WPC )q(|%ffbJ-jRB, -s~!limdBcgc/u>K5xxZb%9/y>@xc94|+芦]' ֧ x)/1Oj6g5hb}N#@f t P+ҟɓӇ#3RB ]QD7@xPE!aBΫsqXDBhUCazR0W:Tfb#\ % ^ # 0/ U N w 4 z  i x mz   _ %  U@NEb 0 B 0 D3 D- 0K   AST 0m 0D AUHP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5e,,,,0) (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular}|)bk1G C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xU Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(I Z(Times New Roman - -(|G2z $ !.8_dd8         0  M d(|3$ !.8_dd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$ !.8_dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8X}dd8     _X}8XXdd8   @ X}X}ñX}INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE & #X}ñ+#XXX} #X}XX#  INTHEMATTEROFALLASSESSMENTS,REVIEWOFADVALOREM 8 ASSESSMENTSOFPUBLICUTILITYCOMPANIESFORTAXYEAR L 1998   ` @* @*AV) ` dE<I ` A߈ J  @i i XXX}No.M1998000243SCR11CV#X}XX#ԀXXX}FiledDecember8,2000#X}XX#Ԉ m  AV) ` dE<` A    XXX}@   OPINIONONPETITIONTOREHEAR #X}XX#XXX}Ԉ   #X}XX#XXX}#X}XX}#XXX}  ShelbyCountyandWilliamsonCountyhavefiledapetitionforrehearing,pursuanttoRule R 39ofTenn.RulesofAppellateProcedure,regardingthisCourtsNovember16,2000opinioninthis > matter.Thepetitionindicatesthatthosepartieshavemisconstruedourholding.Inouropinion,we *z dealtonlywithamatteroflawandnotwithfactualissues. f   TheCourtofAppealshaddeterminedthattheStateBoardofEqualizationhadnolegal > authorityfortheactionithadtaken.TheCourtofAppealsconcludedinitsopinionthat, Wesimply * findnoauthorizationfortheBoardtoreducetheevaluationoftaxablepropertybelowthefairmarket  valueofthepropertyabsentlegislativeauthorizationtodoso.Wehavefoundnolegislative  authorization.Howevercommendable,theactionofBoardinfurtheringthepurposeoffairnessand  equity,wecannotfindlegaljustificationfortheaction.(emphasisadded)    AswestatedinourNovember16,2000opinion, Theissuepresentedinthiscaseiswhether b! theTennesseeStateBoardofEqualization...hasthelegalauthoritytograntareductioninthe N"  appraised(andthereforeassessed)valueoftangiblepersonalpropertyownedbypublicutility :#! companies.(emphasisadded).OurresponsetothesoleissuepresentedtothisCourtwasstatedby &$v" usasfollow: %b # 8  8`    WeholdthattheBoardofEqualizationdoeshavethelegal &:"% authority,aspartoftheequalizationprocess,toreducetheappraised '&#& value(andtheassessedvalue)ofcentrallyassessedpublicutility ($' property.Suchareductionisanappropriateremedywherethe )$( reductioncausestheappraisedvalueofsuchcentrallyassessed *%) personalpropertywithineachlocaltaxjurisdictiontobearthesame +&*  ratiotofairmarketvalueasobtainsforthepersonalpropertywithin r,'+ suchlocaljurisdictionthatisappraisedandassessedbylocaltaxing  authorities.(emphasisadded)` x` x    WhethertheBoardsexerciseofitsconstitutionalandlegislativeauthorityhadtheresult t describedabove(i.e.,theequalizationofsuchratios),andwasthereforeaproperexerciseofsuch ` authority,isafactualissuethatwasnotaddressedinourNovember16,2000opinion.Underour L  interpretationoftheCourtofAppealsopinion,itisunclearwhetherthatCourtreachedaconclusion 8  onwhethertheBoardsactionhadinfactproducedanequalizationofsuchratios. $ t   ThepetitionforrehearingsubmittedonbehalfofShelbyCountyandWilliamsonCountyis  L  denied.  8    WemodifyourNovember16,2000opinionandjudgmentorderandherebyorderthatthis   caseisremandedtotheCourtofAppealsforthatCourttodeterminewhethertheBoardsactionin   reducingtheappraisedvalueofpublicutilitytangiblepersonalpropertyfortaxyear1998causedthe   ratioofsuchpropertysappraisedvaluetoitsfairmarketvaluetobeequaltosuchratiofortangible   personalpropertywithineachlocaljurisdictionthatisappraisedandassessedbylocaltaxing p authorities. \    `     h      p PERCURIAM