O.C.G.A. § 48-5-19 (2019)
Signature and declaration of persons making returns of taxable property
(a) Each return of taxable property shall be signed by or for the person responsible for filing the return and shall contain or be verified by the following written declaration: “I do solemnly swear that I have carefully read (or have heard read) and have duly considered the questions propounded in the foregoing tax list, and that the value placed by me on the property returned, as shown by the list, is the true market value thereof; and I further swear that I returned, for the purpose of being taxed thereon, every species of property that I own in my own right or have control of either as agent, executor, administrator, or otherwise; and that in making this return, for the purpose of being taxed thereon, I have not attempted either by transferring my property to another or by any other means to evade the laws governing taxation in this state. I do further swear that in making this return I have done so by estimating the true worth and value of every species of property contained therein.” (b) The fact that a person appears to have signed a return of taxable property on behalf of a person required to file a return shall be prima-facie evidence that the person was authorized to sign on behalf of such person. (c) Any person who shall make any false statement in any return of taxable property shall be guilty of false swearing, whether or not an oath is actually administered to him or her, if such statement shall purport to be under oath. On conviction of such offense, such person shall be punished as provided by Code Section 16-10-71. (d)(1) As used in this subsection, the term “digital signature” means a digital or electronic method executed or adopted by a party with the intent to be bound by or to authenticate a record, which is unique to the person using it, is capable of verification, is under the sole control of the person using it, and is linked to data in such a manner that if the data are changed the digital or electronic signature is invalidated. (2) Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, the commissioner is authorized to promulgate rules and regulations setting forth the procedure for satisfying the signature requirement for returns whether by electronic digital signature, voice signature, or other means, so long as appropriate security measures are implemented which assure security and verification of the signature procedure.
History
Ga. L. 1884-85, p. 28, § 3; Ga. L. 1886,
p. 24, § 2; Civil Code 1895, § 834; Ga. L. 1909, p. 36, § 16; Civil Code 1910, § 1091;
Code 1933, § 92-6216; Ga. L. 1964, p. 333, § 2; Code 1933, § 91A-1014, enacted by
Ga. L. 1978, p. 309, § 2; Ga. L. 2000, p. 1360, § 1.
Annotations
JUDICIAL DECISIONS Section contemplates that the taxpayer must return every species of property which the taxpayer controls as agent or trustee. Douglas v. McCurdy, 154 Ga. 814, 115 S.E. 658, 1923 Ga. LEXIS 403 (1923). Oath is necessary part of return. - Oath prescribed by this statute is a part of the return of the taxpayer, and is necessary to make the return complete or of any probative value. McLendon v. Dunlap Hdwe. Co., 3 Ga. App. 206, 59 S.E. 718, 1907 Ga. App. LEXIS 597 (1907). Filing by the seller of property of a real estate tax transfer form that was not signed by the buyer, did not contain an oath as required by O.C.G.A. § 48-5-19, and did not contain section numbers of the parcels of property was not sufficient to serve as a return of real property. CC Office Assocs. v. DeKalb County, 219 Ga. App. 101, 464 S.E.2d 243, 1995 Ga. App. LEXIS 955 (1995). Manner in which oath to be made. - Acts of the administering officer and of the affiant must be concurrent, and must conclusively indicate that it was the purpose of the one to administer and the other to take the oath in order to make a valid affidavit. Gruber v. Fulton County, 111 Ga. App. 71, 140 S.E.2d 552, 1965 Ga. App. LEXIS 882 (1965). In order to make an affidavit, there must be present the officer and affiant and the paper, and there must be something done which amounts to the administration of an oath. The affiant must swear to the affidavit, and the fact of the affiant’s swearing must be certified by a proper officer. Gruber v. Fulton County, 111 Ga. App. 71, 140 S.E.2d 552, 1965 Ga. App. LEXIS 882 (1965). Presumption that taxpayer made oath as to return. - When the taxpayer was required to make an oath to the return, in the absence of any showing to the contrary, it must be presumed that the taxpayer did so. Gruber v. Fulton County,
111 Ga. App. 71, 140 S.E.2d 552, 1965 Ga. App. LEXIS 882 (1965). Effect of oath administered by or affidavit subscribed before unqualified person. - Since it is required by this statute that the oath be administered by and the affidavit subscribed before the tax commissioner, the attempted performance by anyone else will be without force or validity unless such person were authorized by law to do it. Gruber v. Fulton County, 111 Ga. App. 71, 140 S.E.2d 552, 1965 Ga. App. LEXIS 882 (1965). An attempted oath administered by one who is personally not qualified to administer the oath is abortive and in effect no oath. Gruber v. Fulton County, 111 Ga. App. 71, 140 S.E.2d 552, 1965 Ga. App. LEXIS 882 (1965). Requirement that oath be statement by taxpayer rather than tax official. - Form of the oath prescribed by this statute and used in the printed form on the returns requires that the person making the return swear that “the value placed by me” - not that placed by the tax officials - “is the true market value thereof.” Otherwise the returns are hearsay, without probative value, and should be excluded. Gruber v. Fulton County, 111 Ga. App. 71, 140 S.E.2d 552, 1965 Ga. App. LEXIS 882 (1965). Proof of agency required. - In performance of the commissioner’s duty to examine tax returns before receiving the returns, a commissioner has discretion to reject returns signed by a person other than the owner, absent proof of authorization. Southern Tax Consultants, Inc. v. Scott, 267 Ga. 347, 478 S.E.2d 126. Effect of writing without valid jurat. - In the absence of a valid jurat, a writing in the form of an affidavit has no force or validity, and amounts to nothing, whether standing alone or when construed in connection with other
evidence. Gruber v. Fulton County, 111 Ga. App. 71, 140 S.E.2d 552, 1965 Ga. App. LEXIS 882 (1965). Underpayment of taxes based on automatic tax return. - Following a bench trial, an order was issued establishing the 1997 fair market value of the taxpayer’s property at a value of $4,709,000.00, which was an amount greater than the value set by the board of equalization; however, when the taxpayer paid taxes in 1997, 1998, and 1999, the taxpayer did so based on the board of equalization’s 1997 valuation and because the 1997 value of the taxpayer’s property
was finally determined to be $4,709,000.00, the taxpayer automatically returned the property in 1998 and 1999 at that value and, thus, the taxpayer underpaid the taxpayer’s taxes for the 1997, 1998, and 1999 tax years and the tax assessors were entitled to a summary judgment finding that the taxpayer had underpaid the taxpayer’s taxes and owed additional sums. Pine Pointe Hous., L. P. v. Bd. of Tax Assessors, 269 Ga. App. 855, 605 S.E.2d 443, 2004 Ga. App. LEXIS 1318 (2004), cert. denied, No. S05C0346, 2005 Ga. LEXIS 92 (Ga. Jan. 24, 2005).
OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Requirement that oath state “fair market value” rather than “market value” or “book value.” - Since the form of the oath requires that the taxpayer swear to the fair market value of the property returned, an oath which
departs from this statutory form by allowing the taxpayer to swear to the book value of the taxpayer’s property is not authorized by law; “market value” and “book value” are not synonymous. 1970 Op. Att’y Gen. No. U70-115.