74-2437.
Powers and duties of state board; prohibited actions.
The state board of tax appeals shall have the following powers and duties:
(a) To hear appeals from the director of taxation and the director of property valuation on rulings and interpretations by said directors, except where different provision is made by law;
(b) to hear appeals from the director of property valuation on the assessment of state assessed property;
(c) to adopt rules and regulations relating to the performance of its duties and particularly with reference to procedure before it on hearings and appeals; and
(d) such other powers as may be prescribed by law.
(e) The powers and duties of the state board of tax appeals shall not include:
(1) Determining who may sign appeals forms;
(2) determining who may represent taxpayers in any matter before the board;
(3) deciding what constitutes the unauthorized practice of law; and
(4) deciding whether or not a contingent fee agreement is a violation of public policy.
(f) The board shall not take any action which would impede any settlement or agreement between the county and the taxpayer or otherwise act or fail to act in such a way as to restrain the county and the taxpayer from reaching a settlement or agreement.
History:
L. 1957, ch. 429, § 5; L. 1972, ch. 342, § 79; L. 2008, ch. 109, § 13; L. 2014, ch. 141, § 5; July 1.
Notes of Decisions
Lakeview Vill., Inc. v. Bd. of Johnson Cty. Comm'rs, 659 P.2d 187 (Kan. 1983).
“The fact that this regulation made it possible for an aggrieved taxpayer to have a rehearing before the BOTA did not toll the limitation period of filing a judicial action contained in 79-2005 as the appellee asserts, nor did it have the effect of requiring the taxpayer to…”
City of Kansas City v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 360 P.2d 29 (Kan. 1961).
“While the board of tax appeals has many duties, the appeals which it has power to hear and determine are any of those taken by an aggrieved party from an order or act of the director of revenue or the director of property valuation (sections 74-2437 and 74-2438). It is clear…”
In Re the Protest Appeal of Rakestraw Bros., 337 P.3d 62 (Kan. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 2× “” K.S.A. 2011 Supp. 74-2437(c). Nothing in that statutory grant of authority suggests that the Court of Tax Appeals'may adopt regulations that limit its jurisdiction.”
Sage v. Williams, 933 P.2d 775 (Kan. Ct. App. 1997).
“K.S.A. 74-2437(a), (b). The legislature intended to channel all tax matters through BOTA, the paramount taxing authority in the state.”
In Re the Appeal of Broce Constr. Co., 9 P.3d 1281 (Kan. Ct. App. 2000).
“Under K.S.A. 74-2437, the Kansas taxpayers appealed the Director’s order to BOTA, requesting a hearing de novo.”
In Re Application of Park Comm'rs for Ad Valorem, 799 P.2d 505 (Kan. Ct. App. 1990).
“] “Broadly, BOTA’s statutory authority includes the power to hear appeals from the director of property valuation and the director of taxation (K.S.A. 74-2437); to act as the State Board of Equalization (K.”
In Re Protest Appeals of Lyerla, Kathy L. Liv. Trust, 336 P.3d 882 (Kan. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 2× “As we explain in Rakestraw Brothers, an agency may not create a jurisdictional requirement for itself unless the legislature has specifically authorized it to do so, and nothing in K.S.A. 2011 Supp. 74-2437, the authorizing statute for K.”
In re Tax Appeals of Lyerla Trust - ( (Kan. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 3× “If a timely notice of appeal is filed with the Court of Tax Appeals, the failure to have the proper party sign that notice does not deprive the Court of Tax Appeals of jurisdiction over the appeal.”
— K.S.A. § 74-2437(a) — 2 cases
Sage v. Williams, 933 P.2d 775 (Kan. Ct. App. 1997).
“K.S.A. 74-2437(a), (b). The legislature intended to channel all tax matters through BOTA, the paramount taxing authority in the state.”
— K.S.A. § 74-2437(b) — 1 case
— K.S.A. § 74-2437(c) — 3 cases
Lakeview Vill., Inc. v. Bd. of Johnson Cty. Comm'rs, 659 P.2d 187 (Kan. 1983).
“The fact that this regulation made it possible for an aggrieved taxpayer to have a rehearing before the BOTA did not toll the limitation period of filing a judicial action contained in 79-2005 as the appellee asserts, nor did it have the effect of requiring the taxpayer to…”
In Re the Protest Appeal of Rakestraw Bros., 337 P.3d 62 (Kan. Ct. App. 2014).
“” K.S.A. 2011 Supp. 74-2437(c). Nothing in that statutory grant of authority suggests that the Court of Tax Appeals'may adopt regulations that limit its jurisdiction.”
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.