressive, arbitrary or conduct so or ca- acted, when it has once and there is no pricious as to amount to fraud in the fraud shown in judgment, its its action is assessment, the courts cannot interfere.” subject (Northwest review.’ Additionally, in v. Rella Apts. State Verde Light, Alexander, 557, etc. Co. v. 29 Idaho Inc., 458, 675, Ariz.App. 25 544 P.2d 681 566, 1106)” 160 P. 92, (1976) 831, cert. den. 429 U.S. 97 50 S.Ct. Courts from jurisdictions other have noted 95, the L.Ed.2d court stated: if a tax commission or equivalent, its brings “This us to the vital issue in this acting as a state equalization, board of acts case, the method used the Board in bad faith or so amount arbitrarily as to what arriving By at assessed valuations. fraud, to constructive its actions judge standard does the court the action subject judicial review in an extraordina- equalizing of the Board? In its task of ry proceeding. taxes, acting quasi-ju- the Board was in a In Panhandle case of Pipe capacity. very early Eastern Line dicial Co. Dwyer, 417, 207 (1971) County, Kan. 485 149 United Mines v. Gila 12 P.2d Globe 967, 217, 222, 774, 2409, (1909), cert. den. 406 P. U.S. 92 32 Ariz. 100 776 S.Ct. 665, L.Ed.2d court stated: Supreme Kansas Court judicial articulated the in- scope of into may only inquire ‘.... [T]he quiry equalization into state matters as fol- as- purpose such action for the lows: certaining whether the territorial board has always equalization jurisdiction been the rule of this had to make
“[I]t taxation, order, determine, especially court that matters of or to when the 738 raised,
issue be whether the board Respondents equalization assert equalization opportunity acted in bad faith or the tax commission without so hearing process violates the federal due re- arbitrarily as to amount to constructive quirements. fraud in adopting its scale of valuation
Respondents further assert
the is-
In the case of Cochise County
court,
v. Southern
suance
writ of
of a
mandate
Pacific Company, 99 Ariz.
exercising
original jurisdiction,
P.2d
and thus
(1966),
quoted
by-passing
respective
Court
United
district court ac-
tions,
Mines
approval
effectively deprive
and further stated:
would
the taxpay-
ers of the
of Idaho
process
State
of due
‘Although the board acted on incorrect
law in that
denies them the opportunity
information,
showing
there was no
presented
to be heard. This issue has been
excessive,
grossly
rate was
or that
throughout
in a number of cases
the United
the action of the board was in fact
States,
leading
being
decision
by the
arbitrary
(Emphasis
or fraudulent.’
Supreme
U.S.
Bi-metallic Invest.
added.)
BISTLINE, J.,
join
opin-
does not
in this
record, multiplicity
the voluminous
ion.
issues,
briefs,
recognize
is to
complex
and
saw
judges
that four of the
district
State’s
PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDAMUS
the claims of the coun-
enough substance to
WHEREAS,
ties to
the issuance of writs to
appears
justify
from a verified
believing
Tax
counties
presented
and
to
Commission.
Petition
Amended Petition
Six
Dwyer,
437,
equalization process was
2. State ex rel. Miller
v.
208 Kan.
to conduct
its
suffi-
process requirements);
(1972) (no
required);
493 P.2d
notice
cient
to meet all due
1095
Howe,
Winder,
433,
Hacker v.
Hammond
126 N.E.
72
101
255
100 Ohio
Neb.
N.W.
(1904) (even
(1919)
equaliza-
(acting
409
in the nature of
if some form
notice was re-
board,
required
quired,
give
statutory provision fixing
notice in
tion
it is
to
the time
valid).
place
meeting
shall
See also
and
order that
its actions
be
the state board was
197;
Lowenstein,
Baker v.
notice);
(1923); 84 A.L.R.
Leser v.
