Source or prior law:

L. 1862, ch. 198, § 3; L. 1866, ch. 118, § 12; G.S. 1868, ch. 107, § 15.

Cross References to Related Sections:

Valuation and assessment of real property, see also, 79-411.

Law Review and Bar Journal References:

Discussing uniform and equal assessment in survey of law of taxation, Leslie T. Tupy, 12 K.L.R. 333, 341 (1963).

"Kansas Ad Valorem Property Tax Relief—A Current Review," Bruce F. Landeck, 49 J.K.B.A. 269, 270 (1980).

Attorney General's Opinions:

Factors for determining fair market value of property. 80-82.

Rules for valuing property; duty to view and inspect real property. 82-7.

Powers and duties of county appraisers; removal from office. 82-270.

Oil and gas property as personalty; property held by federal land bank exempt from taxation. 86-16.

Classification of property; constitutionality. 90-10.

Valuation of property in year following reduction on appeal; effect of K.S.A. 79-1460. 95-71.

Valuation of real property; change in value without physical inspection. 96-81.

CASE ANNOTATIONS

1. Method of valuation of personal property for assessment and taxation. Standfield v. Boyd, 10 Kan. App. 265, 272, 62 P. 721.

2. Effect of illegal agreement among assessors as to valuations. Adams v. Beman, Treasurer, 10 Kan. 37; Challis v. Rigg, 49 Kan. 119, 130, 30 P. 190.

3. Cases of Adams v. Beman and Challis v. Riggs, distinguished. C. B. & Q. Rld. Co. v. Comm'rs of Atchison Co., 54 Kan. 781, 787, 39 P. 1039.

4. Improper valuation; collection of illegal excess restrained by injunction. C. B. & Q. Rld. Co. v. Comm'rs of Atchison Co., 54 Kan. 781, 787, 39 P. 1039.

5. Rule for valuing capital stock of corporation considered. Gas Co. v. Spaeth, 83 Kan. 191, 195, 109 P. 785.

6. Assessor competent to testify to value of real property. Hamilton v. Railway Co., 95 Kan. 353, 355, 148 P. 648.

7. Life annuity contract not taxable or subject to valuation under this action. Wellman v. Jewell County Comm'rs, 122 Kan. 229, 232, 252 P. 193.

8. Cited in upholding validity of assessment of real property. Reber v. Neibling, 138 Kan. 331, 335, 26 P.2d 269.

9. Court cannot fix valuation; can only determine whether valuation arbitrarily or unreasonably made. Hanzlick v. Republic County Comm'rs, 159 Kan. 667, 88 P.2d 1111.

10. Valuation of real property not determined only by its net return. Miller Investment Co. v. Sedgwick County Comm'rs, 151 Kan. 246, 249, 98 P.2d 109.

11. Section mentioned; method of valuing surface when minerals separated held illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory. Hitch Land & Cattle Co. v. Board of County Commissioners, 179 Kan. 357, 361, 364, 295 P.2d 640.

12. Action to enjoin collection of taxes; constructive fraud; petition sufficient. Anderson v. Dunn, 180 Kan. 811, 814, 308 P.2d 154.

13. Petition to recover protested taxes sufficiently alleged fraud in making unequal assessments. Kansas City Southern Rly. Co. v. Board of County Comm'rs, 183 Kan. 675, 677, 679, 331 P.2d 899.

14. Where state board of equalization approves assessment it is essential party to action to enjoin tax collection. Builders, Inc. v. Board of County Commissioners, 191 Kan. 379, 381, 381 P.2d 527.

15. Taxpayer's property assessed at 30 percent of value, other property in county at 12 percent; assessment fraudulent and invalid. Addington v. Board of County Commissioners, 191 Kan. 528, 530, 382 P.2d 315.

16. Validity of assessment at less than true value discussed. Pleasant v. Missouri, Kansas, Texas R. Co., 66 F.2d 842, 846.

17. Purpose of act; fair and equitable value of property for taxation. Board of County Commissioners v. Brookover, 198 Kan. 70, 71, 77, 422 P.2d 906.

18. Assessment and valuation of property are administrative in character; absent evidence that assessment was arrived at fraudulently, arbitrarily or capriciously, a difference of opinion as to value doesn't warrant judicial interference. Cities Service Oil Co. v. Murphy, 202 Kan. 282, 285, 291, 293, 447 P.2d 791.

19. Assessment of personal property at 30% of justifiable value and real property at 21% in the same county is grossly discriminatory. Burton v. Jones, 202 Kan. 435, 439, 449 P.2d 551.

20. Assessment schedules of property valuation director failed to consider factors prescribed by K.S.A. 79-503; invalid. Garvey Grain, Inc. v. MacDonald, 203 Kan. 1, 4, 9, 10, 453 P.2d 59.

