Attorney General Headshot

Attorney General Marty Jackley

Attorney General Seal

OFFICIAL OPINION NO. 69-35, Procedure for abatement of tax within a municipal corporation

STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA
OFFICE OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

April 9, 1969

Reed Hutchinson
State's Attorney, Beadle County
Huron, South Dakota 57350

OFFICIAL OPINION NO. 69-35

Procedure for abatement of tax within a municipal corporation

Dear Mr. Hutchinson:

You have asked my official opinion as to the correct procedure to be followed when a taxpayer desires to have an abatement of taxes on property which is located within a municipality. You have referred to SDC 57.0803 and SDC 57.0806 in making such request.

SDC 57.0803, as applicable to this inquiry, describes general procedures for accomplishing an abatement when authorized by SDC 57.0802 and provides that the applicant shall ask the board of county commissioners to grant the relief required or permitted by law. This, however, is modified by the last paragraph of the said section which says, “... No tax on property within a municipal corporation or poll tax shall be abated without the approval of the governing body of said municipal corporation, duly filed with said application . . ."

SDC 57.0806 requires that in the case where concurrence of a municipality in the granting of abatement or refund is required, that is under those conditions set forth in the last paragraph of SDC 57.0804, the action of municipality shall be certified to and filed with the county auditor of the county within thirty days after application for such concurrence shall have been filed with the clerk or presiding officer of the governing body of such municipality.

Inasmuch as the county commissioners are finally empowered to grant such relief, SDC 57.0803, the concurrence of the municipal governing body should precede the consideration and approval or rejection by the county commissioners. If the municipality refuses concurrence, it is necessary for the county to schedule a hearing for the municipality and the applicant. It would seem impractical to hold a hearing on the application at the time it was filed and thereafter send the same down to the municipal governing body with the possibility that it might be returned disapproved, which would necessitate a second hearing on the same subject.

Respectfully submitted,

Gordon Mydland
Attorney General