*1 TIFFANY, (a/k/a Tiffany), J. F. al., Appellants, et v. IN AND
COUNTY BOARD OF REVIEW COUNTY, Iowa, FOR GREENE al., Appellees. et
No. 54285.
Supreme Court of Iowa.
June
344
REES, Justice. appeal This is an from the district court’s valuation of decree items of personal property for pur- and real poses year for the 1968. Plaintiffs had previously appealed their assessments to County the Greene Board of Review. the district court allege Plaintiffs following: erred in its decision plaintiff A1. field harvester which Tiffany contends should have been property list. deleted from his assessed machinery farm 2. Three items illegally taxpayers contend were which excessively valued. buildings and farmland which
3. Farm excessively taxpayers were contend illegally valued.
The district court testimony heard lowered the values on the sets, both involved. Plaintiffs for further reductions and to eliminate the field harvester from their tax assessment rolls.
I. This case involves tax statute 441.21, Code, which is now Chapter which form was found Sixty-second Assembly 354 of the General applied when facts in this case. are em- amendments 1969 now 441.21, Code, braced in 1971. The 1969 give directed that the assessor amendments percent productivity consideration capacity earning net and current use property. valuing agricultural when These were not in the statute 1969 amendments in this applied when to the facts case and part of our consideration here. are. Sixty-second Chapter 354 of II. tangi- real and Assembly all stated General property subject taxation ble its actual value and as- Cudahy shall be at & Wilcox and Ma- valued Gerald W. de- gee, percent of actual value to Jefferson, appellants. sessed at 27 property. value of termine taxable Richardson, County Atty., R. K. and Ri- actual Jefferson, defined Handley, appel- & then chardson The statute follows, lees. G.A.,
“The actual all sub- value of 62nd will noted and discussed in taxation ject assessment and determination of issues raised appeal. fair and reasonable particular We note issues property. ‘Market defined as value’ raised this case involve a new statute fair exchange and reasonable in the impression and are matters first before *3 year in which is listed and this court. willing buyer between a and a
valued allege III. Plaintiffs by three errors willing seller, any under being neither n trialcourt: compulsion buy being and to or sell each relating with all the facts to familiar 1. That court erred in failing to prices particular property. of the Sale authority find the taxing had not followed comparable property or in nor- guidelines determining fair and reflecting value, transactions market mal reasonable value as market set out in availability probable or unavaila- and Chapter 354, 1, section 62nd G.A. bility persons of in purchasing interested 2. That failing the court erred in property, shall be taken into consid- provision follow (found in arriving in its market eration at value. Ch. 62nd G.A.) that shifts the burden assessing placing agri- and a value on to the assessor after the taxpayer property, be cultural said value shall de- presents value evidence of lower than as- the basis its current mar- termined on by sessed value at least two disinterested by value its current usé.” ket as reflected specific witnesses. The alleged error provides, statute The further the failure to find the assessor had not met taxpayer’s evidence as to lower value. “In event market value of the property being readily cannot be assessed 3. That failing the court erred in manner, foregoing established in the plaintiff Tiffany find did not own may pro- then assessor consider its the field havester and it should re- and earning capacity, any, ductive if in- moved from taxpayer’s assessment list. cost, conditions, physical dustrial its and specifically, plaintiffs More argue with depreciation functional and obsolescence regard machinery items three replacement cost, and and all other fac- that the court’s valuations were excessive which tors would determining assist light taxpayer’s of the The evidence. the fair and reasonable market value of as to of the three items is evidence but the actual value shall as follows: not be only determined use one such factor.” A1. D. as- /. Tandem Disc—valued taxation, $75, 441.21, highest given by old statute on at while sessor Code, 1966, follows, $35; provided district plaintiffs’ three witnesses was court set value at $50. arriving
“In at said actual value the assessor shall take consideration into its plain- 2. A Badger Blower—all Silo productive (all property) taxable witnesses, except one with tiffs’ valuation earning capacity, past, any, present, if $200; opinion, item at no valued this prospective, any, if its $410; it court set value at sessor valued at and all other matters affect the ac- $300. tual value property; of the bur- den of upon any complain- A Badger Silo Unloader—value ant attacking such exces- $715; plaintiffs made assessor was sive, inadequate inequitable.” or $550; plaintiffs’ wit- it at valued Changes $250, respec- from it at statute nesses valued $400 ; Code, tively value at Chapter statute district court set $600. evidence, plaintiffs
Based permits on such discretion to argue they provided to value require evidence as further documentation of owner- of the ship personal property purposes that assessor relied solely guidelines newly book as to value cred- applying enacted machinery compiled the state tax- it. The restraint on such discretion ing authority. argue arbitrary Plaintiffs further must or that it not be used an that the the Board of Review unreasonable manner. actually