“By the term ‘cash value’ required to promulgate authorized and ‘full at was cash value’ is meant the value regulations finding taken in market property would be rules and payment sol- just of a debt from a due value, that market value equally clear debtor, vent property or the amount the “according ap- to recognized determined would voluntary sell for at a sale made I.C. techniques.” praisal methods business, taking the ordinary course of clear, also, prior It 63-202. § into when earning power consideration definition, giv- 63-111 was I.C. legislative put to the same uses to which by 'the Tax Com- consideration proper en applied.” similarly situated regula- its rule and when it fulfilled mission In 1969 the Tax legislature handed to Also self-evident is making function. tion defining Commission the market value. regard had that the regulations pertaining “Rules and *7 tech- methods and time-honored market Duty of assessors. —It value — value determining fair market niques for shall be of the duty state tax commis- when the State have obtained always which sion to and each prepare distribute to empowered) so (and entities of Idaho other county county assessor and each board of eminent domain. right exercise Idaho, commissioners within the state of rule by has Thus, the Tax Commission regulations rules and and di- prescribing defined, asses- for the tax regulation recting the manner in val- which market itself, val- market sors, presumably ue is determined purpose for the ap- recognized generally ue and the three pro- taxation. The rules and regulations readily determining it. This proaches mulgated by state tax commission Valorem Ad available Tax Commission shall require each to find market assessor Ill, file Vol. on value property Regulations, of all Property within his Boise, Library, in the Idaho Law Idaho.1 The estimate of market value must be Page regulation ten-page of a rule and and tech- upon procedures, based methods captioned December updated Art. 202 last guidelines recom- niques consistent 24, 1980, (and guides the county assessors appraisal apprais- mended institutes and by well) presumably the Tax recognition. al societies of national follows: ap- three generally recognized MARKET VALUE FOR TAXATION mind proaches kept to value must be REAL VALUATION PROPERTY are approaches The three appraiser. ART. 202 (compari- the cost market data approach, Page 1 of 10 son) approach, approach. and income approaches applicable If the three are not REGULATIONS then as property appraisal, to the under ART. 202 RULES AND REGULATIONS possible shall be ana- many approaches as PERTAINING TO MARKET VALUE lyzed. MARKET VALUE: Regulation Amended 1980 STC open An concept market value is “that recog- ensuing pages In the nine the three amount of money United States or its appraisal explained nized techniques equivalent probability property that in all language and summarized in should exchange would hands for between a will- any be valuable to assessor and understand- seller, sell, ing compulsion under no commencing his first neophyte able informed, capable buyer; a reasonable done, short, well and to term. I see it as being time allowed to consummate the sale be commended. substantiated a reasonable down payment or full cash payment.” see, however, what- any I do mention
63-111, I.C. TERMS TO BE technique appraisal— CON- ever of a fourth pur- STRUED MARKET AS VALUE —For in its The Tax Commission Study.” “Ratio poses appraisal, assessment and taxation there has brief as much as concludes that property Code, in title such a rule or promulgation been no “value,” value,” terms “cash “full cash val- making its contention as regulation, ue,” value,” “true and “true cash value” p. does at “THAT ‘RATIO STUDY’ shall mean “Market value for assessment ARE NOT ADOPTED AS PROCEDURES purposes” as defined by regula- rules and THE IS NOT A DEFENSE TO RULES tions of the State Tax Commission. . THE WRIT.” From which OF ISSUANCE advances emphasized statement the brief This “market value for assessment and rule promulgation of a thought purposes,” concept taxation shall mean unnecessary. Whether open regulation same as the market was concept. value To discussed in equitable property achieve there or not is an issue not appraisals necessary only notwithstanding can be one definition of market value. opinion, the Court’s dis- recognized counsel involved step appraisal The first of any It was discussed and cussed it in the briefs. physical inspection, is the record- argument. at oral explained further size, ing plotting shape, in detail as to quantity components quality hand, at least as I understand the one On subject property. it, at work there are the assessors determining counties respective their pur- The market value for assessment their property of market value of the real poses estimated must be entered *8 des- by utilizing procedures constituents county upon taxpayer’s assessor valua- Rules and (I.C. 63-212). ignated by the Tax Commission’s tion assessment notice may ten-page Tax 1. The rule also be found in An- State Commission. Appendix of the nex A-l in an to the brief Regulation, Having completed Art. 202. all power Such broad claims unbridled their functions required, comes then the uniformity in name of statewide Tax increases Commission and entire cate- Obviously some of the accept. difficult to gories by Ratio Study utilization its Pro- not, they in counties do have claimed This, officials, cedure. say can- turn “mere ir- that the Tax Commission’s not be done. Two reasons are assigned. procedure its use of a new regularity” and The first is that the Tax pro- Commission’s is without of rule unconstitutional. benefit beyond cedure is of statutory the ambit charges meriting These serious are serious provisions and non-compliance in with the discussion, disposi- turn analysis and in provisions of the Administrative Procedures my part, certainly tion in For I this Court. Act, particular provisions those which incline that should to the belief those issues the Tax require its Commission transmit met, I see been no obstacles promulgated rules to the of the secretary from precluded doing so. Court senate and the clerk of chief the house day regular before first of the session legislature following pro- next II. mulgation rule, and then affords the law and My reading statutory of Idaho legislature reject in which opportunity me brings to the conclusion case law or modify the rule. 67-5217 and I.C. §§ been time in Idaho there has never a
-5218. At oral argument it was mentioned
its
history that
the Tax Commission or
that one of
petitioners
in the district
sub-
predecessor
authority
had an unbridled
court actions and hence affected
ject
judicial
to no
restraints.
