*1 good has not demonstrated cause for her refusal comply request. with Weston’s argument
Claimant’s
that since the actions oc-
working
they
curred after
hours
cannot
wil-
constitute
clearly
ful misconduct is
without merit. In Nevel v.
Unemployment Compensation Board Review, 32 Pa.
(1977),
Commonwealth Ct. 6,
Since is no that an during working misconduct occur hours and because request we find Weston’s Claimant seek a psychiatric examination was reasonable the instant comply her refusal case and that was unreasonable, uphold will the Board’s denial we of benefits.
Order day August, this 19th Now, order And Compensation Unemployment Review, denying benefits to Leona 20,1979, dated June Semon hereby affirmed. Kenney Appellants George et Keebler v. al., T.
Company, Appellee George Kenney Appellant Company, v. T. Keebler Appellees. et al., *2 Argued before President June Judges Jr., Blatt, Rogers, Wilkinson, Crumlish Judge Mencer Jr. Williams, MacPhail Craig, participate. did not Deputy City
Judith N. Bean, Solicitor, her Marjorie City H. Stern, Assistant Alan Solicitor, J. City Davis, T. Solicitor, and Michael Mather, Chair Litigation Department, Gleorge Kenney man of T.
et al.
Henry T. Death, Friedman, with him Sheri B. Alexis J. Anderson, Duane, Heckscher, Morris & Company. Keebler
David A. Scholl, for Katie Leavell et al.
Ghristoper Darmopray F. Stouffer, Hamilton, Malloy, City for Amicus Center Curiae, Residents’ As- sociation. *3 August 21, 1980: Opinion Wilkinson, Jr,., objections
The instant case involves the of a variety City in of real estate owners of Philadel- phia (taxpayers) to the assessments of the Board of years through (Board) Revision of Taxes for Philadelphia Common Pleas of The Court of 1978. separated County (Court) the issue of the ratio of value, fair market common to each assessed value to fair one issue. The market and decided this as case, property, had to be individu- course, each of value of ally in fair market values not The determined. issue here.
By and order of November decision determining taxpayers’ rejected method1 of court proper to market value value and ratio of assessed accepted method of the Board calculation 1 Taxpayers ratio the actual between assessed would determine by dividing of all the sum recorded market value and fair value taxing into the sum in the district of market value sales fair property. for the same assessments
some modification.2 court modified Board’s in of certain transactions the radio exclusion which price quite by including was low3 assessment sales approximately sales. on the evi- Based these 50% particular dence before it the Court found recog- year question.4 Finally, the each tax in court uniformity pervasive lack of and directed the nized a every property in the to reassess for future taxing district. adoption excepted
Taxpayers
of the
to the court’s
and to the ex-
method of calculation
ratio
Board’s
in
calcu-
low ratio transactions
clusion
50%
excepted to the
inclusion of
The Board
court’s
lation.
ratio transactions
the calculation
of low
50%
By
reassess.
decision
order
to the order to
exceptions.
July
It is
the court
all
dismissed
us.
which is now before
order
property
Pennsylvania
must he
on real
All taxes
taxing
art. VIII,
Pa. Const.
within a
district.
uniform
Ap
Property
Real
Assessment
House
Summit
§1.
peals,
511
Knight Shopping Center, Inc. v. Board
Property
of
Assessment, 417 Pa. 234,
The taxpayer’s method of assessing uniformity of
tax calculation is the one
commonly utilized
Penn-
sylvania and specifically approved by the Pennsylva-
nia Supreme Court. Deitch Co. v. Board
Property
of
Assessment,
417
209
See also
213,
A.2d 397
(1965).
Massachusetts Mutual
Insurance Co. Tax As-
Life
sessment Case,
The Board’s procedure deviated substantially from the common and accepted Deitch. A of methodology search of Pennsylvania cases does not provide any precedent for this novel approach to tax ratio calcula- tion nor does the provide us with such any Pennsylvania law.5
Judge of the Common Pleas Court of Phil- Kalish adelphia held four of days hearings. record con- sists of 933 of which pages, 733 of testimony three experts, two for taxpayers and one for the Board. wrote two exhaustive opinions, Kalish the original opinion being pages and the dismissing exceptions 21 pages. Even after this able and thorough analysis we are testimony troubled complexity of the calculations used in the so-called “stratification” methodology adopted: expert, Board’s Dr. Raymond Rickman,
calculated
his
first
breaking
his
methodology
A calculation
akin to that advocated
the Board
York,
judicial
is used in Xew
not without
substantial
criticism. 860
County
Nassau,
Executive Towers v. Board
Assessors
525,
863,
(Sup.
