Background
ACC OP (Oxford, Mississippi), LLC owns U Club Townhomes at Oxford, an off-campus student-housing property. Lafayette County appraised the property at $21,310,130 for both the 2021 and 2022 tax years. ACC disputed the valuations, contending that they overstated the property’s value by at least $8 million to $9 million.
During the 2021 objection process, the Tax Assessor’s office sent ACC a “Real Property Request for Review” on the assessor’s letterhead. The form cited the statute governing tax assessors, directed ACC to submit records to the Assessor’s Office, and did not mention the Board of Supervisors. ACC submitted a written objection to the Board before its August 2, 2021 hearing, but did not attend in person. The Board denied the 2021 and 2022 objections, asserting that ACC had failed to supply required documentation. ACC appealed to circuit court, which denied the County’s motions to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
The Court’s Holding
The Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed. It held that the Tax Assessor’s document request was an informal request under Mississippi Code Section 27-1-23, not a demand by the Board of Supervisors under Section 27-35-97. Section 27-35-97 permits the Board to demand documents and preclude a taxpayer from objecting if the taxpayer fails or refuses to comply, but no such Board demand was made here.
The court emphasized that the request came from the Tax Assessor, cited the assessor statute, directed production to the Assessor’s Office, and was issued as part of an informal effort to resolve the valuation dispute before an appeal to the Board. The Board’s minutes reflected no demand, authorization, or other action invoking Section 27-35-97. The court also held that ACC complied with Section 27-35-93 by filing a timely written objection; personal attendance at the Board meeting was not required. It declined to decide whether Section 27-35-97’s preclusion provision is jurisdictional because no Board demand existed.
Key Takeaways
- A Tax Assessor’s request for records under Section 27-1-23 does not carry Section 27-35-97’s objection-preclusion penalty.
- A Board of Supervisors must itself make a Section 27-35-97 demand; a later denial cannot retroactively transform an assessor’s request into a Board demand.
- For assessment objections under Section 27-35-93, a timely written objection is sufficient; in-person attendance is not required.
Why It Matters
The decision draws a firm line between the Tax Assessor’s authority to obtain information and correct valuations and the Board’s separate authority to issue document demands backed by preclusion. Counties seeking to bar a taxpayer’s objection based on nonproduction must follow the Board-demand procedure the statute specifies.
The ruling leaves ACC’s merits challenges to the 2021 and 2022 assessments for further proceedings in circuit court.