*1 taxing authority. If rule in the the federal or the state we were to improvements issue, Board’s favor on this undertaken a charitable only aged might attract the attention ofits local tax home for require carry board, home to the burden of but also charitable proof again resulting all over in a court action from that board’s interest. important, regardless

Most of who should have borne the proof superior court, burden of the Board has not shown that it disadvantaged position respondent as a result of its as at trial. assuming judge Even that the should have allowed the Board to proceed parties first, when, here, harmless error had both ample opportunity present evidence, and where some of that supports evidence the factfinder’s conclusion. Dan Vaden Chevrolet v. (1) (506 Mann, judgment reasons,

For all of the we affirm the of the exemption Baptist Village trial court that is entitled to the same tax portion Waycross on the Villas of its campus property. as on the rest of that

Judgment Ellington, Andrews, J., J., P. concur. affirmed.

Decided October

Huey Spearman, appellants. W. Pope Spivey, Stephen

James, Bates, III, & Thomas C. James L. Long appellee. Dillard, Denton, Parrott, & Vann K.

A04A1218. PINE HOUSING, POINTE L.P. v. BOARD TAX OF

ASSESSORS OF LOWNDES COUNTY et al. 443) Presiding Judge.

Ruffin, The Lowndes Board of Tax Assessors and Tax Commis- Mary (collectively assessors”) sioner Nell Robertson “the tax filed a declaratory judgment against Housing, (“Pine action L.P. Pointe”) liability to determine Pine Pointe’s for 1998 and 1999 ad summary judgment, valorem taxes. The tax assessors moved for arguing underpaid that Pine Pointe had its taxes for and, those agreed, granting result, as a owed additional sums. The trial court judgment appeals, final for the tax assessors. Pine Pointe and for follow, reasons that we affirm.

“Summary judgment appropriate genuine is when no issues of material fact remain and the movant is entitled to as a summary judgment grant court’s review a trial matter law.”1We construing inferences in favor record and all reasonable novo, de nonmoving party.2 that, 1997, the tax assessors viewed, So the record shows appraised Pine Pointe for ad valorem real owned appraisal, purposes. its Dissatisfied with the Equalization, County Board of to the Lowndes 1997 tax assessment *2 September The tax assessors in 1997. which reduced assessment appealed that decision to the court.

Following 2000, the court a bench trial in November establishing fair market value of an order the 1997 issued Pointe’s greater property set $4,709,000, amount than the value as by equalization. in the trial court’s decision We affirmed Housing Assessors,3 and the v.Lowndes Pine Pointe Supreme Court denied certiorari.4 paid 1999 based on the Pine Pointe taxes in and Citing equalization’s 1997 valuation. by sought subsequently Court, addi- affirmed this the tax assessors payment 1997, of taxes and interest from Pine Pointe for the tional paid amounts and 1999 tax additional requested pay refused, however, amounts for due for 1997. It to asserting, among things, 1998 and other that it had party its taxes for those and that neither had paid. amounts liability,

Seeking Pine Pointe’s 1998 and 1999 tax a resolution of declaratory judgment the tax assessors filed this action and moved summary judgment. The assessors claimed that Pine Pointe was liable in tax 1998 and 1999 for taxes based on the 1997 value Court, rather value set the board affirmed than lower underpaid equalization. argued, Thus, Pine Pointe had its requiring payment. The trial taxes for 1998 and additional agreed. court We find no error. unimproved property Georgia, improved In real ... “[a]ll

1. person subject be returned in or mail which is the taxation shall agent attorney person owning property the real his county prop- tax receiver or tax commissioner of the where the real erty taxpayer making verify is located.”5A such return must placed property represents its oath that the value he or she on the 1 (2003). Link Motor Express Dougherty County, App. 10, 11 (592 SE2d 859) Trans 265 2 See id. 3 (decided Housing v.Lowndes Case No. S02C1045 21, 2002). June circumstances, however, Under certain taxable true market value.6 property formally returned is deemed automati cally (a) (1): returned. Pursuant

Any taxpayer any county who returned or taxes in the preceding year tax and who fails to return his property year for taxation for the current . . tax . shall be property deemed to returned for taxation the same have returned or deemed was preceding to have been returned property at the same valuation as finally subject preceding determined to be to taxation in the year. formally

Pine Pointe did not return its real in 1998 and Relying on its of taxes in 1997 it instead provision invoked the automatic return

Thus, its 1998 and 1999 returns were based on the of taxes preceding year. provision, however, The automatic return deems the “finally returned at the determined to be year.”7 taxation in the In this the 1997value finally ofPine Pointe’s $4,709,000. has been determined to be *3 automatically property Pointe, therefore, Pine returned the in 1998 “finally at a $4,709,000. value of That same determined” value extended to the 1999 automatic return.8 — above, As noted Pine Pointe its 1998 and 1999 taxes —

in fact received tax bills from the tax assessors based on the 1997 equalization. value set the board of But that value is not the ”9 “finally subject Accordingly, valuation determined to be to taxation automatically it is not the value at which Pine Pointe returned its its property admittedly underpaid in 1998 and 1999. Pine Pointe objection, remitted, taxes in 1997 and without the additional amounts ^[8] See id. OCGA 48-5-20 § 48-5-19 (a) (1). 9 Although years, nothing Id. the 1997 valuation did not become final for several in OCGA (a) (1)prevents relatingback appropriate year the final determination from to the years. recognize that, statute, We under the the automatic return is “at the same valuation property finally subject preceding year.” as the determined to be to taxation in the (Emphasis supplied.) (a) (1). language require But this does not that the final actually year,” questionable proposition given determination be made in “the Instead, phrase preceding year” logically various levels of “in refers to the Hurston, 525, 527 in which the to taxation. See Trent Tube v. 261 Ga. (1) 198) (2003) (“Absent intent, contrary clear evidence of a a statute’s ‘words should assigned ordinary, logical, meaning,’ [cit.], be their and common and courts must avoid part surplusage.”). constructions that render of a statute mere property’s finally year pursuant determined fair

due for that underpayment return, a similar market the automatic value. Given 1999. resulted in 1998 and already paid argues that, because it has

On additional 1999, the tax assessors cannot seek its taxes for 1998 and agrees. The cases on which Pine for those The dissent prohibit rely, however, reassessments or re- Pointe and the dissent years in taxes have valuations of real for tax which paid.10 a reassessment or revaluation of This case does not involve reappraised property. tax assessors not under-returned The Instead, have due, Pine Pointe’s real estate. seek to collect taxes but paid, actually $4,709,000 on the based on the value Neither Pine Pointe nor returned 1998 and 1999.12 any authority prohibiting unpaid the dissent cites collection such agree taxes, and we with the trial court that Pine Pointe is liable as deficiency. a matter of law for Despite contrary, OCGA § Pine Pointe’s claims to the require does not reversal of the trial court’s decision. Under that section,

Code property, established [r]eal value which was year, that has not been returned during taxpayer at a different the next two successive years, may changed by not be the board of tax assessors during years purpose changing for the sole such two valuation established rendered in an or decision court.13 According (c)prohibits Pointe, to Pine because change in real after an two value, could [ ] establishes tax assessors not “reassess properties during Pointe’s the calendar 1998 and 1999.”In Pine 10 See, e.g., Tax Assessors *4 624) (2001); Corp. App. 94, SE2d (1) (491 SE2dl73) Eckerd v. Coweta 228 App. 137, 138-139 (1997);Fulton 219 of Tax Assessors 257) (1995). 11Compare id. 12 (“Taxcommissioners, receivers, 48-5-27 tax and tax collectors shall receive See OCGA §§ any person default.”); returns due and collect taxes on returns for former for which is in (a) (“In county 48-5-299 all cases where the full amount of taxes due the state has not been paid, [county against the board of tax shall assess the owner ... the full amount of assessors] may any taxes which has accrued and which limitations.”). not have been time within the statute of

13 (c).

