Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

appealwillobjectionoverruledappellant
willobjectionappellant

Related Cases

Target Corp. v. Greene Cty. Bd. of Revision, 122 Ohio St.3d 142, 909 N.E.2d 605, 2009 -Ohio- 2492
View Case »
Williams v. Vermont, 472 U.S. 14, 105 S.Ct. 2465, 86 L.Ed.2d 11, 53 USLW 4659
View Case »
Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 109 S.Ct. 2304, 105 L.Ed.2d 45, 49 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1664, 50 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 39,067, 57 USLW 4677
View Case »
Powerex Corp. v. Department of Revenue, 357 Or. 40, 346 P.3d 476
View Case »
State v. Alabama Metallurgical Corp., 446 So.2d 41
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

People ex rel. Wangelin v. Wiggins Ferry Co., 357 Ill. 173, 191 N.E. 296

Facts

The Wiggins Ferry Company, as the appellant, contested a delinquent tax judgment for the year 1932 amounting to $21,631.04, of which $9,560.59 had been paid. The company argued that the assessed valuation of its property was more than twice its fair cash market value, constituting a violation of constitutional provisions regarding equal taxation. The county court had previously overruled the company's objections to the assessment, leading to this appeal.

The Wiggins Ferry Company, as the appellant, contested a delinquent tax judgment for the year 1932 amounting to $21,631.04, of which $9,560.59 had been paid.

Issue

Did the county court err in upholding the assessed valuation of the Wiggins Ferry Company's property, which the company claimed was grossly excessive and discriminatory?

Did the county court err in upholding the assessed valuation of the Wiggins Ferry Company's property, which the company claimed was grossly excessive and discriminatory?

Rule

The assessed value of property for taxation purposes cannot be impeached merely due to differing opinions on value; however, if the assessment is shown to be grossly in excess of market value and made willfully, it may be subject to review by the court.

The assessed value of property for taxation purposes cannot be impeached merely due to differing opinions on value; however, if the assessment is shown to be grossly in excess of market value and made willfully, it may be subject to review by the court.

Analysis

The court examined the evidence presented, which indicated that the assessed value of the appellant's property was significantly higher than that of similar properties in the area. Testimonies from various witnesses supported the claim that the assessment was arbitrary and did not reflect the true market value. The court concluded that the assessment was not only excessive but also constituted a constructive fraud against the taxpayer.

The court examined the evidence presented, which indicated that the assessed value of the appellant's property was significantly higher than that of similar properties in the area.

Conclusion

The court reversed the county court's judgment and remanded the case with directions to sustain the appellant's objections regarding the excessive assessment.

The court reversed the county court's judgment and remanded the case with directions to sustain the appellant's objections regarding the excessive assessment.

Who won?

Wiggins Ferry Company prevailed in the case because the court found that the assessed valuation was arbitrary and grossly excessive compared to similar properties, violating principles of equal taxation.

Wiggins Ferry Company prevailed in the case because the court found that the assessed valuation was arbitrary and grossly excessive compared to similar properties, violating principles of equal taxation.

You must be