error or informality.
(1) Every person listing his property with the property valuation administrator shall
state:
(a) Each separate tract of land, with the number of acres in each tract; the value
per acre; each of the improvements thereon; the name of the nearest resident
thereto; where located, giving the election precinct in which it is located; the
number of each city lot and the improvements thereon, in what city, on which
street, the value of each, and the value of the improvements thereon to the
extent that they enhance the value of each lot; whether there is any land
adjoining his owned by a nonresident of the county or state, giving the name
and place of residence of any such owner, if known;
(b) The number of livestock, their type, species and value; and
(c) Such other facts as may be required in the blanks provided.
(2) An error or informality in the description or location of the property, or in the name
of the owner or person assessed, shall not invalidate the assessment if the property
can with reasonable certainty be located or identified from the description given, in
which case the collector may receive the taxes and by his receipt correct the error or
informality.
Effective: January 1, 2006
History: Amended 2005 Ky. Acts ch. 168, sec. 60, effective January 1, 2006. --
Amended 1949 (1st Extra. Sess.) Ky. Acts ch. 2, sec. 1. -- Amended 1948 Ky. Acts
ch. 95, sec. 4. -- Recodified 1942 Ky. Acts ch. 208, sec. 1, effective October 1, 1942,
from Ky. Stat. sec. 4056.
Notes of Decisions
Kentucky Farm & Cattle Co. v. Williams, 140 F. Supp. 449 (E.D. Ky. 1956).
· cites it 2× “arties and filed in this action on January 14, 1956, sets out the ad valorem taxes assessed to and paid by defendants each year upon the leased premises, including the structures above referred to, and shows the amount of tax properly attributable to the structures above…”
Louisville Garage Corp. v. City of Louisville, 198 S.W.2d 40 (Ky. Ct. App. 1946).
“KRS 132.230. In prescribing the method of assessment in cities of the first class, the General Assembly provided that “improvements owned by a tenant may be assessed in his name apart from the land.”
Revenue Cabinet v. Leary, 880 S.W.2d 878 (Ky. Ct. App. 1994).
“220 and KRS 132.230. When the PVA was presented with sufficient information upon which to base a change in value, a reassessment was made.”
Langstaff v. Meyer, 203 S.W.2d 49 (Ky. Ct. App. 1947).
“The listing and payment of the taxes by plaintiffs below deprived the defendants of this offered defense.”
Bill Dunn, McCracken Cnty. Prop. Valuation Adm'r v. Saratoga, LLC (Ky. Ct. App. 2024).
· cites it 2× “The Opinion further guides us, though, stating: We would, however, not classify as omitted property the following: (1) improvements not assessed for any reason other than the taxpayer’s failure to comply with KRS 132.230, and, (2) improvements which are merely undervalued or…”
Bill Dunn, McCracken Cnty. Prop. Valuation Adm'r v. Saratoga, LLC (Ky. Ct. App. 2024).
· cites it 2× “The Opinion further guides us, though, stating: We would, however, not classify as omitted property the following: (1) improvements not assessed for any reason other than the taxpayer’s failure to comply with KRS 132.230, and, (2) improvements which are merely undervalued or…”
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.