Opinion No. 80-253

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports

Opinion No. 80-253

DecidedJanuary 29, 1981

StatusPublished

This text of Opinion No. 80-253 (Opinion No. 80-253) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Oklahoma Attorney General Reports primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Opinion No. 80-253, (Okla. Super. Ct. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION — AG — (1) "USE VALUE" AS EMPLOYED IN THE CONTEXT OF AD VALOREM REAL PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENT MEANS "FAIR CASH VALUE OF REAL PROPERTY FOR THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE FOR WHICH SUCH PROPERTY WAS ACTUALLY USED, OR WAS PREVIOUSLY CLASSIFIED FOR USE, DURING THE CALENDAR YEAR NEXT PRECEDING THE FIRST DAY OF JANUARY ON WHICH THE ASSESSMENT IS MADE". (2) THE "USE VALUE" OF A PIECE OF REAL PROPERTY MAY NOT BE DETERMINED BY FIRST FINDING THE FAIR CASH VALUE OF THE PROPERTY BASED UPON ITS PRESENT USE AND THEN DEDUCTING A PERCENTAGE OF VALUE. (3) THE OKLAHOMA CONSTITUTION AS INTERPRETED BY THE STATE SUPREME COURT IN CANTRELL V. SANDERS, 610 P.2d 227 (1980), DOES NOT PERMIT DIFFERENT ASSESSMENT PERCENTAGES FOR DIFFERENT CLASSES OF REAL PROPERTY; THUS, THERE IS NO LONGER ANY NEED OR JUSTIFICATION FOR UTILIZING A "COMPOSITE RATIO" WHICH IS AN AVERAGE OF DIFFERENT ASSESSMENT PERCENTAGES FOR DIFFERENT CLASSES OF REAL PROPERTY. (TAXATION, AD VALOREM) CITE: ARTICLE X, SECTION 8, 68 O.S. 1971 2462 [68-2462](A), 68 O.S. 1971 2481.1 [68-2481.1] THRU 68 O.S. 1971 2481.11 [68-2481.11], 68 O.S. 1979 Supp., 2327 [68-2327] [68-2327], 68 O.S. 1979 Supp., 2435 [68-2435] (JOHN F. PERCIVAL)

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION — AG — (1) "USE VALUE" AS EMPLOYED IN THE CONTEXT OF AD VALOREM REAL PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENT MEANS "FAIR CASH VALUE OF REAL PROPERTY FOR THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE FOR WHICH SUCH PROPERTY WAS ACTUALLY USED, OR WAS PREVIOUSLY CLASSIFIED FOR USE, DURING THE CALENDAR YEAR NEXT PRECEDING THE FIRST DAY OF JANUARY ON WHICH THE ASSESSMENT IS MADE". (2) THE "USE VALUE" OF A PIECE OF REAL PROPERTY MAY NOT BE DETERMINED BY FIRST FINDING THE FAIR CASH VALUE OF THE PROPERTY BASED UPON ITS PRESENT USE AND THEN DEDUCTING A PERCENTAGE OF VALUE. (3) THE OKLAHOMA CONSTITUTION AS INTERPRETED BY THE STATE SUPREME COURT IN CANTRELL V. SANDERS, 610 P.2d 227 (1980), DOES NOT PERMIT DIFFERENT ASSESSMENT PERCENTAGES FOR DIFFERENT CLASSES OF REAL PROPERTY; THUS, THERE IS NO LONGER ANY NEED OR JUSTIFICATION FOR UTILIZING A "COMPOSITE RATIO" WHICH IS AN AVERAGE OF DIFFERENT ASSESSMENT PERCENTAGES FOR DIFFERENT CLASSES OF REAL PROPERTY. (TAXATION, AD VALOREM) CITE: ARTICLE X, SECTION 8, 68 O.S. 1971 2462 [68-2462](A), 68 O.S. 1971 2481.1 [68-2481.1] THRU 68 O.S. 1971 2481.11 [68-2481.11], 68 O.S. 1979 Supp., 2327 [68-2327] [68-2327], 68 O.S. 1979 Supp., 2435 [68-2435] (JOHN F. PERCIVAL)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Opinion No. 80-253, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/opinion-no-80-253-oklaag-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack