Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 79-1609 (2026)

Appeals to state board of tax appeals; notice, requirements; procedure; limit on increased appraised valuation by the board

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KS-LEGkslegislature.org JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

79-1609. Appeals to state board of tax appeals; notice, requirements; procedure; limit on increased appraised valuation by the board. Any person aggrieved by any order of the hearing officer or panel, or by the classification and appraisal of an independent appraiser, as provided in K.S.A. 79-5b03, and amendments thereto, may appeal to the state board of tax appeals by filing a written notice of appeal, on forms approved by the state board of tax appeals and provided by the county clerk for such purpose, stating the grounds thereof and a description of any comparable property or properties and the appraisal thereof upon which they rely as evidence of inequality of the appraisal of their property, if that be a ground of the appeal, with the state board of tax appeals and by filing a copy thereof with the county clerk within 30 days after the date of the order from which the appeal is taken. The notice of appeal may be signed by the taxpayer, any person with an executed declaration of representative form from the property valuation division of the department of revenue or any person authorized to represent the taxpayer in K.S.A. 74-2433f(f), and amendments thereto. A county or district appraiser may appeal to the state board of tax appeals from any order of the hearing officer or panel. With regard to any matter properly submitted to the board relating to the determination of valuation of residential property or real property used for commercial and industrial purposes for taxation purposes, it shall be the duty of the county appraiser to initiate the production of evidence to demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, the validity and correctness of such determination. With regard to leased commercial and industrial property, the burden of proof shall be on the taxpayer unless, within 30 calendar days following the informal meeting required by K.S.A. 79-1448, and amendments thereto, the taxpayer furnished to the county or district appraiser a complete income and expense statement for the property for the three years next preceding the year of appeal. Such income and expense statement shall be in such format that is regularly maintained by the taxpayer in the ordinary course of the taxpayer's business. If the taxpayer submits a single property appraisal with an effective date of January 1 of the year appealed, the burden of proof shall return to the county appraiser. With regard to any matter properly submitted to the board relating to the determination of valuation of property for taxation purposes, the board shall not increase the appraised valuation of the property to an amount greater than the final determination of appraised value by the county appraiser from which the taxpayer appealed.

History: L. 1959, ch. 376, § 4; L. 1971, ch. 300, § 1; L. 1972, ch. 365, § 1; L. 1988, ch. 377, § 11; L. 1992, ch. 282, § 12; L. 1996, ch. 264, § 9; L. 1999, ch. 126, § 10; L. 2008, ch. 109, § 95; L. 2013, ch. 87, § 14; L. 2014, ch. 141, § 12; L. 2015, ch. 100, § 15; L. 2021, ch. 58, § 9; July 1.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 24 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1979–2022 · leading case: In re the Equalization Appeal of Johnson Cnty. Appraiser/Privitera Realty Holdings, 283 P.3d 823 (Kan. Ct. App. 2012).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

In re the Equalization Appeal of Johnson Cnty. Appraiser/Privitera Realty Holdings, 283 P.3d 823 (Kan. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 6× “Analysis Before reaching the substantive challenge to COTA’s valuation of the property, we must address Privitera’s preliminary argument that COTA erred in concluding that Privitera, not the County, bore the burden of proof at trial.”

In Re the Equalization Appeal of Tallgrass Prairie Holdings, LLC, 333 P.3d 899 (Kan. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 7× “COTA classified the Property as commercial use property; and pursuant to K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 79-1609, COTA determined the County had the “duty to initiate the production of evidence to demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, the validity and correctness” of a fair market…”

In Re the Equalization Proceeding of the Amoco Prod. Co., 102 P.3d 1176 (Kan. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “See K.S.A. 79-1609; K.S.A. 74-2438. Although BOTA’s affirmation of Cooper’s determination not to consider fhe income approach can be questioned, Cooper did not have all of fhe income and expense information Amoco had provided to fhe county, opinion testimony was presented in…”

Vaughn v. Martell, 603 P.2d 191 (Kan. 1979). · cites it 3× “In its cross-appeal, the Greenwood County officials maintain that the State Board of Tax Appeals never had jurisdiction to grant the appellants any relief in the equalization appeal for the reason that the appeal was not timely filed with the state board as *660 required by…”

In Re the Equalization Appeal of Wagner, 372 P.3d 1226 (Kan. 2016). “Because the County had the burden of proof before COTA, see K.S.A. 2012 Supp. 79-1609, Wagner contends that COTA relieved the County of its burden when it failed to order that the County produce a 2012 appraisal of her property using a 4.”

Wirt v. Esrey, 662 P.2d 1238 (Kan. 1983). “Thereafter, as previously pointed out, taxpayer appealed the decision of the County Board to BOTA in accordance with K.S.A. 79-1609. The jurisdiction of BOTA to sit as the State Board of Equalization is provided in K.”

In re Equalization of Target Corp., 410 P.3d 939 (Kan. Ct. App. 2017). “See K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 79-1609. The County was required to properly appraise the subject property and submit a valuation to BOTA.”

Bd. of Johnson Cnty. Comm'rs v. Greenhaw, 734 P.2d 1125 (Kan. 1987). “Wirt , however, involved an equalization appeal brought under K.S.A. 79-1609, and is distinguishable from the present case.”

Shields Oil Producers, Inc. v. Cnty. of Russell, 629 P.2d 152 (Kan. 1981). · cites it 2× “Taxpayers did not appeal to the State Board of Tax Appeals as authorized by K.S.A. 79-1609. Taxpayers paid the first half of the taxes under protest and commenced the action herein, challenging the validity of their respective assessments.”

Cimarex Energy Co. v. Seward Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 164 P.3d 833 (Kan. Ct. App. 2007). “K.S.A. 2006 Supp. 79-1606. After the county hearing panel issues its decision, any person aggrieved may appeal to BOTA.”

Dodge City Coop. Exch. v. Bd. of Gray Cnty. Comm'rs (Kan. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 10× “79-1606(c) and K.S.A. 79-1609 require the county or district appraiser to "initiate the production of evidence to demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence," that the property has been properly classified.”

In re the Appeal of Nat'l Catastrophe Restoration, Inc., 291 P.3d 89 (Kan. Ct. App. 2012). “See K.S.A. 2011 Supp. 79-1609 (no presumption of validity of county appraiser’s determination of residential or commercial real estate val *198 uations); K.”

Show all 24 citing cases →

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.