*1 The order of the trial court reversed.

Order Now, the order of the Court of And 181 Mise. Common Pleas of Indiana No. County, 14, 1985, is reversed. dated hereby March in the result only. Senior concurs Judge Kalish 2d 1319 Inc., the Decision In Re: From Appeal Jostens, Taxes and Revision of of The Board of Assessment The Board of of Centre County. of Taxes of Centre County,

Revision Appellant. *2 6, 1986, Argued February before Judges MacPhail, Doyle as a sitting three, panel Colins, Kistler, Miller,

Robert K. Inc., Ristler & Campbell, appellant. for R.

Anthony Thompson, Thompson, Somach & Vangilder, appellee.

Opinion Colins, 1986: Judge The Centre County of Assessment and Revi- sion of Taxes a (Board) appeals decision of the Court of Common Pleas of Centre County (trial court) reducing the Boards assessment of a of land parcel taxes (parcel), ais are Inc. (Jostens). on which paid by Jostens, Jostens Minneso- with home offices Minneapolis, corporation ta, of Pennsylva- business Commonwealth doing trial court to belong was found to nia. The parcel American known subsidiary Through Jostens Division. Yearbook Company structure, an industrial Situated on this of school books. par- used for manufacture acres of twenty cel itself consists of approximately (20) assess- in an industrial Board’s land located park. $169,753.00, ment as of January took a The Board timely Jostens of Centre Board) (Appeals $175,151.00. increased court, which con then appealed *3 a de noco trial in with the ducted accordance provisions Law The Fourth Class Assessment County of to Eighth the of After Law).1 considering testimony (Assessment side, the trial court an each presented by expert of the as of detemined that the fair market value $1,390,000.00 was million (1.39 January the current common level ratio of that dollars) market value level (common assessed value to current State Tax as last determined the by Equalization ratio) ratio 8.6%. Since the predetermined was (STEB) 20%, common ratio Centre was and the level of County 15%, the from it more then trial court pro varied the market value common ceeded multiply Assess in with Section level ratio accordance of Law.2 assessment yielded ment This process $119,540.00. 1943, 571, 21, 72 P.S. §§5453. Í01-5453.706.

The Board makes three on Since arguments appeal. merit, find we will affirm we to be of none court.

The Board first that the trial court erred in contends the STEB common ratio of utilizing level rather the, than 1983 STEB common level It ratio. argues as a matter law the trial of to utilize required level ratio last determined and published before the assessment of January which would be the level 10.1% common ratio of Centre for calendar County year published by STEB in 1983. Appellee urges court was in correct 8.6% common ratio using the level -1983, Centre of for calendar published by STEB in 1984. To resolve this we must controversy, briefly review statutory language Assessment Law.

Section Law3 704(b) Assessment states any of an shall make “[i]n determinations: the current val following market (1) ue for the tax the common level question; (2) ratio.” Section 702(b)4 Law commands the Board to do the same thing its original review of an assessment phrase “common level ratio” is defined of ’the Assessment Law5 as “the ratio of assessed value cur rent market value used as last generally county determined by the State Tax Equalization . .” added.) (Emphasis [STEB]. .. *4 Boards is

Appellant argument that since January , 1984, is the of the tax beginning in the year question, 3 72 P.S. §5453.704(b).

4 72 §5453.702(b). P.S. 5 72 P.S. The State Equalization Tax Board Law is at set forth P.S. as June §§4656.1-4656.17. last that the STEB “last determined” means STEB ratio required figure published prior that date is to be to throughout by and the all used the disagree. ap- phases of the assessment We This by proach that the common level ratio the assumes published during year the tax in must be the one reading question. the the is that Our statute ra- and the are free to use the common level trial court by STEB, last the even if common tio determined year published subsequent the to1the tax level is ratio year spans year question, long tax the in so the calen- as year the dar last determined ratio reflecting values for. 704(b)(2) language

First, we note year phrase ques “for the tax does contain 704(b)(1) of the tion” found in Section Act.6 omis language seriously the Boards ar of this undercuts sion gument the STEB level ratio to be uti common year question. published tax Nor lized must be year which a is there an identifiable tax to STEB correspond, as common level ratio would determined years years and not tax are the basis of STEB calendar 7(9) Equaliza Tax State calculations. See Section level ratio tion Board Law.7Since the common calculat year, by prior calendar ed STEB is based on argument that the common level ratio used Boards in a de trial court must be novo during year published for which market value is inapposite. legislature being Had the seems calculated estimating the trial court intended bind using question for the tax ratio level published during year, that tax common level ratio Instead, it could Law. have so stated in it directed use based the trial court to calendar they long STEB, were calculations made so level determined” Because common “last calculations.