1975),
App.
Misc. 2d
377 N.Y.S.2d
aff’d
(App.
1976),
nom.,
Div. 2d
512
sample into six land nses. Next, computed lie unweighted for properties each land use Then he category. estimated total parcel fair market value in each land every city use he calculated the wide type. Finally, weighted total by summing ratio estimated every parcel fair market value for in the City divided the total assessed value. (Em- phasis in original.) allocating equitable taxes on policy
comprehensible basis is old and strong: is cheer- every burden,
While tax it is more when the citizen that he borne feels fully bear his share of that proportionate required the value of his property burden measured not an This is idle thought that of his neighbor. nor is it mere taxpayer, in the mind of learned writers advocated speculative theory is a fundamental principle on the but it subject, constitutions and statutes of written into the in this every country. almost state Railroad Co.’s Delaware, & Western Tax Lackawanna A. Assessment 240, 243, 224 430 (No. 1), Pa. 73 method of calculation opinion, In our (1909). us will not trial court and now before adopted by the average taxpayer. be understood of whether fundamental question Even more land use cate- into selected property division of comports with ratio calculation purposes gories and the dic- uniformity mandate treated as a single tate of Deitch that all be property not may be purposes, for taxation Real estate, class. v. Board Madway into classes. divided validly Taxes, Pa. and Revision Assessment Tax Club, Ap- Inc. Forge Valley A.2d (1967); Golf 285 A.2d 3 peal, Commonwealth We cannot accept procedure intricate ratio adopted It below. is a system too involved be under- accepted stood and by other than most sophisti- cated property owners.
On the of the question of ratio calcu methodology *6 lation the inclusion of ratio transac low 50% tions the calculations we the decision. accept court’s the specifically We contention the Board that reject expert’s the court not its may adopt modify opinion. Electric v. Board Assess tinghouse Corp. Wes ment Appeals, 30 A.2d 264, Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 373 (1977). 766 in
With to the the order regard portion of court’s the voking reassessments, the relief of injunctive the beyond Board contends that the court has gone issues it matter beyond subject juris before its amended, as Act P.L. 27, 1939, 1199, diction. of June et available provides remedy P.S. seq., 72 §5341.1 seeking taxpayers. person equity’s to aggrieved Any ques not must jurisdiction prove inade remedy that is legal tion involved but also Commonwealth, v. 41 King Pa. Commonwealth quate. Cedarbrook Appeal 398 A.2d 329, (1979); Ct. 1117 A.2d 395 Inc., 150, 39 Realty, Pa. Commonwealth preferred statutory remedy 613 (1978). Further, of assess manner of litigation as a more efficacious Co. Coal Pittsburgh Rochester See & ment questions. 266 A.2d Appeals, Board Assessment 506, 438 Pa. v. County, Hudson v. Union also See (1970). 78 A.2d , Ct. Commonwealth level rise to the fail instant case The facts of the con- itself court below equity. to invoke necessary present specifically does not that the case cludes we Further, of the statute. validity on the question statutorily it been shown has do not believe find Because we inadequate. remedies are provided tria], im- court by exercised equity jurisdiction proper we need not discuss the assertions of the Board equitable granted that the relief was not made out pleadings original included nor in the terms hearing, that there was no to the consolidated notice equitable Board that court consider rem- would statutory appeal, compels edies in that the this order contrary general principles future acts mandamus adversely public the order affects the in- terests.
