NH supreme court upholds statewide property tax

[KBCraig]

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Property+tax+challenge+loses+in+court&articleId=5e02ee48-f8b0-4e82-8aba-4a04297162ea

Property tax challenge loses in court

By NORMA LOVE
The Associated Press

CONCORD – The state Supreme Court yesterday reversed a lower court decision that had found the statewide property tax was discriminatory and unconstitutional.

The high court rejected arguments from Seacoast taxpayers that their taxes are disproportionately higher than in other parts of the state because of differing assessment practices.

The case consolidated four actions where taxpayers sought a refund of the state portion of the tax paid in 2002, 2003 and 2004.

Superior Court Judge Kenneth McHugh ruled in their favor in 2005, citing the lack of uniformity in real estate assessments statewide.

"This disproportionality evidences a widespread scheme of intentional discrimination and is therefore unconstitutional," McHugh ruled.

The state had argued the taxpayers didn't show evidence of harm with their assessments or a widespread scheme of discrimination and substantial disproportionality.

The high court sided with the state, saying the taxpayers didn't prove they paid more than their proportional share of taxes.

"Even if multiple petitions are consolidated into a single trial, each plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that he or she is paying a higher amount than he or she ought to pay," the court said.

That proof is an essential element in any abatement case, the court said.

"By failing to offer such proof, the petitioners failed to demonstrate that they were harmed by the tax," the court ruled unanimously.

The high court rejected the lower court's finding that taxpayers can show harm by proving widespread disparity in and between municipalities.

"We have consistently held that in granting an abatement, ?justice requires' more than simply determining that a tax is unlawful, because that would merely shift the plaintiff's tax burden to other taxpayers," the court said.

To qualify for an abatement, taxpayers must prove their tax was greater than it should have been "with respect to the taxes of other property owners in the taxing district," the court said.

The statewide property tax is the largest single source of income in a mix of taxes and fees used to pay state school aid.

[J’raxis 270145]

I'd rather see the tax repealed than overturned by a court. Whenever a court overturns laws, opponents always spin it as an "undemocratic" action taken against a "democratically"-passed law, which scores points with a lot of people.

[error]

We're all harmed by any tax, you stupid robe-wearing nitwits!

[Puke]

"By failing to offer such proof, the petitioners failed to demonstrate that they were harmed by the tax," the court ruled unanimously.

Oh, they weren't harmed by the tax except that THEY HAD THERE FUCKING MONEY STOLEN FROM THEM!!   

[d_goddard]

I'd love to know hat CNHT (the organization) has to say about this decision.
It seems to me like a good decision -- the Court does not agree that differences in tax rates are unconstitutional. That very discrepancy from town to town makes for some rudimentary competition among the towns. "Local Control" is a major (fiscal) conservative rallying cry, for this reason. If a community is thrify with its expenditures, its tax rates stay low. In states where the tax burden is "equalized" across the whole state, that ain't so. Here in NH, the cause-and-effect of public spending are (just barely) close enough together to keep some semblance of sanity in the system.