never observed machine these essentially ar- Defendants similar make items, taxpayer right and that a has posi- support the trial court’s guments specific property as to value of regard the valuations items. buildings and and the farm reviewing coqrt say Defendants land. *4 regard alleged the and With to excessive look not individual items which must to the illegal of farm estate and real value, the assessed but aggregate make buildings, argue plaintiffs assessor the ag- look the court should at rather failed to used follow statute in that he to determine wheth- gregate assessed value cost-deprecia- replacement the method of figure Defend- er alone excessive. that buildings. tion to Plain- value the farm argue that no burden of ants also argue tiffs and their build- witnesses farm though it could under passed to even them ings fair have a market when such statute; passed them burden to the new no buildings conjunction are considered in because, claim, they taxpayer’s witnesses Thus, they with the farmland as a unit. argument, the as- accepted, for sake of insist the failing erred in to value simply gave land and then sessor’s values buildings the land and and a unit buildings, for the farm different values using fair market value The wit- methods. added to the land value. which values were plaintiffs nesses for made their valuations buildings of the farm on of their the basis dispute in this specific areas of V. worth as related to the of the market value e., case, of i. the valuation a farm as unit. land, of buildings and the status and farm purposes, field harvester for tax credit Plaintiffs arbi- contend assessor was concerning issues raise some fundamental trary and requiring unreasonable in more application interpretation of and showing taxpayer’s than word of and a statute, newly 62nd enacted tax Ch. some taxpayer’s checks to establish that G.A., form, present or its amended owned field Plaintiff son harvester. 441.21,Code Tiffany argued F. son had that his John always owned the harvester that it had of the is the issues involved is what One plaintiff’s been carried on the tax roll be- meaning which language of the cause, prior passage to the of $2500 states that of shifts personal credit property, had there taxpayer produces evi- after been no not to list it reason there. dence at least disinterested witness- than property es that the is lower argues IV. The defendant-assessor that the assessor’s value. the trial refusing court did not err remove field harvester from raised, particularly by the A second issue Tiffany’s tax assessment Assessor roll. dispute of the build- over the value further contends the trial court was under ings, is how be val- should obligation no to further reduce the valua- ued under the statute. tions for the items of and the farm and land. important An related is whether issue Specifically, implicitly defendants contend an At- operates the new statute torney Opinion change appellate of December re- General’s standard court statute, allege of cases that excessiveness view “as the fair and reasonable ex- illegality in assessed valuations. change year in the the property which listed and valued willing between a buyer The final raised involves deter- issue a willing seller, and a being neither under scope mination the nature of the compulsion buy or sell each being requiring taxpayer sessor’s discretion familiar with all the relating facts to the ownership documentation of particular property. prices Sale may subject comparable or property in normal property tax credit. reflecting transactions probable availability unavailability VI. first the Considering issue of or allega- persons appellate standard for review of in purchasing an interested valuation, illegal property, we excessive and taken into consideration Code, 1971, arriving pro- at refer which its market value. In assess- validity ing presumption placing vides that no agricultural value on appeals. said property, assessor’s valuation exists on value shall be determined on statute, case decided under the old its basis current market value as re- is, prior flected its one the enactment of current use.” Under G.A., view, Dry 62nd Ch. our standard for an allega- Black review of James Review, Co. Iowa tion of illegality Goods v. Board excessiveness and is di- *5 1269, 1276, 534, 538, 151 the court rected to an N.W.2d examination of the record to prior changed statutory held that the if 441.39 law. determine the standards have Co., supra, Dry The court in Black or not Goods have been as a matter followed stated, changes perceive law. we in new The the require ap- this statute court to discontinue I, “As noted in Division the supra, prod- plication “grossly the excessive— (old places statute Code 1962) judgment” uct of assessor’s will not stand- complainant on a the proving burden of ard. excessive,
