Lane v. Supervisor of Assessments of Montgomery Co.

WATTS, J., dissenting, in which BATTAGLIA, J., joins. Respectfully, I dissent. Although the Majority opinion is well written, I would hold that Md.Code Ann., Tax-Prop. ⁴⁷⁴ (1985, 2012 Repl.Vol.) (“TP”) § 8-104(b), by its plain language, does not permit the Maryland Tax Court (“the Tax Court”) to take into consideration sales of comparable properties that occur after the date of finality in determining the value of a property on the date of finality. Because this case turns on statutory interpretation, I reiterate the pertinent principles of statutory interpretation as set forth in Hailes v. State, 442 Md. 488, 495-96 , 113 A.3d 608, 612 (2015): In interpreting a statute, a court first considers the statute’s language, which the court applies where the statute’s language is unambiguous and clearly consistent with the statute’s apparent purpose.

Where the statute’s language is ambiguous or not clearly consistent with the statute’s apparent purpose, the court searches for the General Assembly’s intent in other indicia, including the history of the statute or other relevant sources intrinsic and extrinsic to the legislative process, in light of: (1) the structure of the statute; (2) how the statute relates to other laws; (3) the statute’s general purpose; and (4) the relative rationality and legal effect of various competing constructions. (Citations, internal quotation marks, and brackets omitted). Examining the plain language of TP § 8 — 104(b), I would conclude that nothing in TP § 8-104(b) permits the Tax Court to take into consideration events occurring after the date of finality in determining the value of a property on the date of finality. TP § 8 — 104(b)(1) provides that, “[notwithstanding a revaluation under subsection (c) of this section, the [State] Department [of Assessments and Taxation (“SDAT”) ] or supervisor [of assessments for a county] shall value all real property once in every 3-year cycle based on an exterior physical inspection of the real property.” TP § 8-102(a) provides that, with an exception not relevant here, “the value of real property shall be its value on the date of finality.” (Emphasis added).

TP § 8-104(b)(2), in turn, states: “The date of finality for real property that is valued under this subsection is the January 1 immediately before the 1st taxable ⁴⁷⁵ year[ 1 ] to which the assessment based on the new value is applicable.” In other words, pursuant to TP § 8-102(a), the value of a property “shall be its value on the date of finality[,]” which, under TP § 8 — 104(b)(2), is January 1 of the relevant tax year. Significantly, TP § 8-104(b)(2) makes no mention whatsoever of consideration of events occurring after the date of finality as being relevant to determining the value of a property on the date of finality. Rather, the date of finality is the date of finality — ie., January 1 of the relevant tax year— nothing more and nothing less. TP § 8-104(b)(2)’s plain language comports with the commonsense understanding of the term “finality.” Black’s Law Dictionary defines “finality” as “[t]he quality of being complete and unchangeable.” Finality, Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed.2014).

Similarly, Merriam-Webster defines “finality” as “the quality or state of being final or finished and not able to be changed” and as “the character or condition of being final, settled, irrevocable, or eomplete[.]” Finality, Merriam-Webster (2015), http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ finality [http://perma.co/3V8H-MYD7]. Simply put, something has finality when it is complete, final, and finished. Thus, the date of finality for purposes of real property assessment is January 1 of the relevant tax year; ie., that is the date when the assessment is to be complete, final, and finished, and the value of a property must be the value that exists on January 1. TP § 8-104(b)(2)’s plain language and meaning simply does not allow for consideration of events occurring after January 1 for a determination of what a property’s value is as of January 1.

And this reading of TP § 8-104(b)(2) is entirely logical. If something is to be final as of a certain date, that does not mean that something is somewhat final as of that date and that events that occur months after that date can somehow be used to justify a different result or to change what otherwise ⁴⁷⁶ is meant to be final. Take, for instance, the example of a student’s homework assignment. The teacher states that the homework assignment must be finished as of January 1 and that her grade will be finalized as of that same date, January 1.

