A South Dakota taxpayer lives in Township B but owns property in Township A (both in the same county and school district). He did not appeal his Township A property assessment to the Township A local board of equalization when it was sitting. Can he now appeal directly to the county board of equalization, or has he lost his appeal rights?
Plain-English summary
South Dakota's property tax appeals system is hierarchical. A taxpayer who disagrees with an assessment first goes to the local board of equalization for the township, town, or city where the property sits. If unsatisfied, the taxpayer can then appeal to the county board of equalization. The statute (SDCL 10-11-27) makes the local-board step mandatory, with one exception: a "nonresident of the taxing district may be heard without such original complaint."
The factual setup: a property owner lives in Township B but owns property in Township A. Both townships are in the same county and same school district. The owner did not complain to the Township A local board when it was sitting. Now he wants to bring his complaint directly to the county board.
The Director of Equalization read SDCL 10-11-27 narrowly and thought the property owner had to first appeal to the Township A local board. Mr. Bingner asked AG Mark Barnett to settle it.
Barnett's reading was that the property owner qualified for the "nonresident" exception. The key was the meaning of "taxing district" in SDCL 10-11-27. Barnett applied SDCL 2-14-1, which directs statutory terms to be given their ordinary meaning. The ordinary meaning of "taxing district" in this context is the district whose local board of equalization handles the assessment, i.e., Township A. The property owner is not a resident of Township A (he lives in Township B). He is therefore a nonresident of the Township A taxing district. The nonresident exception applies and lets him appeal directly to the county board.
The opinion makes a clean rule. Residents of a township with a local board of equalization must appeal to that local board first, on penalty of losing their county-board appeal rights. Nonresidents (people who own property in a township they don't live in) can appeal directly to the county board.
The rationale for the distinction is practical. Residents are presumed to be aware of the local board's sitting dates and can easily attend. Nonresidents may not get the same level of notice or convenient access to the local board. Letting them jump to the county board avoids penalizing them for a procedural gap they may not have known about.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1993 during AG Mark Barnett's tenure. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. SDCL chapter 10-11 governing property tax equalization has been amended multiple times since 1993, and modern questions about the resident/nonresident distinction, local-board-first requirements, and appeal sequence should be verified against current SDCL chapter 10-11 and any applicable Department of Revenue rules.
What the opinion meant at the time
For taxpayers owning property in multiple townships, the practical answer was that they only needed to attend the local board sittings for properties in townships where they lived. For out-of-township properties they could go directly to the county board.
For directors of equalization and county auditors, the opinion clarified the appeal-tracking rules. Resident appeals had a two-step path (local then county); nonresident appeals could be one step (direct to county). Refusing to hear a nonresident at the county level for lack of a local appeal would be wrong.
For township boards of equalization, the opinion did not strip their authority over nonresident property; nonresidents could still choose to start with the local board if they wanted. The opinion just confirmed they were not required to.
For property tax attorneys, the opinion gave a clean answer to a recurring procedural puzzle in counties with many small townships and mobile landowners.
Common questions
Q: What is a "taxing district" in this context?
A: A district that has its own local board of equalization, like a township, an incorporated town, or a city. SDCL 10-11-13 confirms that organized townships are vested with local-board powers. The "taxing district" in SDCL 10-11-27 is the district with the local board, not the county.
Q: What if the township is not organized?
A: If the township is not organized as a separate equalization unit, then there is no local board of equalization to appeal to in the first place, and the question of resident-vs-nonresident does not arise. The appeal goes directly to the county board.
Q: What about a city or incorporated town?
A: Same rule. A resident of City A who owns property in City B (or in Township X within the same county) is a nonresident of the City B (or Township X) taxing district and qualifies for the direct-to-county exception. The opinion's reasoning applies symmetrically to all local-board taxing districts.
Q: Could the resident waive the local-board appeal and go directly to the county?
A: The opinion does not address waiver. The text of SDCL 10-11-27 is mandatory ("no complaint... shall be considered unless it has first been made to such local board"), so the more likely answer is no. A resident who skips the local board generally loses the county appeal.
Q: What is the deadline for the local-board appeal?
A: The local board sits at a statutorily fixed time each year (typically in spring; check current statute). The deadline for filing a complaint is during that sitting. Modern users should check current SDCL chapter 10-11 for the specific dates and procedural details.
