Posted on 01/14/2023 5:35:18 AM PST by where's_the_Outrage?
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to decide a property rights dispute on whether government entities violate the Constitution when they seize homes for failure to pay taxes and then keep all the proceeds or allow private investors to profit.
The justices will decide whether such seizures violate the takings clause of the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment, which requires that the government pay compensation when property is taken. They will also weigh whether government action could be viewed as an excessive fine under the Constitution’s Eighth Amendment.
The justices will weigh a claim brought by Geraldine Tyler, a 93-year-old whose property in Minnesota was seized by Hennepin County because she owed $15,000 in property taxes and related costs. The county sold the home for $40,000 and kept all the proceeds, Tyler’s lawyers say.
The St. Louis-based 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled for the county in a February 2022 ruling, rejecting Tyler’s constitutional claims. The state says that under Minnesota law it “provides ample opportunity for property owners to protect their interests” before a property is seized. The state’s lawyers point out that owners have three years to pay the taxes and have an opportunity to repurchase the seized property.
The case was brought by the Pacific Legal Foundation, a conservative legal group that often brings property rights cases. The Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, is often sympathetic to property rights claims.
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
Going after old white ladies, how about Al Sharpton
A 93 y.o. being subjected to this is the epitome of elderly abuse. Anyone and everyone involved in this taking should be sued for every penny and then incarcerated until THEY are 93.
Every year when you vote on your school taxes and your city or town taxes, those budgets that’s when you get your property tax. You can always vote no or put in a zero budget.
I vote no on all taxes regardless of whether children are going to die without the tax.
If they take your house because you owe $10,000 in tax and then auction it at $200,000 the owner should get the balance...not the state,or the auction house or anyone else.
I’m not sure where you live, but I’ve owned property in 5 different counties in four states and there was never a ballot item on property taxes in any of them. The closest I saw was an annual notice of proposed increases in taxes that the county commissioners were holding an open hearing on and in 13 years no matter what they heard in the hearing the tax increases always passed.
“I would like to see the whole concept of yearly property taxes found unconstitutional as it means you really can’t own private property.”
I agree. At minimum they should not tax ones primary residence.
I have for many years advocated a 115% tax rate on democrats.
“I saw was an annual notice of proposed increases in taxes that the county commissioners were holding an open hearing on and in 13 years no matter what they heard in the hearing the tax increases always passed.”
I agree there isn’t much you can do to stop the property tax rate from rising, other than run for office yourself or organize a large group of angry citizens to appear at the county commissioner open hearing. However, you can individually contest your assessment. Every five years my county revalues property and every five years I appeal the assessment.
It takes time and research to appeal the assessment. You have to look up actual sales over the past 2-3 years of properties comparable to yours. Each time I’ve done that I’ve discovered my property is over appraised versus actual sales by 10-20%. I lay it all out on a spreadsheet and attach it to the appeal form. Usually my estimate of valuation is approved without question. A few times the county has sent an appraiser to my house to verify the size of the house and land as well as make sure I haven’t made improvements that aren’t in the county records. For the 2020 assessmentI received a $100,000 reduction in the assessed value.
The county was unable to show a comparable market price within the past 24 months substantiating the original assessment. My experience is most people don’t appeal the county assessment and when the county wants money it is aggressive in raising assessed values. It is an easy way for the county to increase its tax base.
Yeah....how anyone can argue that not sending the residual to the prior owner isn’t anything but flat-out theft is incredible. It’s just stealing, the State has no claim to money that wasn’t owed to them. There’s no ethical or moral basis to assert they should keep the remaining money.
The minimum ruling should be the residual must be returned, if not a complete rethink of property taxes in general. If the State thinks it can just seize the value of the entire property over taxes then you never really owned anything.
How about LE confiscating the $40,000 truck cuz it had $100 worth of drugs in it.
Where I grew up, the county would sell your property for the amount of taxes. So if you’re tax bill was $2000, they would sell it for $2000. You had a certain amount of time to pay up and then it would be sold. During the wait someone could claim the property by depositing the amount and if you didn’t pay, this person would get the property. It’s still wrong, especially if it’s someone’s primary residence. I don’t think there should be property tax on primary residences or it should be a small amount. Investment property, I feel differently about. They should be taxed for that, bigly. Especially foreign entities, hedge funds, foundations, etc.
Agree 100%
I think we can be friends
I guess it depends on the state. I thought they had to put a lien on the house & could only collect if the house sold.
Why in the world did this even reach SCOTUS?
One of the problems is we have low level bureaucrats who get away with crayola like this.
Same here, it was for me five states and counties and I never once voted for any budget or property tax.
Some years ago the city here decided to buy the water utility which was a private company. The first plan was to issue general obligation bonds until I pointed out that to do so required a citizen vote. They recalculated they would never have gotten authority to do that so they did the revenue bond approach just to avoid the citizens vote. The point being once they got control of the utility, the PUC lost oversight of fees and operates as a revenue stream.
Agreed, it’s BS.
Someone told me long ago if you plan to use your vehicle for any crime, go rent one and use it instead.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.