Ill published year ratio calendar would re current prior year, flect values calendar and the tax year overlaps years, either of two calendar the court simply should be able to use the ratio “last deter long mined,” so calendar for which the spanned by ques values were drawn is clearly reject tion. The law on its face seems reading by appellant Board, and a offered statute where unambiguous, disregard we cannot of the letter pursuing spirit. law in its See Board School Directors Chester-Upland Ashby, School District v. 90 Pa. of Commonwealth Ct. 495 2d Once we dismiss the contention that the STEB published common level used ratio to be must be in a particular year, proceed tax we to note that the trial 704(b) court has under discretion Assess of the ment Law6 to make a “determination” of the common grant level ratio. That determination is a of discretion to only by court, the trial limited the definitional restric phrase tion on the “common level ratio” set forth in Sec view, tion of the Assessment Law.9In our this dis determining cretion to make a determination extends to which is the most recent STEB common level ratio available as the time of That would be the ordinary meaning phrase “as last determined” used in Section 102 of the Assessment Law.

Here, Appeals between the time of the published review, review and the trial courts 1984 a common level ratio of 8.6% for Centre year. for the 1983 calendar had used County, pub- common level ratio of for 10.1% Centre §5453.704. 72 P.S. 7 72 See §4656.7(9). P.S. 4. note 8 72 P.S. §5453.704(b). the 1982 calen STEB in

lished using year: appears us that the most recent dar It the trial available at the time of level ratio hearing appeal, in this case the. 8.6% *6 published STEB, the statu in 1984 would fall within tory utilize the common the trial court to discretion of be determined” STEB. This would level ratio “as last question spans both true because pub years which STEB 1982 and 1983 calendar respectively. figures 1984, The court in 1983 and lished figure, long, as the one used was free to use either so available as of was the most recent figures appeal. Had the 1984 been unavail time of the figures But able, 1983 could be used. since then the figures published, the were court bound 1984 Consequently, the Boards ar the statute use them. to regard rejected. gument must Nor is the in this be uniformity argument persuasive, first because Boards timely ap and is on issue was not raised below not Pennsylvania Liquor Appeal, peal, Board see Control (1984), 598, Ct. 155 Pa. Commonwealth 478 A. 2d 83 uniformity proving the burden of because and second challenging party, challenge Bonin Reassess is on the Appeal, Ct. 442 Pa. ment 65 Commonwealth (1982). 43, A.2d , standing argues lacked next

The Board Jostens appeal prosecute because its to the trial court to Jostens question. allegedly parcel in The the owner of the regard Development Hook in this Marcus cites Appeals, Park, 68 Pa. Com . v. Board Assessment Inc This case is monwealth Ct. 449 A.2d inapplicable provisions purports deal with here as it to in- General while the Assessment Law10 1933; P.S. as However, actual- provisions §§5020.101-5020.520. we note that the in Marcus Hook were not actually part promulgated ly construed governed by Eighth. stant matter is The Fourth to Class County Assessment Law.* increasing Board, the assessment $169,753.00 $175,151.00, came a factual de taxpayer termination Inc. was the owner Jostens, parcel, as did the trial court this matter. More over, card, the assessment on file in the office of clearly Revision, of Assessment identifies Dept.” Inc. Attn: Tax as the “Jostens, addressee of all correspondence. along taxation This circumstance with persuades the other evidence of record us that substan > supported tial evidence determination of parcel. findings owned given in tax cases must be great force and will not be disturbed unless clear error appears. Armstrong County See Callas v. Board of Assessment, 70 Pa. 272, 275-76, Commonwealth Ct. *7 (1982). 25, Consequently, 2d standing the ar gument must fail because the factfinder determined parcel was the owner.