859 summary awarding therefore, court erred view, the trial Pointe’s argument lacks merit. This assessors. to the tax (c) under which the limits circumstances may property, the found that we have reassess assessors tax upward Assembly particularly reassessm to address intended General or a however, involve a does not This ents.14 change apply merely the 1997 seek The tax assessors in valuation. process through appeals the value, as determined land fair market succeeding automatically tax Pointe, in the two Pine returned (c). squarely years, request § 48-5-299 within OCGA that falls a property, Citing legislature’s the value to “real the reference any year, appeal not been that has established which was during next two successive the ... at a different value returned years,”15 only a 1997 can consider contends that we appeal during actually 1997. It established valuation (c), applicable purposes suggests 1997 the that, of subsection thus only part set the board is value agree completed appeals process with in 1997.16 cannot We ofthe phrase opinion, reading “in In our of the statute. tortured year” year sought, which valuation is to the relates during appeals process or establishes a value. concludes which the (c)fails OCGA §48-5-299 Furthermore, Pine Pointe’s reliance on equaliza requires to the board of us to look even if that subsection automatically returned above, As noted tion’s 1997value. greater than $4,709,000, a 1999 at value in 1998 and equalization.17 terms, its clear Under that set (c)only applies been returned “has not when during successive the next two at a different value years.” returns, there of the 1998 and 1999 Given application two-year if, has no fore, moratorium in subsection statutory analysis suggests, with the must start the as Pine Pointe we equalization’s 1997 value. 243 Ga. See Cullum v. Chatham (c). (Emphasis supplied.) approximately three later. decision until court did not issue its delay, asserting they allowed the appears that to blame the tax assessors for this The dissent court “must be ‘languish.” appeal An from the board of following filing the court unless continued the first term heard ‘at ” Pointe, (3). Although appealing supra, showing good at 203 cause.’ term, having to do so is not fatal party the first “a failure the action tried at bears the burden During delay the trial Id. the initial or reasonable is shown.” if a reasonable excuse term, hearing why first and we was not held in the excuse for court found a reasonable Thus, agree the initial tax ruling. the tax assessors allowed id. we cannot that affirmed that See ‘languish.” (a) See OCGA 48-5-20

860 argues Finally, the tax assessors failed to Pine Pointe that requirements comply statutory 48-5-306. notice with the disagree. provision Again, relates to notice that must be That we taxpayer’s change given return.18 In if the tax assessors correct or did not correct Pine Pointe’s 1998 or 1999 this the assessors property. change Rather, Pine returns, returns, those or reassess the automatically return its in 1998 and 1999 Pointe elected to Accordingly, statutory require $4,709,000 the notice at the value. preclude summary judgment. § 48-5-306 do not ments OCGA Judgment Johnson, J., Miller, Andrews, J.,P. P. El- affirmed. Eldridge, lington J., Adams, JJ., and concur. dissents. Judge, dissenting. ELDRIDGE, reap

During 1997, the Board of Tax Assessors Lowndes Housing; July appealed praised 28, 1997, Equalization. Board of On reassessment Lowndes September Equalization 23, 1997, the Lowndes Board adjusted changed downward, the reassessment and on October 17, 1997, the Lowndes Board of Tax Assessors after three decision to court. On November years delay jury setting judgment trial, and after a was entered $4,709,000, fair market value of the which reassessment equalization original was than found the board of and the timely appealed, 12, on March reassessment. was Housing 2002, this affirmed. Pine v. Lowndes Court Pointe adjusted 1999, In 1998 and the 1997 the board was used the tax commissioner for the next two years’ to bill those taxes without an to the board of equalization by property party. assessors, the tax and the assessments for appealed by 1998 and 1999 either Pointe did not were Pine upon file a tax return for 1998 and 1999 and relied (a) (1) upon prior year’s for the tax automatic return based equalization. 23, reassessment as found On October adjusted upon 1998, bill, reassessment, 1998 tax based objection by February paid in full Pine Pointe. On without upon corrected, taxes, after the tax bill for 1999 was based adjusted reassessment, in full were Pointe. February appellees demanded that additional On taxes and interest be for the tax 1998 and 1999 based on original the affirmance of its 1997 tax reassessment giving any assessors, made the board of tax without new notice of See OCGA 48-5-306 (a) reassessment. The tax commissioner relied (1), provides which for automatic tax returns for the “returned at the same valuation as finally determined to be taxation preceding year.” The 1997 reassessment under OCGA §§ (1) (c)required and 48-5-299 that the assessment in 1998 and 1999be change, the same reassessment, as 1997. Pine Pointe received no correction ofits 1998 and 1999 tax assessments to such compliance demand letter. There has never been a written notice in (b) with for 1998 and 1999. Nor has Pine Pointe opportunity been afforded an such reasserted reassessment *6 sent in 2003 for 1998 and 1999. County

On June the Lowndes Board of Tax Assessors andMary County brought Robertson, Nell Commissioner, Lowndes Tax declaratory judgment against seeking Pointe, action determination that it owed additional taxes and interest for 1998 and 1999. county continuing duty

