Laserfiche WebLink
~',~1 ~.5 °94 ~.~=3S PARKER POE: IqDIqi"lS 91.9 S2_8 0564 P. 1;~ <br /> <br /> 11. All RVAC costs should have been included in the Taxpayer's real <br /> property value. Except for this modification, the County <br /> Board's decisions did not assign values to the Taxpayer's. <br /> personal property in excess of its true value in ~ney. <br /> <br /> Conclusions~ Decision~ and Order <br /> <br /> Based on the Stipulations and the Findings of Fact, the Cor~nission <br />~nakes the following Conclusions of ~aw: <br /> <br /> 1. As to the real l~roperty value in case 92 PTC 31, the'.Taxpayer's <br /> evidence established that the zethod of appraisal employed by' <br /> the County was arbitrary and resulted in the assignment of a <br /> value in excess of the true value in money of the real property <br /> as of 1 January 1991. The true value in money of this real <br /> property as of i Jan6ary 1991 was $188,041,000. <br /> <br /> 2. As to the real property and personal property in case 90' PTC <br /> 426, the Taxpayer failed to establish either: (1) that'the <br /> County employed an arbitrary or illegaI method of appraisal, Or <br /> (2) that the values assigned by the County were subs'tantially <br /> greater than the true va/ues in ~oney of the propertY. <br /> <br /> 3. AS to the real property (construction in progress) in 92 FfC <br /> 990 and 93 PTC 306, the Taxpayer failed to establish.either: <br /> (1) that the County employed an arbitrar~ or illegal method of <br /> appraisal, or (2) that the values assigned by the County were <br /> substantially greater than the true values, in money of the <br /> proper ry. <br /> <br /> <br />