Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: THURSDAY, July 26, 1990 TAG: 9007260579
SECTION: VIRGINIA PAGE: B-8 EDITION: EVENING
SOURCE: MARK LAYMAN STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
County Attorney Paul Mahoney gave the Board of Supervisors a confidential report on Terry's opinion and its possible consequences in an executive session Tuesday. The supervisors took no action, setting the stage for a possible lawsuit.
"It just irks me," said William McIlwraith, the Southwest Roanoke County resident who made the complaint this spring. "They owe me a reply, along with the citizens of the county. . . . I'm not going to be happy until every citizen they've taken money from gets a refund."
State law allows the county to charge residents who miss the Feb. 1 filing deadline for personal property returns a penalty of 10 percent of the tax due or $10, whichever is greater.
Since 1987, when it began to prorate personal property tax bills, the county has charged the penalty on each vehicle listed on a late return. And that's the problem.
Here's an example: A resident who owes $200 in personal property tax on four vehicles files a late return. The county would charge a penalty of $10 per vehicle, or $40.
McIlwraith argues - and Terry's opinion backs him up - that the county should charge either 10 percent of the total tax due, which would be $20, or a flat $10.
For McIlwraith, who filed a late return this year, the difference was about $10. But the amount of money doesn't matter, he said. "It's just not right."
McIlwraith took his complaint to Supervisor Lee Eddy and to Del. Steve Agee, who asked for the attorney general's opinion.
In her letter to Agee, Terry noted the exact language of the state code: "No penalty for failure to file a return shall be greater than 10 percent of the tax assessable on such return or $10, whichever is greater."
Terry wrote that the code requires each taxpayer owning taxable personal property to file "a return." The code "does not suggest that the $10 penalty may be charged for each item of personal property on that return."
On Tuesday, Eddy began to discuss Mahoney's confidential report while the Board of Supervisors was in public session. But because it was a legal matter, Supervisor Harry Nickens suggested that the discussion be held in executive session.
During the executive session, Eddy said Wednesday, "It became clear to me that I was the only one who was interested in trying to change . . . the procedure."
Supervisor Steve McGraw doesn't quite see it that way. In light of Terry's opinion, he said, the supervisors asked Mahoney "to defend what we've been doing, but also to look at changing the procedure in the future."
Mahoney said he didn't agree with Terry's opinion. "I understand the point . . . but I'm not sure she understands the unique way motor vehicles are treated under a proration ordinance."
And, he pointed out, "judges don't have to accept the opinion of the attorney general as binding."
McIlwraith might try to find that out for himself - if he can get help from other county residents, he said. "I've done all I can do with the board. Now I need the citizens' support - not only those who are affected, but those who feel it's wrong."
Commissioner of the Revenue Wayne Compton said 1,800 county taxpayers were charged penalties for missing the Feb. 1 deadline this year. He estimated that Terry's opinion would apply to only half of those.
Only those taxpayers whose returns list more than one car, and who have at least one car valued at $2,857 or less (on which the tax would be less than $100), would be affected.
And, Compton said, there's a simple solution to the problem:
File on time.
by CNB