1. The board of tax assessors has the investigate personal property all real estate and located in the require proper to taxation and to its return. The board of tax duty against assessors has the to assess taxes the owner. OCGA paid § 48-5-299 Once an assessment has been made and the taxes full, there can be estate, no reassessment for such tax on real even if real was under-returned. Cobb Bd. of App. 624) (2001); Assessors v. 691, 249 Ga. SE2d App. Fulton Bd. Dean, Tax Assessors of 257) (1995); Fayette County SE2d Tax Assessors v. Ga. of App. (1) (368 326) (1988). Co., Utilities 186 Ga. 724-725 may board of tax assessors correct a true clerical error in a new assessment, but cannot create a second reassessment after the real paid. has been assessed and the taxes Barland Co.v.Bartow (1) (338 of improvements

Real estate taxation deals with land and the separated thereon which are considered “one”and cannot be apart Fayette County so as to have from each other. Board Co., Assessors v. Ga. [at 725]; Utilities [supra]. Realty Fulton Bd. Tax Assessors v. improvements open may and the thereto are out in the and compared properties, be with other the value of which are public may indepen- matters of record. The tax assessor use actually realty. dent information available to assess the Due diligence inspection realty any improve- reveals changes ments or in the fair market value in the real estate Accordingly, capable ofa fair market real is market. apart separate assessor, and from the the tax realty yearly appraised reason, For this is tax return. assessor, a tax bill issues first the tax and valued eagerly taxpayer, thereon from the tax collector to the who Regulations yearly Rules & of the the awaits his assessment. Chapter Georgia, 560-11-3-.17. No return State of subsequent necessary, is bill of the tax assessor’s determination tax the is realty’s 48-5-18; 48-5- fair market value. See OCGA any attempt previously Thereafter, unreturned to tax a realty years past improvement undiscovered by the tax assessor of the same would be a “revaluation” previously taxes, assessed and valued after the assessor, the tax had been in full to the tax collector. Fayette County Co., Tax Assessors v. Ga. Utilities Clearly, equities demon- at 725. of this scenario may arise, strate that issues of double taxation assessor had since the tax passed the fair market value of Consequently, has, the land. this Court where land is con- precluded cerned, a second reassessment when collector’s tax bill in full. has Corp. Eckerd v. Coweta *7 (1) (491 95-96 SE2d appellees by through declaratory cannot do indirection

judgment prohibited doing directly through action what are from appeal process the assessment and the of 48-5-311. See Cobb County supra County 695; Bd. TaxAssessors v. Fulton of supra Bd. Tax Assessors v. at 138. The taxes for 1998 and of by having full, as billed the tax commissioner been in tax commissioner cannot later collect a amount under OCGA (c), (1) §§ 48-5-20 and 48-5-299 because taxes have in full under the earlier assessment made in 1998 and 1999 the final determination for 1997. purpose (c) give

2. The of OCGA 48-5-299 was to reassessments, owner two consecutive free from further after a appeal property, which established the assessed value the compromised of affirmed, reversed, whether the reassessment equalization, superior arbitration, court, the board of or the unless change there in the fair was some made market value of years. Living subsequent Rolleston, in such two See Moreton Jr. Trust Glynn County (523 Assessors, v. 409-410 of 600) (c) ways” (1999). Thus, OCGA § SE2d shall “cut both provide two consecutive free of additional reassessments after changed affirmed., reversed, the reassessment has been party by for either equalization, superior arbitration, the board of or the court. appeal After as used in OCGA 48-5-299 must be in construed conjunction (a) (1) “finally with OCGA §48-5-20 to mean determined preceding year.” to be taxation appeal Equalization On the Lowndes Board of reassessment, reduced the which satisfied Pine Pointe but which the appealed superior Although board oftax assessors to the court. under appeal process, appeal such is to be heard de novo at the term first superior following appeal court “unless continued showing good appeal cause,” court was allowed to languish years by assessors, three the board of tax which created uncertainty as to what should be the assessments for 1998 and (c); (g) (4) (A); generally 1999. See OCGA 48-5-299 see McCauley Assessors, 266) (1979); Housing v. Lowndes supra; DeKalb Bd. TaxAssessors v. Stone Moun 318) (1978). Finally, tain Park, Indus. on November such board of reduced reassessment up court, was reversed which went Housing and was affirmed. Pine Pointe v.Lowndes at 197. But the tax commissioner in 1998 and adjusted appeal by 1999 used the 1997 reassessment as found on board of reversed, now to set the taxes in those Acting (c), the board oftax assessors left equal- the assessments for 1998 and 1999 as found though finding ization on even it had such seeking court, to reverse such Therefore, the board nothing allowing of tax assessors did in 1998 and the equalization’s adjusted reassessment to be used the tax commis- sioner to issue and to collect taxes based on such assessments in 1998 and 1999. These 1998 and 1999 taxes were assessed and