Concerning property, the value of the the Board argues testimony expert that the of its was more cred- testimony expert ible than the of on the issue of Jostens’ value, allegedly market and that the trial court erred in splitting the difference between estimates of these two experts. theory duty The Board’s of the trial in a court’s appeal appears tax assessment to be that the trial court agree accept must other, with one witness or the and argu- that witness’ estimate of market value in This toto. completely misplaced. is ment duty hearing The of the trial in court a tax assess- independently ment de novo is to determine the General Assessment Law but as 8 and of Sections Law, the Assessments in Counties of the Third Class Act of June P.L, 26, 1931, 1379, §§5349, 5350. 11See note 1. the the value of the on basis of com fair market presented petent, evidence and relevant credible Case, parties. 79 Pa. Tax Assessment See Kriebel 649, 466, 470-71, 470 A. 2d 652. Ct. Commonwealth 704(b)(1) (1984); of the Assessment Law.12Our reviewing scope trial courts market val of review not determination is limited to whether or ue abused its discretion committed an error of law or court property calculating of the fair market value Appeal Bank, question. Mellon Pa. Common of (1983). trial court is Ct. 467 A.2d 1201 wealth weigh evidence, must and its the finder of fact and will be disturbed because market determination question determined value is a factual to be testimony. expert on the basis Bonin Reassess of Appeal, 65 Pa. Ct. at ment Commonwealth (1982). findings A. 2d at 45 of trial court must given great and will not be disturbed unless be force appears is discretion or clear or there an abuse of error Strawbridge Clothier, supporting & lack of evidence. Appeal Delaware Coun Inc. v. Board Assessment ty, Ct. 492 A. 2d n. 89 Pa. Commonwealth 108, 109, n. 2 argument merely view, chal-

In our the Boards accept lenge as more to the trial courts decision to cred- opinion methodology weighty and and ad- ible more expert The trial vanced witness for Jostens. opinion length explanation why it at devoted its credible, the two witnesses or not cred- found each of regard, methodology by ible, and in what *8 the actual market value of the it came to estimate by on the was buttressed substantial evidence based argument such, us. the Boards is record before As credibility challenge rejected. must See mere and be 72 P.S. §5453.704(b)(1). Plastic, Inc., 62 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. Penn Appeal of 179, 183, 435 A.2d 944 reasons, the decision of the trial

For all above court is affirmed.

Order Now, this 7th the decision of day May, And Pleas Centre at the Court of Common County, 84-355, 18, 1985, is No. dated April hereby Docket affirmed.

Dissenting Opinion MacPhail: Judge dissent. I respectfully is order of appealing taxpayer

Centre Board of Assessment and Review of County are Taxes Such authorized Section (Board). appeals Class Assess- 704(a) of Fourth Eighth ment Law (Law),

amended, 72 P.S. for who feel §5453.704(a), persons ag- the Board’s order. the trial Although grieved by and of Section 704 (b) (c) subsections obligated by Law, 72 P.S. to determine the cur- §5453.704(b) (c), rent market value and the question common level ratio in order to arrive at the assessed it is the value of the Boards order property question, that is the of the subject Board,

Here, which was likewise obligated determine the current market value for the tax year ratio, and the common level see 702(b) question Law, 72 P.S. last used the §5453.702(b), correctly Tax common level ratio available to it from the State It is true that Equalization (STEB).

was for the calendar 1982 but the Board was re- to use it virtue of the quired language defining Law, “common level ratio” in Section 102 of Although majority’s reasoning *9 used the last established figure court also related STEB and that more figure accurately merit, has I do believe it was the question intent could lodge Legislatures taxpayers appeals from real estate assessments solely hope they benefit from a later lower STEB rath- figure; would er, I believe the intent to' Legislature provide the Boards remedy persons aggrieved by It order. thérefore, would be incumbent upon taxpayer, incorrect, either that Board arrived at an cur- prove an rent market value or used incorrect common level ratio or incorrect established ratio. It predetermined level ratio that is only challenged here. I that the would hold Boards detemination of was correct and that the order the trial court must be reversed. 2d 1314

Stephen Pitt, Petitioner v. Penn Commonwealth of sylvania, Pennsylvania of Probation and Pa Respondent.

role,