The taxpayer in this case held a parcel of land in current use. When a portion of the property was sold for development, the remaining parcel was too small to qualify for current use treatment and the taxpayer became liable to pay Land Use Change Tax (LUCT) under RSA 79-A:7, IV©. The City mailed the LUCT bill, but the taxpayer never received it. Seven months later, the taxpayer received a notice of tax delinquency, and filed an abatement petition with the City within three weeks. The next day, the taxpayer filed an appeal with the Board of Tax and Land Appeals (BTLA).
The issue was whether the BTLA had jurisdiction to hear the appeal. RSA 79-A:10, I requires the taxpayer to file for an LUCT abatement within two months of the "notice of tax date," which is defined as the date that the bill is mailed (rather than the date it is received by the taxpayer). Then, if the taxing jurisdiction refuses or neglects to grant the abatement, the taxpayer may appeal to the BTLA on or before September 1 after the date of the notice of tax. RSA 76:16-a, I. Neither statute provides for a waiver or relaxation of the deadlines for any reason.
The City argued that the taxpayer had not filed the abatement request until seven months after the notice of tax date, and, therefore, had lost its opportunity to appeal to the BTLA. The taxpayer argued that it had not received notice of the tax until seven months later and, therefore, its constitutional Due Process rights would be violated if its request and appeal were dismissed.
As stated in previous cases, "the statutory deadlines for requesting a tax abatement have historically been strictly enforced, and failure to timely submit an appeal is fatal regardless of accident, mistake, or misfortune." Furthermore, an appeal to the BTLA is only permitted where the taxing jurisdiction has refused or neglected to grant the abatement. "Selectmen can be said to neglect or refuse only what a taxpayer has first requested." Given this strong precedent, the Court upheld the strict application of the deadlines.
Turning to the Due Process claim, the Court noted that due process requires notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections. So long as the notice is reasonable, it does not violate the Due Process Clause. Most courts have found notice by U.S. Mail to be sufficient. In addition, the Court held that while actual notice should be the goal, the taxpayer was not entitled to actual notice. The City placed the bill in the mail, and nothing in the record indicated that the mail was returned unclaimed or undeliverable. Had it been returned, the City would likely have been required to take additional steps to provide notice, as the U.S. Supreme Court held in Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220 (2006) (discussed in the April 2006 issue of New Hampshire Town and City).