*1 Reiss, Appellant, v. Board of Review ex rel. State Erin, Respondent.

Town 1, 1965. 3 December November *3 the appellant argument For there a brief and oral by Richard V. Reiss of Milwaukee. respondent

For the there was a Simester, brief Bend, Schowalter Bunk argument & of West and oral Henry 0. Schowalter. question J. The critical is whether tax-

Fairchild, right payer never obtained a to a because he completed objection. failed file a form of If he had a right hearing, improperly to a then board terminated right hearing, complain it. If he had no to a he cannot the board’s refusal to continue. controlling statute is sec. (a), 70.47 Stats. provides:

It “Objections to the amount or valuation of *4 writing shall first be made in and filed with the clerk of adjournment prior the public board of review to of hear- ings by cluding objections days, the If the board in board. is session 5 in- meeting any adjourned meetings, first and its all be filed within such time shall unless failure by to file upon within such time is waived the board a showing require proved by good of cause for The may such failure. board objections department such to be submitted ap- on forms person the of No taxation. shall be any proceedings in or question allowed amount or objection action to the property of valuation unless such written person good been filed and in such faith support presented in of such board such evidence to objections board, before full disclosure said and made in of all of liable to assessment under oath his requirement that the thereof. The

such district and value writing may by express action of the it inbe be waived board.” consistently the took the

The record shows that board by taxpayer position that the form filed the was incom- plete insufficient, that the not waive and and board did objection requirement proper be filed. the that a written willing per- August Apparently 10th, to on the board was taxpayer present if to his case on the merits so that mit by ultimately rule, as claimed the tax- the payer, should court sufficient, the he filed was the that hearing would would have been heard and further merits August many unnecessary. spending After hours on be listening 13th, to of the asses- and cross-examination 10th evidently sor, of the concluded that the members board great presentation consumea deal the of the merits would original it to the of time and that was better abandon plan. The then terminated. was quoted previously comment of learned have the the

We indicating being judge, purpose that no useful circuit up- accomplished assessor, the and the examination of agree. reading record, of the on our we reproduced printed in matter is The form involved this Taxpayer of that the form consists contends herewith. (2) objection, parts: information in two according objection. (1), taxpayer, support Part to description page, upper portion in the which of is property, assessment, and for ob- of reasons amount according portion, jection to tax- to be filled in. This are requested payer, it that words: “and is with the closes provided for law.” reviewed as be this assessment according taxpayer, portion (2), is the lower Part support objection, beginning: page, “In of this following pertinent information is submitted.” *6 Taxpayer completed part (1), had supplied but had not part (2). information called for in types consider part We of information called for in ordinarily to be relevant to the issues raised on ob- jection assessment, helpful to an to the board in the performance duty, unduly not its burdensome taxpayer. specify not statute does the elements *7 which objection, must be included in a written but does provide: may objections require “The board such to be approved by department submitted on the forms of tax- giving interpret board, ation.” the We statute as the with approval department, the reasonable in latitude specifying supplied relevant information which must be part obj of a as written ection.

Taxpayer upon the would concede that board can insist completion part (1), the completion of but would deem the part (2) We, optional. however, of en- conclude that the statute, may tire form is authorized the and the board upon completion insist of it.

During hearing July 30th, the on answers were written part (2). in a of in number the blanks Some were crossed out and others substituted. The final answer to is “What present property” the fair market value the of do was “I not know.” Even if it were considered that the board had accepted questions, the answers to other re- this answer Surely single important mained insufficient. the most fact relevant to an assessment is the fair market value property, taxpayer proceed the and a who desires to with good an prepared in faith must be to take a position as to the fair what market Fair value is. market conclusive, where, value not instance, is for the taxing consistently in the district is underassessed, but always it is relevant. Taxpayer part (2) contends that answers to constitute

written evidence and ex cites State rel. deForest v. Hobe

1 (1905), 8, 102 124 Wis. N. W. 350. holding only not can be that written evidence

as oral Case, The Hobe how a board of review. considered part ever, deposition, upon and relied the involved a persons requiring examine the board to who the statute expressly the appear. present The authorizes statute documentary compel production of evid board to the (a), Stats., any event, autho In sec. ence.2 70.47 rizes, department opinion, in form which the our the upon. approved and the board insisted argues Taxpayer real reason the board decided that the that testi- terminate the was assessor’s to illegal mony that he had followed an method demonstrated objection being insufficient, of assessment. written terminating hearing may in be im- motive the board’s- say, however, appropriate it material. We consider suggestion terminated the hear- that the that the board obviously ing improper assessment is in order to save an unwarranted. $27,000, been and it total assessment had

In 1963 $13,500 taxpayer’s position he had not added that $40,500 improvements assessment in in and therefore *8 1964 was excessive. testimony, however, appears

It from the assessor’s originally light property in the the had been assessed that farming. just, however, had been taken over for It of use enterprise Horn by known as Powder a commercial basis, used, fee for to on a The land was be Limited. swimming, fishing, riding, hiking, hunting, horseback pond day camp. had been constructed and con- a One and begin on a The assessor was about to second. struction new, commercial, development a from this of concluded woodland, (marsh portions of and for the land that use greater had instance) value than been determined had taxpayer The had parts of a farm. as considered when $1,600, the house, formerly at and assessed a remodeled ^[2] Sec. 70.47 (d), Stats. taxpayer

assessor testified that he and had about talked agreed value, $7,000. its and on an of assessment taxpayer hearing, A produce fact which did at the al- though it, taxpayer the had assessor not that known was purchased property March, 1963, the in fourteen months assessment, Improvements $45,000. before the for were extent, suggest strongly made to some and these facts May 1, 1964, that the fair on market value inwas excess $40,500 of the assessment. “. taxpayer complaint . . A no when a valuation ordinarily

which could obtained private be therefor at upon placed property, sale is his unless there is such a general property undervaluation of the other of the assessment district as will in result an excessive tax as to him.”

By Judgment the affirmed. Court. — (dissenting). J. I consider the form Hallows, although “somewhat butchered” with com- answers be pletely filled question out and sufficient. No is un- left position answered. The of the of board review majority the of the court the rests on slender thread of being the “I answer don’t know” as insufficient to a inquiry present factual of what is the fair market value property. question This did not ask the owner’s opinion toas the fair market value or what value he was claiming. inquiry sought a factual answer which is adequately question answered “I don’t know.” If the calling be as considered for the opinion, owner’s importance answer of little is because the owner is to value of the as determined the assessor. wrong

I think the discontinuing board of review in ground alleged incompleteness on the of an *9 justified the form. This action cannot be make- 3 Jung (1921), 58, 61, State ex rel. Walthers v. 175 Wis. W.N. 986.

weight assessor the examination reasons that majority’s in- time-consuming a and harassment any event probably not win in would the owner dication price of the court’s of the land and purchase because of the relating testimony. The evidence of the assessor’s view bearing on whether no to the merits it hearing for the reason board could discontinue gave.

I would reverse. Inc., Respondent, v. Trucking, Harris Brothers Hanz Division, Appellant. Company, Crestline 3, 1965. November 2 December