Barker
v. Chester Co. Tax Claim Bureau – Cmwlth. Court – July 27, 2016
The
court set aside the sale and reversed the lower court, holding that
- Taxpayers did not default under a
2010 installment agreement under sec. 603 where, although they were late with
some intermediate installment payments, they made the final payment within the
applicable period – “when due.”
Therefore, there was no “default” of the agreement, and the taxpayers
were not disqualified from eligibility for a 2013 installment agreement under
sec. 603, which bars eligibility if there was default on agreement within prior
three years.
- Sale also set aside because, even
assuming there was a default, the TCB’s admitted
failure to give the taxpayers notice of such violated the notice requirement
under sec. 603.
There
was a lot of good language in the opinion, including the following:
-
notice of right to installment agreement must be given by TCB upon payment of
25% of the taxes due - An upset sale
must be stayed where a taxpayer pays 25% of the taxes due and agrees to an
installment plan for the remainder. Further, where a taxpayer makes a payment
of 25% or more, “the tax claim bureau must advise the taxpayer of the
Section 603 option because its failure to do so ‘would deprive the owner of his
or her property without due process of law.’” In In Re Consolidated Return
of the Tax Claim Bureau of the County of Beaver from the August 16, 2011 Upset
Sale for Delinquent Taxes, 105 A.3d 76 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014), petition for
allowance of appeal denied, 121 A.3d 497 (Pa. 2015), Id. at
82 (emphasis added) (quoting Darden, 629 A.2d at 323).
- purpose of RETSL is collection of taxes, not taking of taxpayer’s
property - The statute was not
enacted to deprive citizens of their property or to create investment
opportunities for those who attend tax sales but, rather, to assist the
collection of taxes. Stanford–Gale v. Tax Claim Bureau of Susquehanna County,
816 A.2d 1214, 1216 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003). The United States Supreme Court has
held that due process is implicated in any taking of property for the
collection of taxes, stating that “[p]eople must pay their taxes, and the
government may hold citizens accountable for tax delinquency by taking their
property. But before forcing a citizen to satisfy his debt by forfeiting his
property, due process requires the government to provide adequate notice of the
impending taking. Jones v. Flowers,
547 U.S. 220, 234 (2006). Because of these due process concerns, this Court has
explained that
the
focus is not on the alleged neglect of the owner, which is often present in
some degree, but on whether the activities of the Bureau comply with the
requirements of the statute. Smith v.
Tax Claim Bureau of Pike County, 834 A.2d 1247, 1251 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003). A
failure by a tax claim bureau to comply with each and every statutory
requirement will nullify a sale. Id. at 1252.
----------------------
If the case is old, the link
may have become stale and may not work, but you can use the case name, court,
and date to find the opinion in another source (e.g., Westlaw, Lexis, Google
Scholar)
