|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
Copyright 1999 Chicago Sun-Times November 19, 1999 SECTION: EDT; Pg. 51 LENGTH: 669 words BYLINE: Raymond R. Coffey Last April 16, the Cook County Board of (Tax) Review had 133 lawyers scheduled for property tax appeal hearings in 2,788 cases. Figuring on a seven-hour business day, that comes to just more than 398 hearings per hour. On April 15, the board scheduled 995 hearings for individual taxpayers in pro se (representing themselves without an attorney) property tax appeals. That comes to about 142 hearings per hour. Those heavy case loads are not atypical of the hearing schedules posted regularly on a bulletin board outside the board's office in the County Building. Appeals are dealt with first by 10 to 15 board employees, who double as filing clerks to check and stamp case documents and then as hearing officers. Cases then are passed on for review to about 30 staff "analysts" who, with the three-member board of commissioners, decide who gets a tax reduction and who doesn't. Property tax collections have nearly doubled in the last 10 years ? from about $4.2 billion in 1989 to about $7.9 billion this year. No tax inspires more angst and anger locally. For three weeks, I've been looking into the appeals process, talking with and hearing from current and former board employees, tax lawyers, and taxpayers. And what seems most evident about the appeals process is that taxpayers get short shrift in terms of time and attention to make their case for an assessment reduction and consequent tax cut. The appeals season runs generally from mid-December to July 1 and the board usually handles 75,000 to 90,000 cases annually. It sets aside days and times for individual pro se taxpayers and reserved "attorney days" for tax lawyers representing taxpayers. Given the heavy case loads, the appeals process often resembles, as a former board analyst puts it, "a cattle call, a circus" in which a hearing becomes an under-one-minute "blur" and out you go. Last month, Alfredo N. Rodriguez, who had filed appeals on his two suburban Hickory Hill properties, wrote me a letter about his experience at the board: "I was well prepared for the hearing, but when I went inside the room, I found five or six officers in some type of bench, just like judges listening. The (officer) in front of me did not look at my papers, he did not take any notes, did not make any comments, and at the end of my presentation he proceeded to place my papers on one side." "I asked him if he had any questions regarding the appeal and he replied "no. In the event that he only listens to 12 cases per hour, 96 cases per day, I wonder how at the end of the workday he can remember anything that he has heard. Is this what we deserve as taxpayers?" What I am wondering is how many other property taxpayers are asking the same question. The hearing accorded Mr. Rodriquez was only Round One of his farcical ordeal. The board rejected his appeal. With help from a private tax consultant, Rodriguez refilled at the assessor's office and won two Certificates of Error. He went back to board, which can approve or reject the assessor's findings, and was granted a full refund on one certificate. But the board rejected the second certificate because the name of the consultant appeared on it. The consultant represented Mr. Rodriguez only with the assessor's office ? which is both legal and common ? and not with the board. Nonetheless, the board, which allows only attorneys to represent appellants, almost automatically rejects any appeal it sees as coming from a consultant. In fact, it uses a confidential code "Q" to signal such cases are to be rejected out of hand. So, Rodriquez had to go back to the assessor again and was required to sign an affidavit that he had severed his relationship with the consultant. Only then did the board reverse itself and grant the second refund. "I have to conclude," Rodriquez wrote to me, "that in our political process certain names raise a red flag" for the board to "find excuses not to do what is legal and proper." More to come on the board and way it works. CFAT News Source news@fairtaxes.net Review Board Works In Mysterious Ways |