The student finishes the homework assignment and turns it in on January 1. The teacher grades the homework assignment and returns it to the student. The student believes that the homework assignment grade is final and thinks no more of it. Months later, however, after having graded other assignments from other students, the teacher adjusts the grade given to the student on the homework assignment due on January 1, lowering the grade.

Obviously, the student thinks such a result is unfair because the grade given after she turned in the homework assignment has now been adjusted against her, based on events that occurred after that assignment, namely, other students having turned in other assignments. Such a result flies in the face of the ordinary meaning of the term “final.” Moreover, in addition to the circumstance that TP § 8-104(b)(2)’s plain language and meaning do not provide for consideration of events occurring after January 1 in determining what a property’s value is as of January 1, TP §8-104(b)(2)’s legislative history is notably silent on the matter. Indeed, the Majority fails to identify any legislative history supporting its interpretation of TP § 8-104(b)(2). Rather, the Majority simply states: “Sales of comparable properties occurring reasonably soon after the date of finality are relevant to an accurate assessment of the valuation of property as of that date; there is, therefore, no good reason why such probative evidence should not be considered.” Maj.

Op. at 467, 135 A.3d at 835 (citations omitted). 2 But such reasoning is circular, renders the term “date of finality” essentially meaningless, and adds to TP § 8-104(b)(2) language that is ⁴⁷⁷ not there, thus violating one of the cardinal rules of statutory construction. See Montgomery Cnty. v. Phillips, 445 Md. 55, 62 , 124 A.3d 188, 192 (2015) (“[W]e neither add nor delete words to a clear and unambiguous statute to give it a meaning not reflected by the words [that] the General Assembly used or engage in forced or subtle interpretation in an attempt to extend or limit the statute’s meaning.” (Citation and brackets omitted)); id. at 63 , 124 A.3d at 192 (“In construing a statute, we avoid a construction of the statute that is unreasonable, illogical, or inconsistent with common sense.” (Citation and brackets omitted)); Doe v. Montgomery Cnty. Bd. of Elections, 406 Md. 697, 712 , 962 A.2d 342, 351 (2008) (“We begin our analysis by first looking to the normal, plain meaning of the language of the statute, reading the statute as a whole to ensure that no word, clause, sentence^] or phrase is rendered surplusage, superfluous, meaningless[,] or nugatory.” (Citations and internal quotation marks omitted)). In short, in my view, the Majority adds something to TP § 8-104(b)(2) that is not there where the General Assembly has given no indication that it intended to permit the Tax Court to consider events occurring after the date of finality in determining a property’s value on the date of finality.

And there is a good reason for not considering sales occurring after the date of finality— namely, fairness to the taxpayer. The Majority also holds that, because the Tax Court reviews appeals de novo, the Tax Court “had the responsibility to decide the relevance of the evidence presented, discard that which the court deemed irrelevant, and accord to that which is relevant the weight [that] it deserved”; i.e., the Tax Court was permitted to consider the sales of comparable properties occurring after the date of finality. Maj. Op. at 468, 135 A.3d at 841-42.

However, such a holding turns the concept of de novo review on its head. To be sure, “[a]n appeal before the Tax Court shall be heard de novo and conducted in a manner similar to a proceeding in a court of general jurisdiction sitting without a jury.” Md.Code Ann., Tax-Gen. (1988, 2010 Repl. Vol.) § 13-523.

However, the power of the Tax Court to hear appeals de novo does not permit the Tax Court to override the ⁴⁷⁸ plain language of TP § 8 — 104(b)(2) and take into consideration evidence that occurs after the date of finality in contravention of TP § 8-104(b)(2). Indeed, the Majority’s reasoning as to the Tax Court’s power to hear appeals de novo is a red herring and has no correlation whatsoever with the Tax Court’s authority as it relates to statutory interpretation. See, e.g., Phillips, 445 Md. at 61-62 , 124 A.3d at 191-92 (When an appellate court reviews decisions of the Tax Court, the appellate court is “under no statutory constraints