Allegheny Pittsburgh Coal Co. v. Commission of Webster Cty.
1989 U.S. LEXIS 433, 488 U.S. 336, 102 L. Ed. 2d 688 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state's real property tax assessment scheme that values recently sold property based on its sale price but fails to timely and accurately revalue other comparable properties, resulting in gross and long-standing disparities, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Facts:
- The West Virginia Constitution requires that property taxation be 'equal and uniform' and based on the property's value.
- From 1975 to 1986, the Webster County tax assessor set a property's appraised value based on its most recent sale price.
- For properties that had not been recently sold, the assessor made only infrequent and minor adjustments, such as 10% increases in 1976, 1981, and 1983.
- In 1974, Allegheny Pittsburgh Coal Company purchased property for over $24 million and was assessed based on this value.
- In 1982, Allegheny sold the property to East Kentucky Energy Corp. for nearly $30 million, and the county then updated the assessment to reflect this new, higher sale price.
- This practice resulted in petitioners' properties being assessed at values 8 to 35 times higher than comparable neighboring properties that had not been recently sold.
- These significant valuation disparities for similar properties persisted for more than ten years.
- The assessor's valuation method was based solely on the declared consideration in deeds, not on features like mineral content or development potential which were similar across the comparable properties.
Procedural Posture:
- Allegheny Pittsburgh Coal Co. and other companies (petitioners) challenged their annual property tax assessments before the County Commission of Webster County, which served as a review board.
- The County Commission affirmed the assessments.
- Petitioners appealed the commission's decisions to the West Virginia State Circuit Court (a trial court).
- The State Circuit Court found the assessment system was intentionally discriminatory in violation of the state constitution and the federal Equal Protection Clause, and ordered the assessments to be reduced.
- The County Commission (respondent) appealed the circuit court's decision to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia (the state's highest court).
- The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reversed, holding that the assessments were valid and that petitioners' only remedy was to seek to have the assessments of other taxpayers raised.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the decision of the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a county's real property tax assessment scheme, which values recently sold properties based on their sale price while making only minor adjustments to the assessments of similar, unsold properties, violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment when this practice results in gross and persistent disparities in the valuation of comparable properties?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Rehnquist
Yes, the county's assessment scheme violates the Equal Protection Clause. The Clause requires the 'seasonable attainment of a rough equality in tax treatment of similarly situated property owners.' While states may use different methods to assess property, the impact of the Webster County system created gross, long-term disparities that were not merely a transitional delay. The county's infrequent and minor adjustments for unsold properties were 'too small to seasonably dissipate the remaining disparity,' resulting in petitioners' property being assessed at 8 to 35 times more than comparable neighboring property for over a decade. This 'intentional systematic undervaluation' of other properties relative to petitioners' property is unconstitutional. Furthermore, the state cannot force the aggrieved taxpayer to remedy the discrimination by seeking to have the assessments of undervalued properties raised; the appropriate remedy is for the state to reduce the taxpayer's discriminatory assessment.
Analysis:
This decision significantly constrains 'welcome stranger' tax assessment policies, where new property owners are assessed at current market value while long-time owners' assessments remain artificially low. The Court clarified that the Equal Protection Clause applies not just to the text of a tax law, but to its practical application and effects. By focusing on the 'seasonable attainment of a rough equality,' the Court established a standard that requires tax systems to avoid gross, long-term disparities among similarly situated properties. This ruling reinforces that the remedy for such discrimination is a reduction for the overtaxed party, preventing states from placing the burdensome onus of correcting systemic flaws on individual taxpayers.
Unlock the full brief for Allegheny Pittsburgh Coal Co. v. Commission of Webster Cty.