the assessor’s inade- quate pre- inequitable. strong or requirement VII. A further sumption of the valua- correctness of the present the in statute’s definition of meth previously recognized v. Butler in finding ods to use value is that Moines, 956, City of Des 219 Iowa “willing buy be valued under the 755, Building- and Des Moines N.W. er-willing seller” formula unless such value Bomer, Loan & Savings Association v. Thus, readily be established. in or cannot 366, 240 Iowa now 36 N.W.2d has reproduction * der to such factors as or * use by been removed statute cost, etc., replacement depreciation, the In long cases line of of which Mark require seem to some show statute would Review, County wardt v. Frank Board party partic ing by the who asserts that a Co., (Iowa), lin 174 N.W.2d is one type of taxable has no mar ular recent, most the this court has said the by “willing buyer- ket value established taxpayer injury must more show which is method, willing seller” that “market opinion, than a difference of the valuation by be the other value” must established grossly must be excessive and the result of taxpayer If his initial formulae. the meets will, the not judgment the of the assessor. has an burden to show the ascer The amendments to our statutes have also “willing tainable market under necessarily principle. eroded this formula, buyer-willing seller” can negate showing before he
must statutory earning capacity productive We view the new lan üse taxing authority deprecia guage property, physical as a directive and functional attempt tion, first In this assessor made to determine actual etc. case the finding negate presence fair of market val- market value defined no effort prop- piece market value of seller” that the buyer-willing “willing ue under the given is less than the value erty question value evi- test, the market and contested his assessor, taxpayer has met evidence, in an formula value dence with burden. This market value. to establish attempt (cid:127) showing make a Failure to permissible. taxpayer bur our case met his market value under of no ascertainable proof by producing qualified' den of three test where seller” “willing buyer-willing according to who testified that witnesses ini- the statute method appropriate values of the farm their view the market significant omission. tially requires is a properties on assessment rolls listed ap- by the issue raised The third VIII. #11, #12, #193 were tracts and #194 follow- interpreting the peal involved by the lower than the values determined proof burden of statutory provision ing requisite number of assessor. Also the section of Ch. This cases. in tax witnesses testified as to lower values for follows, is as 62nd G.A. each of three items of farm thereby allowing taxpayer his to meet upon proof shall burden “The respect. burden in that attacking such valuation any complainant or excessive, inadequate, inequitable However, regard to a third tract of ap- however, protest or capricious; appellant-taxpayer farmland that claims complainant proceedings peal when overvalued, we find that since least by at competent evidence offers taxpayer testified as to the value witnesses that (2) disinterested land, burden of did not property is less than market value shift assessing This authorities. determined the market value land, tract of referred to in the record as sessor, thereafter “Keyes “Keys’ Farm” or the Land” upon persons or the officials according should be valued to the valuation *6 uphold such to seeking valuation found the trial court. We therefore af- assessed.” judgment firm the trial court’s as to the “Keyes only. Farm” in the discussion above have noted We plaintiffs Since the have met their bur- statute, that the Division VI #11, proof den of #12, as to tracts #193 Code, pre- operates hold that no and #194 and the three items of farm ma- sumption validity assessor’s of the of the chinery, requires the statute that the bur- by taxpayers. appeals on obtains proof den of shifts the assessor. Dry Black of Re- Goods Co. v. Bd. James view, 1269, 1276, 260 Iowa 151 N.W.2d The assessor testified as to the farmland 534, 538, the held that 441.39 removed buildings and farm that he used the valua- strong presumption former cor- reproduction tion method of depre- cost— pre- rectness of the assessor’s valuation ciated to buildings. value the farm Such a viously recognized in Iowa case law. method is improper in this case as we said supra in Divisions VI and VII. Because taxpayer appeal on Whether the has met the assessor used improper an method to particular proof his burden of under the determine we hold that the assessor terms of the new statute a consid- involves did not proof meet his burden of with re- testimony eration of introduced each gard property the tracts of referred to Initially places the statute the bur- case. #11, #12, #193 and #194. taxpayer appeals den of who set from the valuations the assessor. he used The assessor testified to val statute, guidelines compiled Under the terms of the when the a book of State machinery. These appellant-taxpayer offers evidence ue items of farm of averages of values competent, guidelines represent or more disinterested witnesses machinery. find that types according (will- of We to the various definition ing is not in view buyer willing seller), sufficient employed evidence he — by wrong value evidence introduced his specific standard in valuation. taxpayer and his three witnesses. We Second, the did assessor not meet the failed to hold that assessor therefore plaintiffs evidence of and their witnesses regard to meet his buildings that the a had lower than farmland referred to in assess- both the the assessed presented value. Plaintiffs #11, #12, ment lists as #193 qualified witnesses that were judges of #194, and the three items of farm sales and who testified farm build- disc, silage un- blower and silo ings had a market value when considered loader. with the farmland one mar- saleable or testimony, issue raised facts of ketable The final unit. his own replacement sessor involves the determination admitted cost had relationship re- no scope of the discretion in assessor’s value of taxpayer buildings. farm He quiring attempt that the document owner- did challenge upon ship purposes taxpay- the basis personal which the er’s assessed credit. witnesses value of the build- Opinion ings. Attorney above, Decem- As we have stated General’s dated he also helpful any showing failed to make ber 1968above referred to is that replace- documentation, depreciated ment beyond proper what setting out method cost— roll, valuing buildings taxpayer attached to the tax the as- where affidavits require. shows that such “fair sessor can The essence of the At- do have a exchange torney Opinion asses- reasonable” when General’s is that the part viewed as of the farm require sor had discretion to production of unit. documentary whatever feels evidence he This reviews court the record novo de necessary particular each case. and must its make decision based on the evidence of value before it. side Neither share the Attorney We view the any made effort sales real to show recent General, apart hold that from show of the identical or to recent show unreasonable, ing arbitrary, or discrimi comparable property. sales of ex- To that discretion, natory use tent this case differs from v. Greene Juhl may require whatever documentation 1971), County (Iowa, Board Review *7 ownership necessary he deems (filed contemporaneously 188 351 N.W.2d in particular order fact situation in opinion). with this ownership substantiate for the tax credit. un properly agree sides that Both rule, when the fair market der the new IX. Based on the above discussion farmland, applied value test is it should involved, legal of the various issues we unit, is, applied as a that be disposition now discuss of the factual Be buildings to the land and combined. situation before as We hold that the us. cause of the newness of the fair prevail question sessor cannot on the expressed this was not standard buildings values for the farm land and in clearly might it witnesses as for two reasons. be future Based on the evidence cases. First, the assessor admitted in his own fore we find the fair market value . us testimony including that im buildings he valued the build- the real estate “replacement ings by percent provements cost less be as listed Since 17 below. depreciation” is method. method Where the the assessor’s formula valuation showing buildings case, made no that such contrary have to statute it cannot no ascertainable market measured be considered.
350 concur, except percent actual val- All STUART find that 100 We Justices MASON, specially concur Tiffany JJ., farm —land who F. ue for J. SON, J., who takes no #12 on the as- and REYNOLD improvements —#11 part. rolls, $60,121.00; the F. & is sessment R. Tiffany Farm —land and DeSales rolls, the assessment
—#193 and #194 on $61,402.00. STUART, specially). (concurring Justice regard to the three items of farm With long recognized The law has two distinct that the assessor failed we find concepts proof I burden of believe any proof sufficient to meet the to adduce meaning we should make it clear which we thereby taxpayer’s evidence of value and applying paragraph are to the last of sec- the trial court to set the valuation order 1, 354, Chapter Sixty-sec- Laws of the disc, blower, silo and silo unloader Assembly. ond General at values consistent with the evidence taxpayer. In a strict sense burden of refers quantum of evidence which a percent find that actual val- We the 100 party pleading prove an issue must it—the personal property items of ue of the three persuasion. secondary In a burden follows:
sense, necessity going it is used as the party with evidence after a forward $35.00 1. J. D. 12' tandem disc actual value no wheels evidence, prima has made facie case Badger silage $200.00 blower actual value Findley (1937), rule or statute. Wilson v. 3. Badger silo $550.00 unloader actual 1281, 1299-1300, 223 Iowa 275 N.W. Finally, regard to issue of with 56-57; American In- Hoover First Fire v. ownership, that the field harvester we hold 559, 570-571, (1934), Co. 218 Iowa surance the assessor was within his discretion 705, 711; Am.Jur.2d, Evi- N.W. 29 taxpay requiring further documentation of 154-156; 123-124, dence, pp. 31A §§ C.J.S. his son er’s owned the ma assertion 103, pp. 164—166. Evidence § chinery. in the record The evidence plaintiff’s testimony is the that he showed my opinion legislature plain made out checks the term cited section used above payment tiff’s minor son which were going forward the sense of the harvester. checks themselves Although rec- we have the evidence. were never Under introduced as evidence. cases that the bur- ognized in one class of facts, especially plaintiff shift, the fact that may In re Estate persuasion den Tiffany asserting 430, 440, was non-owner 242 Iowa (1951), of Lundvall ship previously listing the harvester after lan- believe I N.W.2d roll, on his assessment and the fact legislative in- a clear indicate guage should year this assertion coincided with the first rule the traditional depart from tent *8 applied, in which credit in the strict proof, the burden of assessor did not abuse his discretion pleading the is- sense, party remains on the asking ownership. further sue. deci We therefore affirm the trial court’s field reverse
sion as to the harvester and not resolve opinion does majority as to the farm and the three it indicated would settle I question. pro items and remand for above. ceedings and decree inconsistent opinion. this special concur- MASON, joins J., part, part
Affirmed in reversed rence. remanded.