Ark. Code Ann. § 26-27-318 (2020)

Research References

Ark. L. Rev.

Acts of 1951 Affecting Property Taxation, 5 Ark. L. Rev. 368.

U. Ark. Little Rock L.J.

Stafford, Separation of Powers and Arkansas Administrative Agencies: Distinguishing Judicial Power and Legislative Power, 7 U. Ark. Little Rock L.J. 279.

Case Notes

In General.

A taxpayer must pursue the remedy providing for his relief or abide by the finding of the county board of equalization. Clay County v. Brown Lumber Co., 90 Ark. 413, 119 S.W. 251 (1909) (decision under prior law).

This section evinces a legislative intention to permit a taxpayer protesting against a conceived insufficiency in the amount of an assessment of another taxpayer to appeal to the county court from an unfavorable disposition of his protest by the county equalization board. Pulaski County v. Commercial Nat'l Bank, 210 Ark. 124, 194 S.W.2d 883 (1946).

Where petition to reduce assessment had been denied by county equalization board, then this remedy had been exhausted before the board, but the right of appeal to the county court still remained, and the board's action or inaction did not preclude pursuing the statutory remedy for a hearing. Jones v. Crouch, 231 Ark. 720, 332 S.W.2d 238 (1960).

The opportunity to appeal to the courts is an essential part of the tract-by-tract procedure, for under the United States Constitution, a property owner is entitled, at some point, to notice and an opportunity to be heard on the fairness of his assessment, as compared with the assessment of other property. Dierks Forests, Inc. v. Shell, 240 Ark. 966, 403 S.W.2d 83 (1966).

Where statutory provisions for tract-by-tract assessment of property were so imperfectly executed that the assessment was not finalized until the landowner's time for appeal was past, it could not amount to substantial compliance with the law, as the landowner's essential constitutional rights to review are disregarded. Dierks Forests, Inc. v. Shell, 240 Ark. 966, 403 S.W.2d 83 (1966).

Subsection (a) of this section specifically provides for appeals on tax questions by either the property owner or the assessor; no further authorization for appeal is needed, for under § 16-67-201 [superseded], all appeals from county court judgments are granted as a matter of right. Pulaski County v. Jacuzzi Bros., 317 Ark. 10, 875 S.W.2d 496 (1994).

Jurisdiction.

Courts, whether of law or equity, held powerless to give relief against erroneous judgments of assessing bodies unless they are especially empowered by law to do so. Clay County v. Bank of Knobel, 105 Ark. 450, 151 S.W. 1013 (1912) (decision under prior law).

When only issue was alleged error of county assessor in fixing valuation of property, there was a statutory remedy by appearance before the county board of equalization, and the property owner having neglected to pursue this remedy, a court of equity had no jurisdiction to review the action of the assessor. Arlington Hotel Co. v. Buchanan, 110 Ark. 34, 160 S.W. 895 (1913) (decision under prior law).

Where county court adjourned before county equalization board assessed property so that the property owners were unable to appeal to the county court and at the next term, the court gave the owners the relief to which they would have been entitled at the preceding term, the judgment of the court would not be quashed on certiorari. Arkadelphia Milling Co. v. Clark County Bd. of Equalization, 136 Ark. 180, 206 S.W. 70 (1918) (decision under prior law).

Equity will grant relief against void tax assessments, but not against those assessments that are merely erroneous for overvaluation where a statutory remedy by appeal is afforded. W.P. Brown & Sons Lumber Co. v. Sims, 146 Ark. 253, 225 S.W. 322 (1920); Little Red River Levee Dist. No. 2 v. State, 185 Ark. 1170, 52 S.W.2d 46 (1932).

County court had no jurisdiction of appeal from assessment valuations where there was no publication of the statutory notice required by this section, and this defect was not cured by the fact that the county assessor appeared and contested the case in the county court. Warren v. Wheatley, 225 Ark. 901, 286 S.W.2d 334 (1956).

Taxpayer cannot enjoin an assessment where he has failed to exhaust his remedy of appeal from action or inaction by a county board of equalization. New St. Mary's Gin, Inc. v. Moore, 232 Ark. 24, 334 S.W.2d 683 (1960).

Necessary Parties.

A school district is not a necessary party to every proceeding for the determination of the assessed value of taxable property. Pulaski County Bd. of Equalization v. American Republic Life Ins. Co., 233 Ark. 124, 342 S.W.2d 660 (1961).

Where taxpayer is granted an exemption from taxation filed in a county court pursuant to Ark. Const., Art. 7, § 28, the county may appeal to the circuit court from the order of the county court pursuant to Ark. Const., Art. 7, § 33, § 16-67-201 [superseded], and this section, but the assessor should join in the appeal. Pulaski County v. Jacuzzi Bros., 317 Ark. 10, 875 S.W.2d 496 (1994).

Notice.

Under § 26-26-910 and the constitutional requirement of due process of law, a taxpayer must be given notice both of a raised assessment and of his right to a review thereof by the county equalization board, and the provision of this section permitting a taxpayer to appeal to the county court without first having exhausted his remedy before the equalization board in cases where he shall have had no opportunity to appear before the board does not obviate the necessity for such notice. Prather v. Martin, 257 Ark. 576, 519 S.W.2d 72 (1975).

Pendency of Another Action.

Taxpayer's refund suit was not required to be dismissed under Ark. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(8) because the taxpayer's previously filed valuation claim and the refund claim were governed by separate statutory procedures and encompassed different issues. The taxpayer, in its refund action, alleged that it had discovered that a portion of its property had been erroneously assessed because it was either exempt from taxation or was not located in the county, while the taxpayer, in its prior valuation appeal, argued that an incorrect assessment method was used to value its property. DeSoto Gathering Co., LLC v. Hill, 2018 Ark. 103, 541 S.W.3d 415 (2018).

Publication.

Where statutory requirement of publication of appeal of assessment valuations was not complied with, order of county court reducing the assessed valuations was void and court could expunge such order even though the term had expired. Warren v. Wheatley, 225 Ark. 901, 286 S.W.2d 334 (1956).

Unauthorized Practice of Law.

Despite subdivision (a)(1)(A) of this section and a property owner's right to appeal an assessment, corporations are prohibited from acting pro se or representing themselves in legal actions. Desoto Gathering Co., LLC v. Hill, 2017 Ark. 326, 531 S.W.3d 396 (2017).

Circuit court did not err in dismissing a company's tax assessment appeal for lack of jurisdiction when its tax manager, a nonlawyer, initiated the appeal on its behalf because the company invoked the legal process and its nonattorney representative engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. Because the notices of appeals were consequently a nullity and the deadline for filing an appeal under this section had lapsed when the amended notices were filed, the petitions of appeal were a nullity. Desoto Gathering Co., LLC v. Hill, 2017 Ark. 326, 531 S.W.3d 396 (2017).

Cited: Tedford v. Vaulx, 183 Ark. 240, 35 S.W.2d 346 (1931); Ark. Tax Comm'n v. Ashby, 217 Ark. 759, 233 S.W.2d 361 (1950); Burgess v. Four States Mem'l Hosp., 250 Ark. 485, 465 S.W.2d 693 (1971); Baldwin v. Rushing, 254 Ark. 1042, 497 S.W.2d 668 (1973); Rodgers v. Easterling, 270 Ark. 255, 603 S.W.2d 884 (1980).