High court reviews half dozen Incline Village property tax cases

The Nevada Supreme Court heard a half-dozen appeals dealing with the ongoing property tax battle at Incline Village.

The lawsuit from The Village League to Save Incline Assets seeks to end further attempts by Washoe County to block a total of $12 million in tax cuts to the 8,700 property owners at Incline and Crystal Bay, arguing the State Board of Equalization waited too long and no longer controlled the issue when it finally made a ruling.

The property tax reductions were ordered by the Washoe County Board of Equalization to comply with an order issued by Judge Bill Maddox in Carson City that granted a tax rollback to some 300 property owners. The county board accepted the argument the ruling should be applied to all other land owners at Incline as well.

Deputy Attorney General Dawn Nala Kemp said if the high court agrees with the Village League, "then you don't have to go through the administrative hearing process or the courts because it's too late."

She said the state board was moving forward but delayed by the administrative process it is required to use and the high court should recognize deadlines are not hard and fast in such cases.

Suellen Fulstone, arguing for the Village League, said if the state and Washoe County's logic is adopted, a property tax revaluation could be delayed forever.

"There has to be an end and it is the end of their term," she said, referring to the calendar year term of the state board, which is required to review and decide all assessed valuation cases annually.

While she agreed a statutory deadline in this case is not absolute, she said the state board went too far by waiting until it was officially in its 2007 review period to decide the 2006 case. If the court agrees, the property tax cuts would be implemented.

The other five cases were grouped together by the high court because they are functionally identical. They involve 38 landowners at Incline and Crystal Bay who won a summary judgment from Carson District Judge Mike Griffin applying Maddox's ruling to them, thereby rolling their property taxes back to the 2002-2003 level.

Deputy Attorney General Karen Dickerson said the court has the power to roll back assessments "only to the extent of excess valuation." She said what Griffin's order did was to give "a windfall to a group of property owners at Incline Village" by rolling the taxes back two full reassessment cycles.

Deputy Attorney General Dennis Belcourt argued a two-year rollback is unconstitutional under Nevada's constitution because revaluation must be done annually.

"Neither the tax commission or the court can exempt taxpayers from annual revaluation." And he said a two-year rollback creates an "unconstitutional under-valuation" for those Incline residents.

Norm Azevedo argued for the property owners that the factoring methods used on those properties were unconstitutional so the state and county request to send the cases back for review under those same methods won't work.

He said Griffin issued a summary judgment "because the district court was told by both parties the cases were functionally identical (to the case decided by Maddox)."

Suellen Fulstone said a "do over" for just those properties wouldn't equalize property values in those Tahoe communities fairly.

"If you're going to remand, it should be to reappraise all of Incline Village and Crystal Bay," she said.

The high court took all six cases under submission.

• Contact reporter Geoff Dornan at gdornan@nevadaappeal.com or 687-8750.