On March 1, 2006 the taxpayers filed applications for property tax abatements, claiming that the assessments on their dwellings and land were disproportionately high for tax year 2005. In June 2006 the town’s assessor made requests by telephone and letter to the taxpayers’ attorney for permission to inspect the houses, but without success. The abatement applications were denied in mid-August 2006 because taxpayers had not responded to the requests for inspection nor provided any evidence concerning the assessments.
The taxpayers appealed to the Board of Tax and Land Appeals (BTLA). The town moved to dismiss for failure to permit inspections under RSA 74:17, II, which provides for loss of the right to appeal if the taxpayer refuses to grant consent to the selectmen or assessing officials to enter property to obtain information necessary to complete an inventory or appraisal under RSA Chapter 75. The taxpayers denied that they had refused an inspection. The BTLA initially refrained from ruling on the motion and ordered the parties to arrange for inspections within 20 days. The tax assessor again called and wrote to the taxpayers’ counsel, who responded after the 20-day deadline had elapsed, saying that he would be getting back to the assessor with some potential inspection dates as soon as possible. The BTLA then dismissed the appeals because the taxpayers had been unresponsive. Taxpayers then proposed specific inspection dates and filed a motion for rehearing, which was denied.
On the taxpayers’ appeal to the Supreme Court, the Court first upheld the BTLA’s ruling that the taxpayers’ conduct amounted to a refusal to consent to inspection. The Court then considered whether RSA 74:17, II applied during the period after abatement applications are filed. RSA 74:17, II specifically applies to “appraisals under RSA 75.” The taxpayers argued that this refers only to the initial process to set the values in the warrant delivered to the tax collector. But the Supreme Court held that an inspection in response to an abatement application is a continuation of the same process to establish market value under RSA 75:1.
Finally the Supreme Court ruled that an inspection of the houses was necessary even if the taxpayers wanted to challenge only their land valuations because, as stated in Appeal of Sunapee, 126 N.H. 214 (1985), the value of all a taxpayer’s property is relevant because the taxpayer is not entitled to an abatement if over-valuation of some property is offset by under-valuation of other property of the taxpayer in the same town.
This is the first Supreme Court decision to give guidance to assessors as to when taxpayer failure to cooperate rises to the level of a refusal to consent to inspection, and it makes clear that the duty to consent to inspection extends to the period after the taxpayer files for an abatement.