A Florida Administrative Law Judge issued a Summary Final Order in Turner v. Dep’t of Revenue, finding that the Florida Department of Revenue’s advisory bulletins and Value Adjustment Board training materials are not binding on VABs or Special Magistrates, and that Rule 12D-9.020 contravenes Florida law to the extent that it provides that the disclosure of evidence by a VAB petitioner is optional.
Earlier this year, several county Property Appraisers filed a legal challenge to the Florida Department of Revenue’s 2010 Value Adjustment Board training materials and Property Tax Oversight Bulletin 11-01, contending that the materials were improperly-promulgated administrative rules that were contrary to the requirements of the Florida Constitution and statutes. The Property Appraisers’ primary areas of concern were the DOR’s statements that the Higgs v. Good case did not apply to VABs, its statement that the petitioner has the option of initiating an evidence exchange, and its indication that a “costs of sale” adjustment under Fla. Stat. 193.011(8) should be made to values calculated by the cost and income approach, as well as the sales comparison approach.
On June 22, 2011, the Judge ruled that the bulletins and training materials do not constitute invalid, unpromulgated rules because the “value adjustment boards and their magistrates are not required to apply – and therefore possess the discretion to deviate from – the legal principles enunciated within the materials when conducting VAB hearings.” In support of their contention that the materials should be treated as administrative rules and thus be subject to the same promulgation procedures, the Property Appraisers had submitted evidence that certain VABs and Special Magistrates had perceived the bulletins and training materials as being mandatory. However, the Judge found that, regardless of the perception of those individuals, the DOR has no authority to enforce its bulletins or the statements in the training materials and that they were merely non-binding recommendations that the VABS and Special Magistrates were not required to adhere to.
The Judge also ruled that the DOR’s Rule 12D-9.020 was contrary to Fla. Stat. 194.011, Fla. Stat, which requires the VAB petitioners to disclose their evidence at least 15 days before the VAB hearing. However, the effect of this part of the ruling appears to be nominal, since the Judge also acknowledged that the only penalty for the petitioner’s failure to disclose its evidence is that the Property Appraiser is not required to disclose its evidence to the petitioner. Thus, the effect on the requirements for exchange of evidence between the parties is essentially nil. Basically, if the Property Appraiser requests documentation, that documentation must be provided 15 days before the hearing or it may not be admitted into evidence. But as to evidence not requested by the Property Appraiser, the Petitioner only needs to disclose that evidence if they would like to see the Property Appraiser’s evidence before the hearing.