fully paid though before the final, became and even the final required the tax assessors to use the final 1997reassessment for 1998 generally and 1999. See Bd. Tax Assessors v. Morri- son, at Relying adjusted on the favorable for 1997 as *8 equalization, found Pine Pointe did not return the property in 1998 and 1999 and allowed the automatic return at the adjusted years. (a); reassessment to occur for such (a) (1); supra Bd. Tax Morrison, Assessors v. Also, at 692-695. the board of tax assessors allowed the tax commis- adjusted sioner to use the 1997 reassessment to send out the 1998 and adjusted upon such reas- the taxes based bills and collect 1999 tax and the tax commis- The board of tax assessors Id. at 695. sessment. preserve any opportunity the issues of the tax reassess- to lost sioner by accepting reassessment 1999 at a different ments for 1998 and Tax See Cobb Bd. in full for such tax 695; at Fulton Assessors v. at Assessors protect taxpayers (c) passed from § 48-5-299 was protect of tax not to board reassessments and annual assessors, right of tax assessors had because a board power for three or more to leave years by for the next two means or to seek a new reassessment justify investigation reassessment, if lost even of a further (c). an See caption

Moreover, the title and of the amendment to OCGA (c) later became subsection make clear § 48-5-299 which apply only intended to to reassess- that this subsection was Equalization superior ments established the Board of or Living Glynn County Rolleston, Trust v. court. Moreton Jr. 812) Assessors, Assembly’s (1997). Rolleston, In we stated that the General prevent county enacting intent in this amendment was to reassessing property upward year, tax assessors from each compromise, though they settle, would often have to even appeals lose before the board of way, get In this the tax assessor could at least a small

court. time, ofthe and often the reassessment most owner up legal eventually give fees, because of the costs in would litigation, and time. Id. at 375. Cullum v. Chatham 535) apply the board oftax assessors must

While appeal goes to a determination of either when assessment arbitration, or the court on compromise, wins, loses, whether it or there is a such subsection must applied pari taxing be that there is materia with other statutes and decisions so

harmony between the reassessment scheme and the process. appeal supra Cullum v. Chatham attempt in this can be at 866-867.As there no reassess years; and collect additional taxes after for those if a or an affirmance comes after the taxes have reversal paid, barred from such different then the tax collector is *9 preserving pending appeal. assessment such issue See Cobb supra Morrison, Bd. Tax Assessors v. at 695. Assembly expected gothrough The General the tax equalization, arbitration, or the court de novo at the following filing, following first term which should be before the expected collected; taxable was assessed and taxes it was not years prior that the next two of taxes would be assessed and collected appeal. to a final decision on the Under the facts and circumstances of this as set forth in Division such of taxes as precludes assessed for 1998 and 1999 a different reassessment of years, frustrating application in those the literal of OCGA (c). § 48-5-299 Such of taxes based on the assessment application bars the of the reassessment affirmed on from giving years rise to additional taxes for the same outside of the appeal process (b) normal assessment and (e) (2) (A); generally Denson, see Dillard v. Thus, the board of tax assessors retroactively apply can the affirmed 1997 reassessment to 1998 and (c); under OCGA 48-5-399 after the taxes for 1998 and 1999 rate, have been assessed and at a different more taxes cannot be appeal. Further, collected based appellees the final to do what have done constitutes reassessment for those and 1999 over what has been assessed and collected. See generally supra 695; Bd. TaxAssessors v. Living Glynn County Rolleston, Moreton Jr. Trust v. at 407 Assembly passing The clear intent of the General prohibit § 48-5-299 was to the reassessment for two consecutive years following where the board of arbitra- tors, or the court determined the reassessment on Living Glynn County Rolleston, Moreton Jr. Trust v. at 407-410. Such intent is frustrated whenever the appeal process drags subsequent into taxable and taxes are paid, as in this case. —

Decided October Talley, Coleman, Newbern, Kurrie, Holland, Preston & Edward appellant. Preston, F. appellees. Blackburn, II,

Elliott & Walter G. Elliott