disposition
Court’s
a state
a
senator and
good starting point
any controversy
A
taxpayer of one of the counties involved.
Supreme
United
decision of the
States
It would be an exercise in
futility
that decision is the Bi-Metallic
Court. Here
engage in a unilateral dissertation on an
case,
forth,
jurisdiction
in excess
the
county,
acted
of
and considerable increase has
193,
conferred
law.” 3 Idaho at
in
been made
the valuation of cattle and
416.
28 P.
The Court
with
quoted
approval
aggregate
the
sheep. Whether
increase
the
from
California case of
Maxwell
of
in
is
valuation
the
to the
equal
Board,
389,
53
(1879)
391
the propo-
Cal.
valuation,
in such
aggregate decrease
or
sition that:
less,
say;
is
or
we are
to
greater
unable
“ ‘When, however, a
board
public
or offi-
and
the
every
taxpayer
but
citizen
of
cer has exceeded the
powers
limited
con-
right
every
state has the
to insist
law,
ferred by
direct consequence
the
having any authority
board or officer
of such excessive
authority
use of
must
levy
with
connected
the
assessment
taxation,
be to add to the burden of local
shall,
his
of taxes
in the exercise of
that,
it clearly appears
unless the act
duties,
pointed
out
pursue the methods
annulled,
ultra vires be
each taxpayer
194,
the
at
28 P. at
statute.”
3 Idaho
character,
must
injury
suffer
common in
added).
(emphasis
417-18
special
degree.
in
or
It
amount
that the
board of
Noting
equalization
state
would
one
directly
seem that
thus
affect-
functions,
exercising judicial
was
and there
ed
a remedy,
should be entitled to
appeal pointed
no method
out in
being
of
petitioner
our conclusion is that the
was
194,
statutory provisions,
”
the
3
28
Idaho at
his proceeding.’
authorized to commence
418,
P.
held that
writ of
at
the Court
193-94,
3 Idaho
28
at 417 (emphasis
at
P.
as
(by statute known
the writ of
certiorari
added).
of
re-
review)
seeking
is the
means
A
undoubtedly
factor which
influenced
lief,
195,
3
in fact the
means.
Idaho at
only
insignificant
is
Court
Orr
the not
Light
28
and Water
P. at
Northwest
protection:
matter
of a constitutional
557,
Alexander,
“If such
officer or
would have
benefit
for
proceedings
findings
and the
period
(10) days
transcript
a
of ten
after service on
order,
of the district
of fact and conclusions
law
of state tax commission’s
ne-
him
benefit, and a benefit
therewith,
judge
inestimable
comply
glects or refuses to
—of
we
not have in this case.
do
may apply
state tax commission
a
to
judge
district court of
automatically
which
question
public
officer
holds office for
where the
presents
happens
itself is what
order,
(5)
an
days
returnable within five
district
go
not
to
Commission does
thereof,
compel
from the date
to
such
no
court,
there
no
and
order
hearing,
and
is
public
employee
comply
officer or
to
with
I
Logically, so
adjudicating
dispute?
rule,
or
to
he
why
such law
or
show cause
the Tax
believe,
aggrieved by
parties
(Em-
not be
so to do.”
compelled
should
with the
comply
failure to
Commission’s
added.)
phasis
are en-
of the statute
procedural directions
in district court
It
to
that
initiate the action
legislature
seems
me
did
titled to
have ini-
should
orderly
for
which the Tax
thereby provide an
scheme
proc-
the writ
orders,
method is
proper
of its lawful
and at the
tiated. A
enforcement
counties
ess,
is what the various
provided
opportunity
an
and that
same time
for
be-
doing,
apparently
initially
to
determine the law-
here have been
district court
procedure by
appropriate
the order the enforcement of
lieved to be the
fulness of
issued alter-
judges
district
who
sought
be
in district court under
various
which can
analogous to
itway
writs.
