The opinion
Mr. JUSTICE CRAVEN, concurring in part, dissenting in part:
I concur in the majority opinion holding that the method of assessing plaintiffs’ property is for the legislature, not the court. However, I would not remand these cases to the Property Tax Appeal Board. The Property Tax Appeal Board opinions indicate the Board would have reached the same result if the proper standards and burden had been applied. Remandment is neither desirable nor required here.
First, the Property Tax Appeal Board held de novo hearings. Its decisions were based upon the evidence received at those hearings, not upon the record of proceedings before the various boards of review. This is demonstrated by the Appeal Board’s clear refusal to adjust the assessed valuation in case No. 12322 and in its small adjustment to the plaintiffs’ assessed valuations in Nos. 12323 and 12324.
Second, the essential questions in these cases are of law, not of fact. These questions have been resolved adversely to plaintiffs.
In People ex rel. Thompson v. Property Tax Appeal Board, 22 Ill.App. 3d 316, 317 N.E.2d 121 , the Appeal Board had contended the plaintiff there had failed to meet her burden of proof to overcome the presumption that the assessed valuation was correct. The appellate court found this erroneous view of the burden of proof issue did not require a reversal and remandment. Similarly, in Pratt v. Davis, 224 Ill. 300 , 79 N.E. 562 , the trial court’s erroneous ruling on the burden of proof was harmless error in light of the pleadings arid evidence when considered under the correct propositions of law.
The record discloses that the results reached below will be repeated upon remand. Therefore, the error concerning the burden of proof was harmless.