A Property Tax Win for Taxpayers and Towns

In the recent order by the New Hampshire Supreme Court in the case of David Strauss & a. v. The Town of Effingham (February 22, 2024), the court issued a notable ruling underscoring the authority of local select boards in property tax abatement matters and clarifing the standing of property owners to challenge tax assessments based on physical description errors.

David Strauss and Judith Strauss (the taxpayers) contested the designation of their property's view as “panoramic” and “extreme distant” by Avitar Associates of New England Inc., a company contracted by the Town of Effingham for property assessments. The taxpayers argued this designation overstated the actual view from their property and sought an abatement for the perceived discrepancy. In 2015, the taxpayers successfully appealed for an abatement, which was granted based on a reassessment of the view designation. However, the issue resurfaced in 2020 when Avitar, following a town-wide revaluation, once again classified the property’s view using the contested designations.

After the Town of Effingham Select Board (the Board) initially denied the taxpayers' abatement request in 2021, the taxpayers appealed to the Board of Tax and Land Appeals (BTLA), asserting a physical description error in the property’s view assessment. The BTLA dismissed their appeal for lack of evidence regarding the property’s market value, emphasizing the need for proof that the taxpayers were paying more than their proportional share of taxes. The taxpayers challenged this decision, arguing that their appeal was based on a physical description error, not a valuation opinion difference, and that evidence of fair market value was therefore not required.

The Supreme Court's analysis began with the rejection of the BTLA's assertion that the taxpayers lacked standing, affirming that the effect of the BTLA’s decision directly affected the taxpayers' rights, thereby establishing their standing.

The court then addressed the substance of the taxpayers' argument, emphasizing the authority of selectmen under RSA 76:16 I(a) to abate taxes for good cause, including errors in physical descriptions. The court noted that the Board, recognizing a legitimate argument based on a physical description error, granted the requested abatement in 2022, effectively settling the matter pending before the BTLA.

The BTLA's subsequent inquiry into the Board's authority to grant the abatement, following an anonymous tip, led to a determination that the Town was without authority to process the abatement, a decision that was later challenged in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court found that the BTLA erred in its decision, highlighting the Board's authority to settle disputes and promote the settlement of civil matters as a matter of public policy.

This ruling reinforces the autonomy of local select boards to resolve property tax disputes and underscores the importance of procedural diligence and fairness in the assessment and appellate processes.

You can contact Alfano Law by calling (603) 856-8411 or at this link.