Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
23. The strongest constitutional argument to support the homeowner's claim is that the comparative overvaluation of the homeowner's property by the County Tax Commission in making tax assessments over time
The homeowner has now filed suit against the County Tax Commission, charging only that the tax assessment on her property is unconstitutional.
A homeowner is required to pay real estate taxes on her home in the county that are 200% to 300% higher than those paid by many other owners of similar homes in similar neighborhoods in that county, even though the current market values of their respective homes and the homeowner's home are nearly identical. The reason the taxes on the homeowner's home are higher than those imposed on the other similar homes in similar neighborhoods is that she bought her home much more recently than the other owners and, therefore, it is assessed at a much higher «actual value» than their homes. Persistent efforts by the homeowner to have her assessment reduced or the assessments of the others raised by the County Tax Commission have failed.
A state statute provides that assessments of real property for tax purposes must represent the «actual value» of the property. The County Tax Commission, in making its assessments, has uniformly and consistently determined the «actual value» of real property solely by reference to the price at which the particular property was last sold. In recent years, the market values of real property in the county have been rising at the rate of 15% per year.
Comments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
The Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits states from denying their citizens the privileges and immunities of national citizenship. The primary example is the right to travel between the states, though others include the right to vote in national elections and to petition Congress concerning grievances.
The Fifth Amendment prohibits governmental taking of private property «for public use without just compensation.» As such, both state and federal governments have the right to take private property for public use as long as «just compensation» is paid. The scope of a governmental taking encompasses not only physical appropriations of property, but also any governmental action that significantly damages property or impairs its use. See, e.g., United States v. Causby, 328 U.S. 256 (1946). Use restrictions will also constitute a taking if there is a denial of all economic value of land because such a regulation is equivalent to a physical appropriation. If the regulation merely decreases the value of the property (e.g., prohibits its most beneficial use), it will not necessarily result in a taking as long as an economically viable use for the property remains. See Penn Cent. Transp. Co. v. New York, 438 U.S. 101 (1978).
Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution prohibits states from passing ex post facto laws. An ex post facto law is legislation that retroactively alters the criminal law (not civil regulation) in a substantially prejudicial manner so as to deprive a person of any right previously enjoyed for the purpose of punishing the person for some past activity.
A is correct. The strongest constitutional argument in support of the homeowner's claim regarding the comparative overvaluation of her property in assessing taxes is that it deprives her of equal protection of the laws. Her complaint is that her taxes are higher than the taxes paid by other owners of similar homes. Because she is protesting the way that the state government is treating her compared to people who are similarly situated, the most applicable and strongest constitutional claim is one based on equal protection.
B is incorrect. An argument relying on the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment would not apply here because the homeowner's claim in no way implicates her rights as a national citizen. Rather, she is arguing that the county-level assessments are unfair for her compared to her neighbors in the same county.
C is incorrect. The Takings Clause would not be the strongest constitutional argument for the homeowner here because taxation almost never constitutes a taking without just compensation. Moreover, a regulation that causes a use restriction on one's property will only amount to a taking when the government has deprived the owner of all economic use of the land, which is not the case here.
D is incorrect. The homeowner has brought a civil action regarding the constitutionality of the tax assessments, and no criminal laws are implicated in any way. As such, there is no ex post facto issue here and that would be an inapplicable basis for the claim.