Could a Washington county assessor correct a property tax roll showing too many acres without the owner proving the mistake?

Plain-English summary

In 1965, the Washington Attorney General concluded that a county assessor who had good reason to suspect an acreage error on the property tax rolls had authority and a duty to investigate it. The example involved land listed at 116 acres when it might have contained about 50. The assessor could not make correction conditional on the owner's proving the error first.

If satisfied that the acreage was overstated, the assessor should seek correction of the current assessment through the county board of equalization and use the true acreage on future rolls. The AG expressly did not address the owner's remedies for excessive taxes paid in earlier years.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1965. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Did the property owner have to prove the acreage error before the assessor could act?
No. The AG said the assessor had an independent duty to determine whether a suspected error existed.

How did the opinion say a confirmed current-year error should be corrected?
The assessor should seek correction through the county board of equalization and prepare future rolls using the true acreage.

Did the opinion decide whether earlier overpayments could be recovered?
No. The AG said taxpayer remedies for excessive back taxes were outside the question addressed.

Background and statutory framework

The opinion relied on the true-and-fair-value assessment requirement in Amendment 17 of the Washington Constitution and RCW 84.40.030-84.40.040. An incorrect acreage figure could distort an assessment based on value per acre. The AG placed the responsibility to investigate and pursue correction with the assessor.

Citations and references

• Statutes discussed: RCW 84.40.030; RCW 84.40.040.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.atg.wa.gov/ago-opinions/offices-and-officers-county-assessor-tax-rolls-listing-property-authority-correct

Original opinion text

Attorney General John J. O'Connell

OFFICES AND OFFICERS ‑- COUNTY ‑- ASSESSOR ‑- TAX ROLLS ‑- LISTING OF PROPERTY ‑- AUTHORITY TO CORRECT POSSIBLE ERROR.

If an assessor has good reason to believe that there may be an error in the tax rolls which would result in certain property being assessed at other than its true and fair value, he has the authority and a duty to determine whether an error does exist, and if so, to take whatever corrective measures that are necessary.

January 18, 1965

Honorable Irving Koths
Prosecuting Attorney
Wahkiakum County
Cathlamet, Washington

Cite as: AGO 65-66 No. 4

Dear Sir:

By a previously acknowledged letter you have requested our opinion concerning the correction of the property tax rolls prepared by the county assessor.

The assessor has listed certain real estate in one ownership on the tax rolls showing it to contain 116 acres. There is now reason to believe there are actually about 50 acres. You ask whether the property owner must furnish proof of the difference in acreage or does the assessor have authority to make a correction.

The answer to your question is contained in the following analysis.

ANALYSIS

For purposes of taxation all property must be assessed on the basis of its true and fair value. Amendment 17, State Constitution; RCW 84.40.030-84.40.040. In arriving at such value the assessor must honestly exercise his best judgment.Dexter Horton Bldg. Co. v. King County, 10 Wn. (2d) 186, 116 P. (2d) 507 (1941).

If the assessor has good reason to believe that there may be an error in the tax rolls which would result in certain [[Orig. Op. Page 2]] property being assessed at something other than its true and fair value, he and he alone has the authority and a duty under the aforementioned constitutional provision and statutes to determine on his own initiative whether such error does exist, and if it does, to take whatever corrective measures are necessary. He cannot in performing his duty as an assessor require as a condition precedent to making such correction that the property owner prove an error has been made. This is in accord with a previous opinion of this office. AGO 1913-14, page 340 [[1913-14 OAG 340]].

If the assessor in the exercise of his best judgment becomes satisfied that the property in question has been placed upon the rolls as containing more acres than it in fact actually does contain, the assessor should seek correction of the current assessment through the county board of equalization at any one of its meetings. Such a mistake amounts to an error in description, and if the assessment is based upon the value per acre it is an overassessment tantamount to a double assessment. Puget Realty Co. v. King County, 50 Wash. 349, 97 Pac. 226 (1908). The assessor should, of course, prepare his future assessment rolls to reflect the true acreage.

While we are not concerned in this opinion with remedies of the taxpayer in respect to any excessive back taxes he may have paid, having citedPuget Realty Co. v. King County, supra, we call attention to Peterson v. Jefferson County, 167 Wash. 269, 9 P. (2d) 73 (1932), wherein the court limited the holding of the Puget Realty Co. case to the particular facts there involved. See, also,Pittock & Leadbetter Lumber Co. v. Skamania County, 98 Wash. 145, 167 Pac. 108 (1917).

We trust the foregoing will be of assistance to you.

Very truly yours,

JOHN J. O'CONNELL
Attorney General

HENRY W. WAGER
Assistant Attorney General