In a
is
the order is not unlaw-
native
I.C.
63-202A.
§
If
condemna-
ful,
all
as “inverse
compliance
will obtain
what we
know
the district court
supposed
who
is
contempt
party
is far the
tion.”
If
with a
order —which
so,
not do
into
court does
proce-
you
district
accepted
bring
and more
manner
better
anot
diffi-
him
court.
It is
bring
ex-
into
you
to this Court for an
coming
dure than
any way as
I
not see it in
concept.
cult
do
63-202A is well
traordinary writ.
I.C. §
courts to
to use the
a “collateral attack"
protec-
which affords
out scheme
thought
state
requirement
“proper
disputes before local
enforce
everyone, lays
tion to
it
used,
use
is
when to not
courts,
machinery”
appeal—
an
provides
for
district
gener-
This is
process.
deny procedural due
petitioning
resort
thereby obviating
law in
case
law,
it has been the
al
between
disputes
resolve
writs in order to
writ,
nec-
fraudu-
Idaho. A review under
where
action
Tax Commission was
essary,
appeal
or
where I.C.
63-202A
lent,
so
as to
to con-
arbitrary
amount
followed,
proper
is a
examination
fraud,”
with the
my
structive
concern is not
I do
process.
repeat
denial of due
I
technicality
but
pleadings,
rather
not see
review
by petition
by appeal
greater
respondents’ conten-
concern with
gives
any right
the courts
interfere
they
tion that
have been denied procedural
a fair
discretion
the exercise of
proce-
due
book denial
process.
my
recognized appraisal
techniques
ap-
se
and is
process
per
arbitrary,
dural due
proaches
out
which have set
rule
per
constructively
se
fraudulent. The hold-
regulation
Commission,
of the Tax
and then
ings and statements
the Arizona
gone unchallenged by
legislature
after
my
inapposite
Kansas courts5 are
properly presented
same have been
to it
expressed
as
or the
this Court
required
under the
Proce-
views
views
Administrative
dures Act.
cases,
recently
1965 in
earlier
the Abbot case
an esteemed court.
Although
opinion
Court’s
seems
assessors,
when
Courts cannot become
hinge
largely
“respon-
on the assertion that
dents
allegation
open
have made no
comes
day
the courts are not
People
Hively,
following
passage
Colo.
336 P.2d
illustrates indeed well the
(Colo. 1959), perhaps deserving
study
“proper
more
vast
differences between Idaho’s
given
and discussion
opinion.
than
machinery”
Court’s
and Colorado’s:
*13
“
17-page opinion,
it
that,
contains consid
‘However,
finally
should we
hold
erably
quotes
more than
it
the two
taken from
requires
equali-
the law
that
where
a board
opinion.
found in the Court’s
It is
to be
first
evidence,
upon specific
zation act
no other
largely
Hively
noted
in
Colorado court
may
permitted,
action
be
the rule is in no
reviews,
upon,
extensively
quotes
relies
and
applicable
wise
to the case at
Our
bar.
Con-
cases, Bi-Metallic,
from its own 1914
138 P.
regard
is
stitution
silent in
to the evidence or
(1914),
People
Pitcher,
1010
and
v.
Colo.
56
character
essential
thereof
to valid action
343,
(1914).
already pointed
to insure willing buy- consummated between a process, as due that will not be a tion known seller, acting willing er and neither under day. happy duress.
