Printable Format79-1409. Board of equalization; powers; appeals; meetings; changes in valuation, effect; certifications of equalized values; apportionment of state taxes. The state board of tax appeals shall constitute a state board of equalization, and shall equalize the valuation and assessment of property throughout the state; and shall have power to equalize the assessment of all property in this state between persons, firms or corporations of the same assessment district, between cities and townships of the same county, and between the different counties of the state, and the property assessed by the director of property valuation in the first instance. And any person feeling aggrieved by the action of the county board of equalization may, within 45 days after the decision of such board, appeal to the state board of equalization for a determination of such grievance.
It shall be the duty of the state board of equalization to meet in its office, or such other place within any county of the state as the board shall deem advisable, to perform the work of equalization as hereinbefore provided. Such board may meet at any time on and after January 15 of each year as it may deem necessary and shall meet from the 11th day of July, or the next following business day if such date shall fall on a day other than a regular business day, until the 25th day of August as the business of the board shall require. Whenever the valuation of any taxing district, whether it be a county, township, city, school district, or otherwise, is changed by the state board of equalization, the officers of such taxing district who have authority to levy taxes are required to use the valuation so fixed by the state board as a basis for making their levies for all purposes. In case a change is made in such valuation, the state board of tax appeals shall certify the equalized values to the director of property valuation who shall forthwith certify the same to the county clerks of the several counties of the state or to the counties affected by such equalization; and such county clerks shall carry the real estate and tangible personal property on the tax rolls of their respective counties at the valuations so certified, and shall use such valuations as the basis of all tax levies, except that any certification received by a county clerk after August 25 may be handled as an abatement, refund, or added tax as the certification warrants.
The director of property valuation shall apportion the amount of tax for state purposes as required by law to be raised in the state among the several counties therein, in proportion to the valuation of the taxable property therein for the year as equalized by the state board of equalization.
History: L. 1933, ch. 117, § 1 (Special Session); L. 1959, ch. 374, § 1; L. 1963, ch. 466, § 1; L. 1969, ch. 368, § 2; L. 2008, ch. 109, § 81; L. 2014, ch. 141, § 90; July 1.
Source or prior law:
L. 1861, ch. 35, § 2; L. 1864, ch. 113, § 1; L. 1866, ch. 118, §§ 31, 32, 33; G.S. 1868, ch. 107, §§ 47, 48, 49; L. 1869, ch. 124, § 14; L. 1876, ch. 34, §§ 78, 79, 159; L. 1907, ch. 408, § 17; L. 1908, ch. 79, § 1; R.S 1923, 79-1409.
Law Review and Bar Journal References:
"Kansas Ad Valorem Property Tax Relief—A Current Review," Bruce F. Landeck, 49 J.B.A.K. 269, 271 (1980).
"The Kansas Property Tax: Understanding and Surviving Reappraisal," P. John Brady, Brian T. Howes, and Greg L. Musil, 57 J.K.B.A. No. 3, 23, 26 (1988).
Attorney General's Opinions:
Duties of county clerk and county appraiser in preparing real estate tax assessment rolls. 80-153.
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. Equalization by state and county boards; refusal to adopt equalization. Geary County v. Railway Co., 62 Kan. 168, 61 P. 693.
2. Board of equalization; record of county clerk construed. Symns v. Graves, 65 Kan. 628, 70 P. 591.
3. Valuation raised by state board of equalization; levy by county. Railway Co. v. Miami County, 67 Kan. 434, 73 P. 103.
4. Apportionment by state board of equalization; duty of county clerk; rate increased by county clerk; railway property included; illegal tax. Railway Co. v. Sumner County, 76 Kan. 618, 623, 92 P. 590.
5. Excessive valuation; limit of time to make application for reduction. Benn v. Slaymaker, 93 Kan. 64, 67, 143 P. 503.
6. Equalization powers of tax commission not limited to assessment years. Flour Mills Co. v. State Tax Commission, 116 Kan. 528, 227 P. 339.
7. Means of governing tax assessments considered. Atchison, T. & S. F. Rly. Co. v. Drainage Dist., 133 Kan. 586, 590, 1 P.2d 253.
8. Cited in reviewing statutory tax procedure to provide state revenue. Clay County Comm'rs v. French, 139 Kan. 815, 816, 33 P.2d 312.
9. General taxes for state purposes considered; statutory procedure reviewed. Kansas Gas & Elec. Co. v. Dalton, 142 Kan. 59, 62, 46 P.2d 27.
10. Valuation fixed by state board is mandatory on local taxing district. State, ex rel., v Riley County Comm'rs, 142 Kan. 388, 391, 47 P.2d 449.