Q: Could the nonresident appeal directly to the state Office of Hearing Examiners?
A: The opinion addresses only the county-board step. Subsequent state-level appeals from the county board have their own procedures under SDCL chapter 10-11 (and related statutes). The nonresident exception applies only to the local-board-first requirement.
Background and statutory framework
Property tax equalization in South Dakota is the process by which assessments are reviewed and adjusted to ensure uniformity across taxpayers. The three-level structure (local board, county board, state-level review) gives taxpayers multiple opportunities to challenge assessments and lets each level catch errors at its own scale.
The local board (SDCL 10-11-13) sits in the spring of each year to review assessments by the township, town, or city assessor. The county board (SDCL 10-11-25 ff.) sits later and reviews local-board decisions and assessments. The state-level review is a further appeal.
SDCL 10-11-27's local-board-first requirement keeps the system orderly. Without it, the county board would receive complaints that had not been filtered through the local level, which would burden the county board and bypass the assessor and local-board members who know the property best.
The nonresident exception relaxes the requirement for out-of-district owners. The reasoning is partly practical (notice and access issues) and partly fairness (out-of-district owners may not even be aware their property is on the local board's docket). Allowing them to go directly to the county board respects their procedural reality.
Barnett's reading sits squarely within the ordinary-meaning interpretive tradition of SDCL 2-14-1. The word "taxing district" gets its plain meaning, which here is the local-board-level district. Forcing residents-of-a-different-township-in-the-same-county to be treated as residents of the property's township would do violence to that plain meaning.
Citations and references
Statutes:
- SDCL 10-11-27 (local-board-first requirement with nonresident exception)
- SDCL 10-11-13 (organized township has powers of local board of equalization)
- SDCL 2-14-1 (statutory terms get their ordinary meaning)
Source
Original opinion text
OFFICIAL OPINION NO. 93-02
Interpretation of SDCL 10-11-27
Dear Mr. Bingner:
You have requested an official opinion regarding the following factual situation:
FACTS:
A real property taxpayer resides in Township B. He has property that is located in Township A. Townships A and B are in the same county and in the same school district.
The taxpayer did not complain concerning the property assessment to the township board of Township A at the time that board was sitting as a local board of equalization. He is now seeking to present his complaint to the county board in the first instance. It is the opinion of our director of equalization, based upon her reading of SDCL 10-11-27, that he may not do that.
Based upon the foregoing factual situation, you have asked the following question:
QUESTION:
May a taxpayer present his property assessment complaint directly to the county board of equalization when the complaint has not been first presented to a local board of equalization and the property owner is not a resident of the local board of equalization territory?
IN RE QUESTION:
The question you have raised focuses on SDCL 10-11-27, which reads in full as follows:
No complaint concerning property assessed in any district having a local board of equalization shall be considered unless it has first been made to such local board, except a nonresident of the taxing district may be heard without such original complaint.
If a township within a county is organized, the township is vested with the powers of a local board of equalization. SDCL 10-11-13. Clearly, the intent of SDCL 10-11-27 is to have complaints first heard by the local boards of equalization before they progress to the county board of equalization. The exception is for "a nonresident of the taxing district."
It is my opinion that the phrase "taxing district" refers to a district that has a local board of equalization pursuant to SDCL 10-11-13; such would appear to be its "ordinary" meaning. See SDCL 2-14-1. Therefore, a property owner who is a resident of a township, incorporated town, or city must present his or her assessment complaints to that local board of equalization regarding property within that township, incorporated town, or city prior to taking any appeal to the county board of equalization.
Under the facts you have presented, the property owner is a resident of one township and has property in another township. It is my opinion that the property owner need not appeal to the board of the township in which he is not a resident regarding property within that township. The answer to your question is "yes."
To summarize, a property owner who is a resident of a township, incorporated town, or city that has a local board of equalization must take an appeal regarding property within that township, incorporated town, or city to the local board of equalization prior to appealing to the county board of equalization. Failure to appeal to a local board of equalization in those cases prohibits an appeal to the county board of equalization. A nonresident, however, may appeal his or her assessment directly to the county board of equalization.
MB:DDW:do