APPENDIX purposes C. Market value for assessment (MVAP) means the current level value OP PAGES APPENDIX OPENING TO qualified appraiser a follow- estimated TAX BRIEF COMMISSION in Tax Commission ing guidelines Regulations INTRODUCTION 202 and Rules and Article 63-923, Code. Also see Idaho Section of the ratio studies between the Annual III, Property Ad Valorem Article value determined market verified sales Tax Commission Regulations State prices appraisals property of real (here “Regulations”). Annex in after See value of the same property the assessed real A. on as stated assessors’ roll are con- real D. Parcel means an area of estate Code, compliance ducted Sec- thereon, improvements with or without tion 63-513. Information from these stu- single ownership. held as one unit under provide used to dies is technical assistance relation- percentage E. means the Ratio counties, to test results of the contin- MVAP and between the assessor’s ship uing appraisal process, and assist value, market the Tax Commission’s equaliz- Tax Commission in its task of State real in each all taxable ing abstracts of valu- certifying county study year”. “ratio ation. year study year F. means Ratio explain purpose appendix of this is to particular study which the results of procedures in detail involved ratio of Edu- Department to the are submitted in- studies. Areas that will be discussed will normal- study used in a cation. Sales following: clude the during the fiscal occurring those ly be 1. Definitions immediately the ratio year preceding *14 including 2. sales Sampling procedure, i.e., study year 1984 ratio study year, ' process verification between will those consummated sales be 30,1983 1,1982 (fiscal year and June July 3. Development ap- Tax Commission 1983). praisals categories current Real means G. Types 4. of studies through through and 11 5 numbered analysis 5. of data Statistical Regulations. See pursuant to Article 6. Appraisal Mass Standards B. Annex Equalization procedures 7. percent- ratio means the Sale/appraisal H. the assessor’s relationship between age 1. DEFINITIONS or price sales the verified MVAP and per- by Tax Commission value for made appraisal A.Assessed value market [see computed as follows: sonnel (MVAP) purposes assessment ]. =
Sale/Appraisal x ratio SellingpriM value or a^atsL definitions, refers to (‘E’) as in these apprais- used I.Sample verified sales or means values. any particular of’ study the ratio sum made specifically als ‘the- (x): (average) Mean program. 1. Arithmetic sum of ratios or dividing the result of DEFINITIONS STATISTICAL n, the num- in a series other numbers A in the series. or values samples ber in accordance All terms are defined a value in series. central measure of study program. usage their ratio Distribution, 6. t: Simple to compute, dispropor- A statistic used to estimate degree tionately influenced extreme values. accuracy sample mean for small samples. It is by dividing calculated
=x n standard error of the mean into the dif- 2. Array: An ordered series: from low ference between the sample mean and
high high to low. whatever population against mean the test is to be made. This test tells us Determination, (r2): Coefficient of that, probability though even designed statistic to indicate how accu known, sample mean population rately average line of best fit matches mean is something different. After cal- the data used to develop that line. At r2 t, scale, a culating = similar to that used in points or values in the series test, the z is consulted. used are completely random and do not at - mx = all line, fit into a while r2 1 indicates a =-- t s/_/n perfect fit of all points along a line. rE(x-x) (y-y)]2 =f2 = mean Where x sample [E(x-x)2][E(y-y)2] = mean m population = deviation standard s sample = given where x group variable in one of data = (less than equal n size sample with x as its mean; 30) = given group variable y in a separate (same s/_/ñ) data with as its mean. y (see: Fit) Line of Best Distribution, z: 4. Dispersion, Coefficient of: A scale which enables measurement of A measure of how closely together probability sample occurrence of a relation to the samples median the in an population ratio or mean ratio that arrayed group lie. Specifically, per- significantly different from the sample spread cent from the median of the mid- mean. This scale is similar to the t-distri- dle 50% of samples. bution, except that it is only to be used (cid:127)®(Q8~Ql) = Coef. Disp. sample greater when the size is than 30. T The calculated z value itself tells the number of standard deviations away = representing where the 3rd point Qg quar- from the mean any particular test mean (75th percentile) tile in an array, = representing or sample the 1st Probability lies. is then calcu- point quar- Qi (25th percentile) tile in an array, (See lated distribution.) from table. t = and x the median. *15 8. Frequency distribution: (see: Median) Quartile An arrangement of statistical data that 5. Dispersion, Coefficient of (Intra-Area): given shows how often values or value A measure of how close all arrayed sam- groups occur. ples are to the median. Used in Federal (see: Histogram) guidelines, this measure is calculated 9. Geometric Mean: summing the absolute value (disregarding signs) of