11. Escaped assessments are subject to equalization and review by county board, tax commission and proper courts; taxpayer properly relieved of penalty. Beacon Publishing Co. v. Burke, 143 Kan. 248, 255, 53 P.2d 888; Allen v. Burke, 143 Kan. 257, 265, 53 P.2d 894.
12. Discussed in denying injunction to restrain collection on excessive assessment. Eureka B. & L. Ass'n v. Myers, 147 Kan. 609, 612, 78 P.2d 68.
13. Board of equalization's duties compared with social welfare board's under K.S.A. 39-713(g) (dissenting opinion). State v. Cloud County Comm'rs, 148 Kan. 626, 632, 84 P.2d 405.
14. Court cannot fix valuation; can only determine whether valuation arbitrarily or unreasonably made. Hanzlick v. Republic County Comm'rs, 149 Kan. 667, 88 P.2d 1111.
15. Action to enjoin collection of taxes; constructive fraud; petition sufficient. Anderson v. Dunn, 180 Kan. 811, 814, 308 P.2d 154.
16. Petition to recover protested taxes sufficiently alleged fraud in making unequal assessments. Kansas City Southern Rly. Co. v. Board of County Comm'rs, 183 Kan. 675, 677, 683, 331 P.2d 899.
17. Where state board of equalization approves assessment it is essential party to action to enjoin tax collection. Builders, Inc. v. Board of County Commissioners, 191 Kan. 379, 380, 381, 383, 381 P.2d 527.
18. Cited in determining action commenced under K.S.A. 79-2005. Cities Service Oil Co. v. Kronewitter, 199 Kan. 228, 232, 428 P.2d 804.
19. Whenever valuations changed by state board of equalization, officers of taxing district required to use such changed valuations. Mobil Oil Corporation v. McHenry, 200 Kan. 211, 212, 225, 226, 228, 233, 235, 237, 253, 436 P.2d 982.
20. Action under K.S.A. 60-907; court without jurisdiction; remedy hereunder. Harshbarger v. Board of County Commissioners, 201 Kan. 592, 597, 442 P.2d 5.
21. Assessment and valuation of property are administrative in character; absent evidence that assessment was arrived at fraudulently, arbitrarily or capriciously, a difference of opinion as to value doesn't warrant judicial interference. Cities Service Oil Co. v. Murphy, 202 Kan. 282, 284, 447 P.2d 791.
22. Cited in upholding validity of K.S.A. 79-306c. State, ex rel., v. Dwyer, 204 Kan. 3, 4, 5, 460 P.2d 507.
23. Where all counties comprising a taxing unit or district are not complying with the assessment law, the state board of tax appeals sitting as the state board of equalization, has power to equalize assessments between different counties of the state. McManaman v. Board of County Commissioners, 205 Kan. 118, 126, 468 P.2d 243.
24. State board of tax appeals as no appellate jurisdiction as a board of equalization over a penalty lawfully assessed under K.S.A. 79-332. Walkemeyer v. Stevens County Oil & Gas Co., 205 Kan. 486, 488, 491, 470 P.2d 730.
25. Cited; case concerning taxing officials acting without statutory authority. Mobil Oil Corporation v. Medcalf, 207 Kan. 100, 102, 107, 483 P.2d 1111.
26. Applied; assessment of property at 43% of fair market value arbitrary and oppressive; constructive fraud. Gordon v. Hiett, 214 Kan. 690, 696, 522 P.2d 942.
27. Referred to in upholding valuation and assessment of utility property by state board under K.S.A. 79-5a04. Mobil Pipeline Co. v. Rohmiller, 214 Kan. 905, 920, 522 P.2d 923.
28. Failure to file appeal within time specified divests board of jurisdiction to hear appeal. Vaughn v. Martell, 226 Kan. 658, 659, 660, 603 P.2d 191.
29. Statute discussed; alternative measures of seeking tax refund on appeal from order of board of tax appeals. Wirt v. Esrey, 233 Kan. 300, 306, 312, 313, 314, 662 P.2d 1238 (1983).
30. Cited; BOTA has duty to equalize valuation and assessment; depreciating property to fair market value (K.S.A. 79-503) proper. Board of Johnson County Comm'rs v. J.A. Peterson Co., 239 Kan. 112, 114, 716 P.2d 188 (1986).
31. Whether court erred by refusing to remand case to BOTA for evidence hearing regarding property value equalization examined. Sunflower Racing, Inc. v. Board of Wyandotte County Comm'rs, 256 Kan. 426, 446, 885 P.2d 1233 (1994).
32. BOTA lacked jurisdiction to order department of property valuation to reappraise agricultural land statewide. Board of County Comm'rs v. Duffy, 259 Kan. 500, 508, 912 P.2d 716 (1996).
33. Appellate review of board of tax appeals decision; standard of review. Board of Douglas County Comm'rs v. Cashatt, 23 Kan. App. 2d 532, 538, 933 P.2d 167 (1997).