HomeMy WebLinkAboutC.054.93010_1331applicable statutes specifically G.S. 105-2960) which states the owner has 60
days from the receipt of a written request to respond with information.
Again, I concur that the finding of the task force can be substantiated by a review of
the forms that were used which would certainly imply that an applicant for farm use
had only 10 or 15 days to provide requested information. As stated before, I feel this is
more a factor of inadequate training than deliberate intent to ignore the statutes.
C. Within the tax office it appears there have been inappropriate actions such as
treating taxpayers with a lack of respect, dignity, and professionalism as well as
being overly and erroneously authoritative. (See attachments 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8)
Although the task force provided claims from a few individuals that they were not
treated with respect and dignity, my office has received just as many calls or notes
saying that they had always been treated with dignity and respect. Regardless, even if
there are a few that feel mistreated, the management of the assessor's office has a
responsibility to review these concerns and take corrective action. The Director of Tax
Administration is aware of his responsibility in this regard, and has scheduled several
staff members to attend a seminar on how to handle people with tact and skill. This
seminar was conducted by Fred Pryor Seminars, a firm well respected for its expertise
and success in this area (mww.nrror.com).
Income tax forms being requested, copied and retained by the tax office to prove
an individual landowner's qualifications for present use taxation is found to be
distasteful and offensive. (See attachments 1, 3, 4, 7 and 8)
Although there is still some confusion as to exactly when individual income tax forms
can be requested, or required, it does appear that there were several occasions when
the form was improperly required and copied. Again, my conclusion is that the person
selected to administer this program was not properly and adequately trained. As of this
date, all known copies of individual tax returns have been returned to the taxpayer (see
copy). Using the Schedule F is still an acceptable way to determine eligibility, and will
still be one of the options available to applicants for farm use.
E. The tax office has a policy of applying a per acre income statement to prove
sound management. The farmer has a minimum of six options to prove sound
management and the per acre income test is only one of them. The tax office
appears to refrain from informing the taxpayer of his options for proving sound
management. (See attachments 1, 3, 4, 7 and 8)
1 concur with the finding of the task force. In the future, the Director of Tax
Administration will develop forms and provide instruction to employees in order to
insure that each applicant for farm use, or review, is notified of all permitted options to
show sound management.
F. It appears that employees of the tax assessor's office are giving unsolicited legal
advice on estate planning which is in violation of the NC Bar Association rules.
(See minutes of October 30 meeting)
I do not feel that tax assessor employees were giving legal advice, but merely informing
applicants based on their experiences and training.
Task Force Recommendation:
I have reviewed these recommendations and so has the Director of Tar Administration.
The Director of Tar Administration will seriously evaluate each recommendation and
implement procedural changes to comply to the extent that laws and codes will allow.
Manaeer's Comments:
While conceding that several errors have been made in the administration of the farm
use statutes, that in itself is an over simplification of the complexity of administering the
property tax laws in North Carolina I think there is still some confusion about what exactly
the statutes require. There is also confusion about how much latitude the tax assessor's office