O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 48-5-343 (2019)

Approval of digests

✓ 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 commissioner shall, when a county is in its digest review year, approve the digest of any such county as being reasonably uniform and equalized if the digest meets the following criteria: (1) The average assessment ratio for each class of property within the county shall be as close to the assessments provided for in Code Section 48-5-7 as is reasonably practicable; (2) The average assessment variance for each class of property within the county shall not be excessive with respect to that which is reasonably practicable; and (3) Within each class of property, assessment ratios of the properties shall not reveal any significant assessment bias. (b) The commissioner shall by regulation establish the statistical standards to be used in determining whether or not digests are in accordance with the uniformity requirements contained in subsection (a) of this Code section. The commissioner shall utilize information developed by the state auditor under Code Section 48-5-274. (c) If the assessed value of the portion of the digest that does not meet the uniformity requirements constitutes 10 percent or less of the assessed value of the total digest, the commissioner may approve the digest if, in his judgment, the approval will not substantially violate the concept of uniformity and equalization.

History

Code 1981, § 48-5-343, enacted by Ga. L. 1988, p. 1763, § 1; Ga. L. 1992, p. 2494, § 4; Ga. L. 2000, p. 1683, § 5.

Annotations

Editor’s notes. Ga. L. 1992, p. 2494, § 10, not codified by the General Assembly, provided, in part: “County tax digests that were

conditionally approved or disapproved by the commissioner for tax year 1991 in accordance with Article 5A of Chapter 5 of Title 48 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated as it existed on January 1, 1992, shall be considered conditionally approved for each succeeding year beginning January 1, 1992, until such

time as the first digest review year occurs for the county under the provisions of this Act.” Ga. L. 2000, p. 1683, § 11(c), not codified by the General Assembly, provides that Sections 2 through 10 of the Act shall be applicable to the 2000 tax digests and any subsequent tax digests.

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, opinions under former Code Sections §§ 48-5-271 and 48-5-272 are included in the annotations for this Code section. Amendment of school tax millage

rate following entry of digest adjustment order of state revenue commissioner does not preclude approval of county tax digest. 1981 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 81-96 (rendered under former O.C.G.A. §§ 48-5-271 and 48-5-272).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases, 2005–2019 · leading case: Hill v. Hall Cnty. Bd. of Tax Assessors, 621 S.E.2d 517 (Ga. Ct. App. 2005).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Hill v. Hall Cnty. Bd. of Tax Assessors, 621 S.E.2d 517 (Ga. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 6× “Hill asserts on appeal that the Board failed to meet its alleged burden of proving that either: (1) the 2002 assessment fell within the ten percent margin of error referred to in OCGA § 48-5-343 (c); or (2) land or building values increased between 2002 and 2003 in proportion to…”

Smith v. Elbert Cnty. Bd. of Tax Assessors, 664 S.E.2d 786 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “7 See Hill, supra at 505 (addressing uniformity under OCGA § 48-5-343). 8 (Punctuation omitted.”

Dekalb Cnty. Bd. of Tax Assessors v. Wrh Aztec, Lllp (Ga. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “) See also OCGA § 48-5-343 (a). And the regulation promulgated by the department of revenue to help effectuate this uniformity of assessments makes clear that the department is not necessarily concerned with the ever-changing real estate market in a particular county.”

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.