Accordingly, following we will enter the
Order August Phila- the order Now, 21, 1980, And delphia July 18, Common Pleas dated Court of Term No. 861 No. March and indexed to February and No. Term March Term 286B to the Court of The case remanded is reversed. appropriate pleas determine common opinion. consistent with above *7 in result only. MacPhail concurs the by Dissenting : Opinion Judge Williams, Jr. respectfully I dissent. my majority opinion the that the misconstrues
It is opinion in Deitch does the case. Nowhere the Deitch any Supreme forth one method as the exclu- Court set determining “common level.” For means the sive Supreme Page example, states, on the Court’s no such that the evidence indicates that “where vary applied, that fixed ratio has been may average widely of such ratios district, in ‘common be considered the level’.” opinion, Page 221 of the Deitch Court Also, on may following: it that the be “Furthermore, added the percentage to of assessed will some evidence show as- which of individual market about the bulk value percent- in which event such cluster, sessments tend to age might level.” acceptable be as the common On 223 the went “The evi Page Supreme say: Court on to dence in supplied illustrates taxpayer Brooks* one method which a can meet his taxpayer burden but do not consider ive a lack proving uniformity, it to be the method. It would only satisfac equally be to as tory produce evidence the ratios of regarding sessed re values to market as the latter are values flected in actual in the sales of other real estate any taxing district as period prior reasonable ’’ sessment date. (Emphasis added.) Deitch Nowhere in case is there reference any to what weighted is meant ratio. Is it a by “average” or an or a combination average average unweighted both? Neither the Appellate nor Legislature Courts have of calculation. specified the method in methods used lower court considered both wisely the taxpayers, the Board and sales-ratio both study the ex- biases inherent each, credibility testimony. their and the perts, weight given be at a just court arrived process the lower By are for credibility fair Weight conclusion. to show nothing There absolutely fact-finder. upon theory in proceeding the trial “erred judge that in Deitch”. which differed from the Board the use misconstrues majority law, our Under samples. the sales the stratification class of one there recognized, lower court as the a dif- cannot be there tax purposes real estate for etc. residential, industrial, commercial, ferent ratio for ap- constructing comparable All properties dividing approved simply The court ratio. propriate *8 the within properties heterogeneous the large group Case, 137 A.2d Building Pa. Assessment Tax *Brooks properties produced were taxpayer several (1958), that evidence the property ranging his while from 40.2% to assessed at 57.2% assessed at was 91.9%. in order to into homogeneous classes,
district more the biases distortions lessen in each method and to on result based arrive at a overall equitable more district as a ratio all whole, property. one
The
the lower court was
methodology approved
that
the Board’s
witness. The
propounded by
expert
of that
was for the lower
weight
witness’s
determine. Moodie v.
Westing
as
court,
fact-finder,
house Electric
Corp.,
80 A.2d
That is true even
majority
appellate
though
court would have weighed
opinion differently.
it cannot
that
the method of
And,
be said
calculation
expert,
approved by
advanced
Board’s
the Deitch case.
dictate
below,
any
court
violates
lower
court wrote:
de-
appellate
courts have not rigidly
.although
fined the
ratio . .
concept
average
as
methodologies
valid,
the Court views both
procedure
the Board’s
is seen as more accurate
for this case as it is
one
appropriate
entire
district.
covers the
truly
taxing
I
why
any
In
see
it would be
more
regard,
cannot
understand
taxpayer
average
difficult
it would
understand that
than
be to
approach,
Court’s
in this case.
taxpayer
litigants
advanced by
is the
shrift
the ma-
to me
short
disturbing
More
seek their
use of
taxpayers’
equity
jority gives
taxpayers
These
uniformity.
right
constitutional
statutorily
pre-
aid of
because the
seek the
equity
can the
How
indi-
inadequate.
remedies are
scribed
Philadelphia,
property
of residential
vidual owner
Board, possibly
individual
relief before
seeking
which
controversy
city-wide
solve the
proceedings?
form in these
taken legal
has
Property
Tree v. Board
Green
Borough
In
Assessments,
Tax boards were created to review They totally real estate assessments. are un- purpose adjudicate suited both skill to procedures constitutional issues. The Board may perhaps adequate deciding be individ- improper they ual claims of assessment, but plainly inadequate when faced with a broad- constitutionality taxing based attack on the aof procedure. statute or assessment statutory remedy inadequate to Not resolve in involved each issue of the tax provision lower there is court, no cases before County Philadelphia to entertain a class equity prop- Accordingly, a class action is a action. question. the constitutional resolve To er device Philadelphia taxpayers inadequate restrict delay remedy statutory the eradication of uncon- practices permit and to some assessment stitutional bearing their fair share of the people common to elude burden. tax lower court. would affirm
I joins. Judge Crttmlish President County, Northampton Ap- Township, Allen East E. Sarah Eberts, Eberts and Earl F. pellant v. Appellees.