O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 48-5-268 (2019)

Training and continuing education courses for appraisers; designated staff member to appraise tangible personal property

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)

Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) The department may prepare, instruct, operate, and administer courses of instruction deemed necessary to provide for the training of new appraisers and the continuing education of experienced appraisers.

(b)(1) The department shall prepare, instruct, operate, and administer courses of instruction for the training of new appraisers and the continuing education of experienced appraisers in the appraisal of tangible personal property.

(2) In all counties except Class I counties, the chief appraiser shall designate at least one person on the county appraisal staff to be responsible for the appraisal of tangible personal property. Any person or persons so designated shall be required to attend the standard approved training courses operated by the department in accordance with this subsection as part of their duties specified in subsection (b) of Code Section 48-5-263.

(c) The department may contract with any institution of higher education in this state to provide the courses of instruction, or any part of the courses, called for in this Code section.

History

Ga. L. 1972, p. 1104, § 10; Code 1933,

§ 91A-1410, enacted by Ga. L. 1978, p. 309, § 2; Ga. L. 1981, p. 1554, § 2.

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Claims under Title VII and Family and Medical Leave Act. - Unpublished decision: Employees’ Title VII and Family and Medical Leave Act claims against a county board of tax assessors (Board) failed because: (1) the Board employed less than 15 people; and (2) the Board and the county were not one employer as the Board was a separate entity that controlled employment relationships,

triggering the Lyes presumption, which was not rebutted since the Board controlled labor operations and could hire, fire, and set work schedules or assignments, and state law determined compensation, O.C.G.A. § 48-5-263(a)(1), and training, O.C.G.A. § 48-5-268. Ballard v. Chattooga County Bd. of Tax Assessors, 615 Fed. Appx. 621, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 11636 (11th Cir. 2015).

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. 72 Am. Jur. 2d, State and Local Taxation, § 619.