the difference A between each ra- measure of central value determined tio and the median by multiplying ratio and then all of the divid- values in a series ing this sum by together the median taking ratio. The and then the “n”th root result is expressed as a percentage. product. of this n _ = geo. mean X _/xj.x2.Xg. xn Where CIAD the Coefficient of Intra-Area Dispersion, where etc., each value in Xj, represent given ratio, x is the value of any = and n series; the number of values "x is the value of the median ratio. in the series. = ratio, x the declared = of the line and A the y-intercept Histogram: formula: calculated from the pictorial representation A a frequency EyEx2-ExExy comparison distribution enabling = A 2 . - (Ex) standard curve. nEx = is calculated the line and and B (see: Distribution) slope Frequency from the formula: Line): 11. Line of Best Fit (Regression nExy-ExEy ' A line representing average relation = B -(Ex) nEx ship between two variables. This line is (see: of) Coefficient Determination, determined from the assessor’s declared (see: Mean) 12. Mean: Arithmetic ratio of assessment as one variable and (x): 13. Median the ratio as determined from the ratio study as the Depending other variable. point array. The middle value or in an (r2), on the closeness of fit tendency measure central found = possible predict probable true ratios .5, val- x .5n + where n the number of using hypothetical and declared ratios. etc.). Also, (samples, equivalent ues line For the standard percentile. the 50th = -s- A Bx y (see: of) Dispersion, Coefficient = assessment, the true ratio of where y (Q):
Quartile lie. will sample arrayed one quarter below That value determining dispersion. coefficient Used = = = 25th .25n + .25 1st Quartile percentile. Qj = = = 50th (median) + .5 2nd percentile. .5n Quartile Qg = = = 75th percentile. .75n + .75 3rd Quartile Qg of) (see: Coefficient Dispersion, 15. Regression Index: 17. Standard Error of the Mean: This statistic is designed to indicate the A statistic that probable indicates the treatment of property in relation to high magnitude of difference between a result or low value. Tendencies to value high obtained from a sample and the actual priced property disproportionately result if population measured for a aas regard low priced to. property, or vice whole.
versa, can be identified. = s SE v ——’ index, To weighted calculate this a sales x _/5 average ratio is first determined divid- (x), = ing the sum of the assessor’s as- the mean error standard where SE _ x samples sessed value for all the sum = deviation, standard s the sales determined market value for all = of samples number n samples. This is then quotient divided Deviation) (see: Standard ratio, the unweighted into mean with the being regression result index. Variation, of: Coefficient Deviation(s): 16. Standard sample ratios spread *16 A measure of spread A statistical measure of the percent as a expressed from the mean distance from the mean sample ratios the mean. in a sample group. = E(x-x)2 = _/ x 100 Var. Coef. n-1 x = value ratio of each individual x where = deviation standard s where sample, = mean. the arithmetic = and x mean, x the arithmetic Deviation) (see: = Standard group. n the number of samples
663 P.2d Duthie, J. Earl DUTHIE Ernestine D. 2: RATIO STUDY SAMPLING wife, husband and and J. Earl Duthie as PROCEDURE Guardian of the Person and Estate of meaningful In to obtain results order Duthie; Ernestine D. Duthie John D. necessary that each study, from a ratio it is Duthie, Rosemary husband and in each category studied wife, Plaintiffs-Appellants, representation from the adequate study. particu- for the samples chosen lar, geo- must well distributed samples be President, CLUB, Its GUN LEWISTON economically, and there graphically Connerley; Board of Di A. Its Alvin quantity must be a sufficient of these sam- Raymond rectors, Gregg, O’Con Robert develop a true coun- ples cross section of Booth, Roger nor, Clayton and James ty property. individually, Defendants-Respondents. acquire The Tax Commission shall all No. county. available sales data in each An Idaho. Supreme Court adequate number of appraisals pro- will be appraisers duced staff and will be in- March study. Gathering cluded the ratio Opinion Rehearing on Denial of confirmation of the data used in the ratio 23, 1983. May study by qualified appraiser shall be done counties, primary statistician. In all source of sales information will deed
records of the county. All sales which meet requirements of a free market transac- willing
tion between a buyer willing and a
seller, and which are not to be excluded as
invalid sales as indicated below shall be
included in the ratio study. Validity of
sales data used in study the ratio shall be
made by confirming the details of each
transaction. Confirmation may be made person
contact in by or mail with either the
grantee, grantor, or other authorized
person who is fully informed of the terms transaction. Sales also be con-
firmed by thorough review of authenticated mail,
documents. If confirmation
cover letter question- and sales verification
naire will be Samples used. of these docu- provided
ments are E & F. Annex
Information shall be recorded on the com- approved
mission ratio data record. See
Annex G.