21. Cited in holding that assessment of oil and gas properties at statutory rate, while real estate was knowingly assessed by the same officials at fourteen percent, was so grossly discriminatory and oppressive as to constitute constructive fraud. Beardmore v. Ling, 203 Kan. 803, 805, 457 P.2d 117.

22. Cited in consideration of scope of review as to assessment of property taxes. McManaman v. Board of County Commissioners, 205 Kan. 118, 123, 124, 468 P.2d 243.

23. Cited in determining if valuation was unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious. Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co. v. Dwyer, 207 Kan. 417, 420, 421, 485 P.2d 149. Affirmed: 208 Kan. 304, 491 P.2d 961.

24. Valuation order of state board of tax appeals is administrative matter and is final, absent showing order is arbitrary, unreasonable or fraudulent. Northern Natural Gas Co. v. Dwyer, 208 Kan. 337, 355, 492 P.2d 147.

25. Valuation of interstate gas pipeline and distribution property considered. Northern Natural Gas Co. v. Dwyer, 208 Kan. 337, 355, 492 P.2d 147.

26. Ratio study reflects relationship of assessed value to sale price, not assessed value to justifiable value for tax purposes and fails to establish discrimination in valuation. Northern Natural Gas Co. v. Williams, 208 Kan. 407, 414, 419, 423, 493 P.2d 568.

27. Provisions reviewed; assessment and valuation of public utility property under K.S.A. 79-5a04 by tax appeals board approved. Mobil Pipeline Co. v. Rohmiller, 214 Kan. 905, 925, 522 P.2d 923.

28. Actual view and inspection requirement hereunder met by county appraiser. Defenders of the Christian Faith, Inc. v. Sedgwick County Assessor, 227 Kan. 97, 100, 605 P.2d 122.

29. Statute cited; provisions of K.S.A. 79-342 declared unconstitutional as violative of article 11, sec. 1 of Kansas Constitution. State ex rel. Stephan v. Martin, 227 Kan. 456, 458, 608 P.2d 880.

30. Assessment and taxation of common areas in planned unit development not double taxation to individual lot owner; such areas not without fair market value. Quivira Falls Community Ass'n v. Johnson County, 230 Kan. 350, 354, 357, 634 P.2d 1115 (1981).

31. Considered in denying petition of attorney general for writ of quo warranto to prevent utilization of K.S.A. 79-331 and challenging constitutionality thereof. State ex rel. Stephan v. Martin, 230 Kan. 747, 754, 641 P.2d 1011 (1982).

32. Considered in holding K.S.A. 79-343, relating to assessment of farm machinery and equipment, unconstitutional and void; quo warranto granted. State ex rel. Stephan v. Martin, 230 Kan. 759, 767, 777, 641 P.2d 1020 (1982).

33. Cited in holding that valuation of land was arbitrary and discriminatory. Board of Johnson County Comm'rs v. Greenhaw, 241 Kan. 119, 124, 734 P.2d 1125 (1987).

34. Cited; allegations regarding illegal or void valuations or assessments of real property prohibited before exhausting administrative remedies examined. Board of Osage County Comm'rs v. Schmidt, 12 Kan. App. 2d 812, 813, 758 P.2d 254 (1988).

35. Methods of valuation of real property for tax purposes that meet uniform and equal basis requirements examined. In re Tax Appeal of Andrews, 18 Kan. App. 2d 311, 316, 851 P.2d 1027 (1993).

36. Whether BOTA failed to determine highest and best use for parimutuel track examined. Sunflower Racing, Inc. v. Board of Wyandotte County Comm'rs, 256 Kan. 426, 444, 885 P.2d 1233 (1994).

37. Whether developer's discount method of property valuation violated statutory tax scheme examined. Hixon v. Lario Enterprises, Inc., 19 Kan. App. 2d 643, 646, 653, 875 P.2d 297 (1994); aff'd, as modified, 257 Kan. 377, 381, 383, 892 P.2d 507 (1995).

38. Valuation of real property used for residential purposes. Board of Douglas County Comm'rs v. Cashatt, 23 Kan. App. 2d 532, 540, 541, 543, 933 P.2d 167 (1997).

39. Property valuation division use of post valuation data from next tax year quarter for personal property assessment held invalid. Board of Ness County Comm'rs v. Bankoff Oil Co., 24 Kan. App. 2d 532, 539, 949 P.2d 628 (1997).

40. Oil lease experiencing production decline late in year previous to assessment properly valued by consideration of post-January production data. Board of Ness County Commr's v. Bankoff Oil Co., 265 Kan. 525, 538, 960 P.2d 1279 (1998).

41. Highest and best use of property was for operation of a casino; fair market value of a property is based on its highest and best use. In re Equalization Appeal of Kansas Star Casino, 52 Kan. App. 2d 50, 57, 58, 362 P.3d 1109 (2015).