holding that not scheduling a protest hearing 20 was unconstitutional, after property owners had paid their taxes “under protest” and timely filed for a protest hearing
How later courts described this case
- holding that not scheduling a protest hearing 20 was unconstitutional, after property owners had paid their taxes “under protest” and timely filed for a protest hearing
- holding that not scheduling a protest hearing was unconstitutional, after property owners had paid their taxes “under protest” and timely filed for a protest hearing
- holding that appraisal district never acquired jurisdiction over the increase in value of the property where taxpayer filed a chapter 41 protest
- where property owner timely filed section-41.41 protest and ARB failed to schedule and notice hearing, there was no additional exhaustion requirement to protest under section 41.411
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
J. CURTISS BROWN, Chief Justice,
concurring.
I agree with the Court. However, a simple solution presents itself. Despite its failure to set the timely protest for hearing and give G.E. notice thereof the Board claims that G.E. failed to give notice under § 41.44(c):
A property owner who files a notice of protest authorized by Section 41.411 is entitled to a hearing and determination of the protest if he files the notice prior to the date the taxes on the property to which the notice applies becomes delinquent.
“ * * * the taxes on the property to which the notice applies ” never became delinquent. The taxes were timely paid under protest. Therefore the notice was timely filed under 41.44(c).