Appeals from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Clarion County in case of In Re: Appeal -- Edward G. Kriebel Tax Assessment, No. 49 C.D. 1981.
Henry Ray Pope, III, Pope and Pope, for appellant, Clarion County Board of Assessments and Revisions of Taxes.
Al Lander, Greco & Lander, P.C., for appellants, Edward G. and Ruth Kriebel.
Judges Williams, Jr., MacPhail and Blatt, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge MacPhail.
[ 79 Pa. Commw. Page 467]
Edward G. and Ruth Kriebel and the Clarion County Board of Assessment and Revision of Taxes (Board) have filed cross appeals from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Clarion County involving the Kriebels' real estate tax assessment appeal for the 1981 tax year.
The disputed tax assessment in this case involves a property owned by the Kriebels in Clarion County on which they constructed a home during 1969-70.
[ 79 Pa. Commw. Page 468]
Pursuant to a 1974 countywide reassessment, which became effective with the 1975 tax year, the property and home were appraised at a fair market value of $196,467. The assessed value at that time, applying the predetermined ratio of assessed value to fair market value of one-third, was $65,489.
The Kriebels did not challenge this assessment until 1980, when they presented a challenge to the Board for the 1981 tax year.*fn1 The final result of the Kriebels' appeal was a reduction in the property's appraised value to $122,124 with a commensurate decrease in assessed value to $40,708. Despite this reduction the Kriebels appealed to the court of common pleas apparently alleging that both the appraised value and the ratio of assessed value to fair market value applied by the Board were too high. As a result the Kriebels claimed they were entitled to a refund of taxes which were allegedly overpaid for the tax years 1975-1980.*fn2
The court of common pleas, following several days of hearings, rendered a decision in which it concluded that the assessment was invalid because it was improperly
[ 79 Pa. Commw. Page 469]
based on the reproduction cost method of determining actual value.*fn3 The Board filed a petition for reconsideration which was granted*fn4 and the court entered a second opinion and order concluding that the Kriebels had indeed failed to prove that their assessment was based on the cost approach. The court further concluded that it was bound by the Board's reduced valuation of $122,124 and that a 1980 common level ratio of 16.42% testified to by the Board should be ...