Show MAY CAUSE litigation wo an opinion was promulgated from the attorney generals office friday which will be of interest to taxpayers genera generally Aly and which may lead to some litigation it is addressed to the state board of equalization and its salient points are as follows you ask to be advised as to whether you have power it if necessary for the purpose of equalization either to raise or lower the total valuation atlon of a particular class of property in a county after the same has been fixed by the county board and assessor you have directed my attention to the provisions of section 2585 1 5 R S which provides that when after a general investigation of the board the property is found to be assessed or below its full casto cash value the board may without notice so determine and must add to or deduct from the value of the real estate improvements on such real estate and personal property except money budh percent respectively as is sufficient to raise or reduce it to its full cash value and ask whether under the provisions of this section you would have the power to raise or lower the valuation of real estate in a city or town without raising or lowering as the case might be the valuation of acreage or farm property second As to whether or not you have the power to raise or lower as might be found necessary for the purposes of equalization a particular class clam of personal property such as sheep without affecting the valuation as fixed by the county board and county assessor of other classes of personal property the attorney general then reviews at length the various sections of law bearing on the subject quotes the state supreme court decision in the case of salt lake city vs armstrong and after expressing the view that the supreme court did not intend to restrict the state board so that it could not raise or lower the assessment of one or more classes of property concludes by saying 1 1 if the board should determine that real estate in any county which had been divided into two classes that Is acreage or farm property and town lots or city property as is clearly contemplated in section 2584 that either of these classes had been properly valued while the other had not that it could raise or lower the classes so erroneously assessed without changing the valuation of the particular class or subdivision that had been properly assessed again if personal property has been classified and horses included Include din in one class and sheep in another and the state board should find that the sheep were assessed too high or too low while horses had been properly valued I 1 think it would be entirely competent for the board to raise or lower the valuation of sheep tn in the particular county in which such error had been made without changing the valuation of the other subdivision or subdivisions of personal property that had been properly assessed butas but as pointe dout in this case before raising or lowering a valuation of any of the three classes or any of the subdivisions thereof the board should first determine that the other classes had been properly valued and also how much the class proposed to be raised or lowered as the case might be should be so raised or lowered in order to make it conform to the requirements of law |