Justia Tax Law Opinion Summaries

Howard Curry's property appraisal increased on two different occasions after his sixty-fifth birthday. After the second assessment, Curry unsuccessfully petitioned the Equalization Board of Pope County to reduce the appraisal on his property. Curry then filed a petition in the county court, stating that the valuation was arbitrary and unreasonable and that the property was incorrectly assessed under Ark. Const. amend. 79, which prohibits an increase in the assessed value on a principal place of residence after the taxpayer's sixty-fifth birthday, unless that taxpayer has made substantial improvements on that residence. The county court ruled only on the assessment value and did not rule on the amendment 79 issues. Curry appealed and also filed a petition for declaratory relief and an injunction. The two cases were merged for trial. The circuit court ruled on the assessment, which was higher than the assessment in place on Curry's sixty-fifth birthday, and found that the improvements Curry made to his residence before he turned age sixty-five were "substantial improvements" within the language of the amendment. In the first of Curry's two appeals, the Supreme Court affirmed for the reasons stated in the second appeal, Curry v. Pope County, 2011 Ark. 408.

In 2009, the Arkansas Teacher Retirement System (ATRS) petitioned the county court seeking a determination that a shopping center it owned was exempt from ad valorem taxation. The county court rejected ATRS's contention that the property qualified for an exemption. ATRS appealed. The circuit court held that the shopping center was not exempt under article 16, section 5 of the Arkansas Constitution because the property was not used exclusively for public purposes. ATRS appealed, arguing the shopping center is public property used exclusively for public purposes and therefore is exempt from taxation under the constitution. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding the circuit court's decision was not clearly erroneous. The evidence was undisputed that the property in question is a retail shopping center that is leased to private business. As such, the ATRS failed to demonstrate the structure is used exclusively for public purposes.