A. Subject to the limitations and conditions prescribed by this article, if a tax officer determines that any real or personal property has been assessed improperly as a result of a property tax error, the tax officer shall send the taxpayer a notice of proposed correction at the taxpayer's last known address by:
1. Certified mail, return receipt requested, if correction of the error results in an increase in the full cash value or change in legal classification of the property.
2. First class mail or, at the taxpayer's written request, delivery by common carrier or electronic transmittal, if correction of the error does not result in an increase in the valuation of the property.
B. The notice shall:
1. Be in a form prescribed by the department.
2. Clearly identify the subject property by tax parcel number or tax roll number and the year or years for which the correction is proposed.
3. Explain the error, the reasons for the error and the proposed correction of the error.
4. Inform the taxpayer of the procedure and deadlines for appealing all or part of the proposed determination before the tax roll is corrected.
C. Within thirty days after receiving a notice of proposed correction, the taxpayer may file a written response to the tax officer that sent the notice to either consent to or dispute the proposed correction of the error and to state the grounds for disputing the correction. A failure to file a written response within thirty days constitutes consent to the proposed correction. A taxpayer may file a request for an extension of time within thirty days after receiving the notice of proposed correction. The extension of time may not exceed thirty days. If an extension is granted, any response that is not filed within the extended due date constitutes consent to the proposed correction.
D. The taxpayer may appeal any valuation or legal classification issue that arises from the proposed correction as provided in this section.
E. If the taxpayer consents to the proposed correction, or consents to the proposed correction but disputes the proposed valuation or legal classification as provided on the form prescribed by the department, the tax roll shall be promptly corrected to allow property taxes to be levied and collected in all subsequent tax years, but no additional tax, interest or penalty may be imposed for the current tax year or any tax year preceding the date of the notice of proposed correction.
F. If the taxpayer disputes the proposed correction or the proposed valuation or legal classification, the tax officer shall meet with the taxpayer or the taxpayer's representative in any case in which the taxpayer has timely filed a written response to discuss the proposed correction. If after the meeting the tax officer and the taxpayer reach an agreement on all or part of the proposed correction, the tax officer and the taxpayer shall each sign an agreement and the tax roll must be promptly corrected to the extent agreed on.
G. If after the meeting the parties fail to agree on all or part of the proposed correction, the tax officer shall serve a notice on the taxpayer by certified mail within thirty days after the meeting date advising the taxpayer that the tax roll will be corrected to the extent agreed on. The taxpayer may file a petition on a form prescribed by the department with the board of equalization within thirty days after the date of the notice or it is barred. On receiving the petition, the board shall hold a hearing on the disputed issues in the proposed correction within thirty days and shall issue a written decision pursuant to the board's rules.
H. A party that is dissatisfied with the decision of the board may appeal the decision to court within sixty days after the date the board's decision is mailed, but any additional taxes that are determined to be due must be timely paid before delinquency for the court to retain jurisdiction of the matter.
Notes of Decisions
Hormel v. Maricopa Cnty., 232 P.3d 768 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 12× “The County was, however, not precluded from instituting an administrative error claim under A.R.S. § 42-16252 (Supp.2009) to correct the Property’s Class Six classification for tax year 2004 and its effect on subsequent years, assuming that res judicata posed no bar.”
Maricopa Cnty. v. TWC CHANDLER, 77 P.3d 468 (Ariz. T.C. 2003).
· cites it 2× “Accordingly, the Court will determine on the merits whether the value of the improvements was *470 properly added by the Assessor or properly removed by the SBOE.”
Phoenix Cement v. Yavapai (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 6× “YAVAPAI Decision of the Court 16251(3)(d). Pursuant to the error correction statutes, if the Assessor detects an error in the reporting of property, she must send the taxpayer a notice of proposed correction.”
Park Cent. Mall, LLC v. Maricopa Cnty., 4 P.3d 1075 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 7× “A correctable error under §§ 42-16252 and -16256, in other words, is an error in the assessment of taxes on the third Monday of August; it is not an error in the valuation of property in the prior calendar year — the valuation year.”
Edw. C. Levy Co. v. Maricopa Cnty. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 3× “¶9 Despite a taxpayer’s pre-existing statutory right to prospectively challenge the classification of property by means of an annual appeal, the legislature chose to define “error” to include errors in classification: “Error” means any mistake in assessing or collecting property…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 42-16252(A) — 3 cases
Hormel v. Maricopa Cnty., 232 P.3d 768 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010).
“The County was, however, not precluded from instituting an administrative error claim under A.R.S. § 42-16252 (Supp.2009) to correct the Property’s Class Six classification for tax year 2004 and its effect on subsequent years, assuming that res judicata posed no bar.”
Edw. C. Levy Co. v. Maricopa Cnty. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015).
“¶9 Despite a taxpayer’s pre-existing statutory right to prospectively challenge the classification of property by means of an annual appeal, the legislature chose to define “error” to include errors in classification: “Error” means any mistake in assessing or collecting property…”
Phoenix Cement v. Yavapai (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015).
“YAVAPAI Decision of the Court 16251(3)(d). Pursuant to the error correction statutes, if the Assessor detects an error in the reporting of property, she must send the taxpayer a notice of proposed correction.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 42-16252(C) — 2 cases
Hormel v. Maricopa Cnty., 232 P.3d 768 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010).
“The County was, however, not precluded from instituting an administrative error claim under A.R.S. § 42-16252 (Supp.2009) to correct the Property’s Class Six classification for tax year 2004 and its effect on subsequent years, assuming that res judicata posed no bar.”
Phoenix Cement v. Yavapai (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015).
“YAVAPAI Decision of the Court 16251(3)(d). Pursuant to the error correction statutes, if the Assessor detects an error in the reporting of property, she must send the taxpayer a notice of proposed correction.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 42-16252(D) — 1 case
Hormel v. Maricopa Cnty., 232 P.3d 768 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010).
“The County was, however, not precluded from instituting an administrative error claim under A.R.S. § 42-16252 (Supp.2009) to correct the Property’s Class Six classification for tax year 2004 and its effect on subsequent years, assuming that res judicata posed no bar.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 42-16252(F) — 1 case
Park Cent. Mall, LLC v. Maricopa Cnty., 4 P.3d 1075 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000).
“A correctable error under §§ 42-16252 and -16256, in other words, is an error in the assessment of taxes on the third Monday of August; it is not an error in the valuation of property in the prior calendar year — the valuation year.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 42-16252(G) — 3 cases
Maricopa Cnty. v. TWC CHANDLER, 77 P.3d 468 (Ariz. T.C. 2003).
“Accordingly, the Court will determine on the merits whether the value of the improvements was *470 properly added by the Assessor or properly removed by the SBOE.”
Phoenix Cement v. Yavapai (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015).
“YAVAPAI Decision of the Court 16251(3)(d). Pursuant to the error correction statutes, if the Assessor detects an error in the reporting of property, she must send the taxpayer a notice of proposed correction.”
Park Cent. Mall, LLC v. Maricopa Cnty., 4 P.3d 1075 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000).
“A correctable error under §§ 42-16252 and -16256, in other words, is an error in the assessment of taxes on the third Monday of August; it is not an error in the valuation of property in the prior calendar year — the valuation year.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.