	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Pennsylvania Court Cases and Opinions - PA Legal Research
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -CLICK HERE

This opinion or court case was taken from the Pennsylvania Courts. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Larry C. Hower and Barbara A.
:
Hower,

:

Appellants

:

:

v.

: No. 1364 C.D. 2004

: Argued: December 7, 2004
Schuykill County Board of Assessment :
Appeals

:

:
v.

:

:
Tamaqua Area School District
:
BEFORE: HONORABLE ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Judge

HONORABLE ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge

HONORABLE JOSEPH F. McCLOSKEY, Senior Judge
OPINION NOT REPORTED
MEMORANDUM OPINION
BY JUDGE SIMPSON
FILED: Febraury 8, 2005

Asserting a local school district filed an improperly selective tax
assessment appeal, Larry C. Hower and Barbara A. Hower (collectively,
Taxpayers) appeal an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County
(trial court) which increased the assessed value of approximately 96 acres
(Property) for the 2004 tax year. We affirm.

In July 2002, Taxpayers purchased the Property for $336,300.00. At
this time, the Property's fair market value, as assigned by the County, was

$121,760, and, after application of the County's predetermined ratio of 50%, the
assessed value was $60,880.1

In August 2003, the Tamaqua Area School District (School District)
appealed to the Schuylkill County Board of Assessment Appeals (Board)
contending the Property's fair market value should be $336,300. After hearing, the
Board increased the Property's fair market value to $336,300. This had the effect
of increasing the assessed value of the Property to $168,150 after application of the
County's predetermined ratio of 50%.

Taxpayers appealed to the trial court. Their appeal did not challenge
the constitutionality of any provision of The Fourth to Eighth Class County
Assessment Law (Law)2 or of The General County Assessment Law (GCAL).3
Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 16a-19a, 30a-33a. Rather, they alleged the value set
by the Board on appeal "is unlawfully excessive, improperly determined, unjust,
non-uniform with respect to other assessed real estate in Schuylkill County, and
contrary to law and the Pennsylvania Constitution ...." R.R. at 17a-18a.

At
a
de novo hearing before the trial court, the School District
stipulated that if called as a witness its business manager would testify as follows:

1 In November, 2002, after Taxpayers purchased the Property, the County lowered the
fair market value and assessed value for the Property to $118,260 and $59,130, respectively.
Reproduced Record at 161a. Taxpayers no longer assign error to this action by the County.
2 Act of May 21, 1943, P.L. 571, as amended, 72 P.S. §§5453.101 5453.706.
3 Act of May 22, 1933, P.L. 853, as amended, 72 P.S. §§5020-101 5020-602.
2

that the School District reviewed the sales transactional data provided by the
County; that for the 2004 tax assessment appeals the School District picked what it
felt were the 10 most egregious cases of disparity between County-computed fair
market value and sales price fair market value; that this Property was one of those
so selected; and, that the School District did not file any appeals based on another
reason. R.R. at 96a.

Regarding value of the Property, the Board offered the property
record card reflecting the values as revised after its hearing on the School District's
appeal. Taxpayer Larry Hower testified that he and his wife purchased the
Property and paid $336,300. He also opined that they overpaid for the Property,
explaining the reasons. Finally, he opined that the fair market value of the
Property was $265,000. The School District offered the testimony of a stipulated
expert in real estate appraisals, who opined that the Property's fair market value
was $315,000.

In their post-hearing submissions, the parties agreed that the County's
predetermined ratio of 50% should be applied to the fair market value. Taxpayers
adopted the arguments on uniformity raised in a similar case, Vees v. Carbon
County Bd. of Assessment Appeals, which was pending before this Court. R.R. at
49a.

Thereafter, the trial court adopted the opinion of the School District's
expert appraiser that the fair market value was $315,000. Applying the
predetermined ration of 50%, the trial court set the assessed value at $157,000.
3

The trial court specifically found "that the Schuylkill County tax assessment
system as applied to [the Property] was not arbitrary, did not result in a lack of
uniformity in the assignment of assessment values, and, otherwise, was not
illegal." R.R. at 14a. Taxpayers appealed.4

Taxpayers argue the appeal which prompted the Board to increase the
Property's assessed value constitutes a spot reassessment in violation of the
uniformity clause of the Pennsylvania Constitution and the equal protection clause
of the United States Constitution.5 Significantly, Taxpayers do not claim any
statutory provision is unconstitutional. Nor do they challenge the finding of fair
market value or the use of the predetermined ratio.

Taxpayers rely heavily on the arguments raised in the similar case of
Vees v. Carbon County Bd. of Assessment Appeals, ___ A.2d ___ (Pa. Cmwlth.

4 Our review of tax assessment matters is limited to determining whether the trial court
abused its discretion, committed an error of law, or reached a decision not supported by
substantial evidence. Green v. Schuylkill County Bd. of Assessment Appeals, 565 Pa. 185, 772
A.2d 419 (2001).
5 The uniformity clause of the Pennsylvania Constitution, Article VIII, Section 1
provides, "[a]ll taxes shall be uniform, upon the same class of subjects, within the territorial
limits of the authority levying the tax, and shall be levied and collected under general laws." The
equal protection clause of the United States Constitution provides that no state shall "deny to any
person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." U.S. CONST. amend. XIV, § 1.
Alleged violations of the equal protection and uniformity clauses are analyzed in the same
manner. Appeal of Armco, Inc., 515 A.2d 326 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1986).

4

2004)(en banc)(2433 C.D. 2003, filed Febraury 8, 2005), which we decide at the
same time. For the reasons more fully discussed in Vees, we affirm.

ROBERT
SIMPSON,
Judge

5

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Larry C. Hower and Barbara A. :
Hower,

:

Appellants

:

:

v.

: No. 1364 C.D. 2004

:
Schuykill County Board of Assessment :
Appeals

:

:
v.

:

:
Tamaqua Area School District
:

O R D E R

AND
NOW,
this
8th day of February, 2005, the order of the Court of
Common Pleas of Schuylkill County is AFFIRMED.

ROBERT
SIMPSON,
Judge

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Larry C. Hower and Barbara A.
:
Hower,

:

Appellants

:

:

v.

: No. 1364 C.D. 2004

: Argued: December 7, 2004
Schuylkill County Board of
:
Assessment Appeals

:

:
v.

:

:
Tamaqua Area School District
:
BEFORE: HONORABLE ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Judge

HONORABLE ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge

HONORABLE JOSEPH F. McCLOSKEY, Senior Judge
OPINION NOT REPORTED
DISSENTING OPINION
BY JUDGE FRIEDMAN

FILED: February 8, 2005

For the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in Vees v. Carbon
County Board of Assessment Appeals, ___ A.2d ___ (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 2433 C.D.
2003, filed February 8, 2005) (Friedman, J., dissenting), I respectfully dissent.

_____________________________

ROCHELLE
S.
FRIEDMAN,
Judge

7

Document Outline