- Meeting Date:
- 06/05/2018
- Title:
- Tax Appeal Discussion
- Submitted By:
- Arlethe Rios, Board of Supervisors
- Department:
- Board of Supervisors
Submitted for Signature:
of PRESENTER:
of PRESENTER:
or Basis for Support?:
Information
Agenda Item Text:
1. Discuss Arizona Supreme Court opinion in Solarcity Corporation, et al. v. Arizona Department of Revenue, CV-17-0231-PR/TX2014-000129 and its effect on five other tax appeal cases in which the County is a named defendant (TX2014-000189, TX2015-000240, TX2016-000876, TX2016-001025, and TX2017-000512).
2. Discuss and provide direction to County Attorney’s Office on whether to join the litigation in TX2014-00129 and whether to retain outside counsel, Roberta Livesay, to handle the representation. Also, discuss/provide direction concerning how to proceed in the other five tax appeal cases, including whether to retain outside counsel, Roberta Livesay, to handle the representation.
3. Provide legal advice to the Board of Supervisors on the foregoing.
Background:
In the case of Solar City v. Arizona Department of Revenue, the Arizona Supreme Court recently ruled that ADOR does not have statutory authority to value solar panels leased by Plaintiffs to commercial and residential property owners. The court remanded the case back down to the tax court to determine whether A.R.S. 42-13054 authorizes county assessors to value solar panels and, if so, whether A.R.S. 42-11054(C)(2) nonetheless requires a zero valuation. If the tax court finds that A.R.S. 42-11054(C)(2) applies, then it must decide whether it violates the Arizona Constitution’s exemptions and uniformity clauses. Finally, the Supreme Court opened the door to permit counties to join the tax court action because they were not previously named as parties and have a substantial interest in this case.
Cochise County is named as a defendant in five other tax appeal cases involving the same issues as those discussed above. Those cases have been on hold pending the outcome of the above matter.
The Board of Supervisors must now decide how it would like to proceed in these six cases.