In October 2001, Taylor Home sought permission of the BTLA to reform its petitions to state that it also appealed the refusal of the two municipalities to grant it charitable tax exemption for the 2000 tax year. The BTLA denied Taylor Home’s request as untimely. Under RSA 72:34-a, the deadline to appeal a refusal to grant tax exemption is due on September 1. Taylor Home then appealed the BTLA’s refusal to amend its petition to the New Hampshire Supreme Court, arguing that its appeal of the denial of charitable exemption was timely and that its August 2001 petitions to the BTLA were appeals of the two municipalities’ charitable exemption decisions.
The issue in the case was whether or not it was reasonable for the BTLA to treat Taylor Home’s filings as petitions for abatement rather than petitions regarding denial of charitable exemption. Taylor Home argued first that under the BTLA’s administrative rules, its filings should have been treated as non-conforming documents, which should have been returned, and Taylor Home should have been given time to file conforming documents. The Court disagreed.
This administrative rule, Tax 201.17, only applies to documents that do not comply “with any statute or board rule,” and the Court said, “It is undisputed that the petitions complied with the statutes and rules governing abatement appeals. Thus, they were not ‘non-conforming’ documents under Rule 201.17.”
Taylor Home also argued that because the August petition appealing denial of tax abatement was “in writing” and filed by the deadline as required by RSA 72:34-a – the statute governing appeal of denials of tax exemption, deferral or credit – it complied with the statute. The Court said, “This argument ignores the BTLA’s regulations, however, which set forth the requisite content of appeals brought pursuant to RSA 72:34-a.” Under those rules, in order to appeal the denial of a tax exemption, a taxpayer must file “[a] complete and specific statement of the grounds supporting the appeal.” Taylor Home’s August petitions provided statements of the grounds for appealing the denial of its requests for tax abatement, not for denial of charitable exemption, the Court said, adding that the rules appealing exemption also require the petitioner to include a copy of the exemption application filed with the municipality and a statement of the action taken in response by the municipality. This information was not included in the August petitions to the BTLA, thus they did not comply with the BTLA’s rules regarding municipal exemption decisions, the Court said.
As to Taylor Home’s argument that its August petitions put the two municipalities on notice that it intended to appeal the exemption decisions and, therefore, the BTLA should have accepted the petitions as appeals of the exemption decisions, the Court said that regardless of Taylor Home’s intent, it did not appeal the exemption decisions by September 1, 2001, as required by law and, therefore, the BTLA did not have jurisdiction to hear an appeal of the exemption decisions.