|
|
|
|
Decisions by the State Board
 The State Board of Equalization has recently started publishing decisions for all levels of appeals.
The published decisions may be found at
State Board Decisions.
Below are some unpublished decisions by the State Board which we feel may be of significant interest to taxpayers.
Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc.
Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. - Sept. 14, 2004 - Rutherford County, Assessment Appeals Commission. Bridgestone argued that their real estate was not special purpose property even though it was used for manufacturing tires and, therefore, the property should be under a value in-exchange premise. The Commission agreed and adopted the taxpayer basis for value.
|
|
Vincil C. Bishop, Jr.
Vincil C. Bishop, Jr. - Nov. 16, 2004 - Shelby County, Assessment Appeals Commission. The taxpayer averaged comparable sales as evidence of the value of his residence. The Assessor made adjustments to sales to reflect differences in the properties. The Commission found that averaged comparable sales do not indicate value.
|
|
American Water Heater Co.
American Water Heater Co. - Nov. 18, 2004 - Washington County, Assessment Appeals Commission. Taxpayer sought a reduction in the value of tangible personal property based upon the allocation of value from the total purchase price to the personal property value. The Commission held that an allocation is not an indication of market value and the property must be valued in accordance with the State's standard depreciation tables.
|
|
Unipres USA
Unipres USA - March 14, 2002 - Sumner County, Assessment Appeals Commission. This is a case where the Assessor of Property filed for an increase in value from the previous hearing held by the Administrative Judge. The Commission increased the values considerably.
|
|
Nissan Motor Mfg.
Nissan Motor Mfg.- April 3, 2002 - Marshall & Lawrence Counties, Assessment Appeals Commission. Nissan petitioned the Commission change the situs of the property for taxation purposes and also argued that the equipment in question was leased to others. Therefore, the property should be assessed to the User or Lessee. The Commission found that there was no lease and the property had proper situs in the counties set forth.
|
|
|
 Printer Friendly Version
|
|
|
|
|
|
