ÿWPCº h›^ó Jï?ÇJ.&IÙ‚8îSG ›ŠT ‰£ç'8û–2ÇÔ; ‚RI²Êñ‚¨FL¿(Ö´±ÏRªLÏ@+H™‘¤\üìvðJĆB-á§YNÚí’M»M ñé„ôåm­®Ä90ˆñü¾ÎÊè Qk¾t,¨)^‹ Õü’²Zü)ø.eJJšÌí±-˃B#ÑW)7†²àî¼ÃT¯°kß©P ƹœj V}@öZcÅ»s.Äæ÷Ñ1’å¡z’ŸûÅÁ'Òhj®æG$Vßå’>–ü?@L'F‹¨ßó-i7ÎãÿóÀ )¡ßÌ6ˆ´ó½â)ýöÛ(tIä0YtÛÛWËߌ"ß"ÆTÏ` <¨,Øô^ð@rE¢æL³7U ÊáI_§?þʃ$·ùùÒoßáªe¹áNêI»úÒc½>]Çý¿+ïŒjÐw敎Üå0³¡_ï+!¬ùŒægüP© þð+ëˆ2ýA><‚&;·U´sšÆBL]5$ š¤€º–º,à*¡EØToj=ÃçëP¦Þ!oséˆÚ´©ÿ’ y0y÷‡{Î’‹±X¤ÏyÀ‘Êá–Qÿb;Ô„~Û˜AÐ4ÞQ/,b#Á\ % # 0ˆ+ U N³ ^  w z Ò‹ 4] q € m‚ Æ™ Æ_ Æ% Æë ±NÇU@É 0¤ E­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­b¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ 0ë···· B¢¢ 0¤¿ D3c D-– 0KÃà ASÆa 0¤' 0DË A«˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5eÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0» (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular@Ÿp)  ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt-vn)¢Ø+003|x ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 Ñ ° Ñ(ÆúI Z‹(Times New Roman (|3‡Ž$§§Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Gå»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý- ù-(|G2 $¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Gå»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôðMò»»Ô d(|3‡Ž$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Gå»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3‡Ž$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Gå»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Gå»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ„°ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼Gå»»»ÔÑ8€9XXdì»»d8ÑÔ€¼Gå»»¼GåÔÑ€OYÑà@Ï Ï ìàTHE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEˆà0 x àЄx(#x(# Ðà@§§$ìàAT€NASHVILLEˆÐ – ÐÓ  ÓOctober€4,€2000€SessionÐ ¨$ ÐÔ‡X9X»¼GåÔÌò òÔ#†¼Gå»XX9#ÔIn€the€Matter€Of€All€Assessments,€Review€of€Ad€Valorem€Assessments€ofÐ ¦" ÐPublic€Utility€Companies€for€Tax€Year€1998òòóóÔ‡X9X»¼GåÔó óÐ º6 ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€by€Permission€from€the€Court€of€Appeals,€Middle€SectionÐ º 6 ÐTennessee€State€Board€of€EqualizationÐ ¦ " ÐRiley€C.€Ô_ÔDarnellÔ_Ô,€Presiding€MemberÐ ’   ÐÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<i` AßÐ jæ  ÐÌà@@øøìàNo.€M1998„00243„SC„R11„CVÔ#†¼Gå»XX9Ð#ÔÔ‡X9X»¼GåÔ€„€Filed€November€16,€Ô_Ô2000Ô_ÔÐ eá  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<<` Aßó óÓÓÔ#†¼Gå»XX9º#ÔÐ =¹  ÐÌÓ  ÓòòóóÔ€X9X»¼GåÔÓÓThis€Court€granted€the€applications€for€permission€to€appeal€submitted€on€behalf€of€the€TennesseeÐ û ÐBoard€of€Equalization€and€certain€public€utility€companies.€€The€purpose€of€our€grant€was€to€considerÐ kç Ðwhether€the€Court€of€Appeals€erred€in€determining€that€the€Board€of€Equalization€had€exceeded€itsÐ WÓ Ðauthority€in€granting€a€reduction€in€the€assessed€value€of€certain€centrally„assessed€public€utilityÐ C¿ Ðtangible€personal€property€for€tax€year€1998.€We€hold€that€the€Board€of€Equalization€does€have€theÐ /« Ðlegal€authority,€as€part€of€the€equalization€process,€to€reduce€the€appraised€value€(and€the€assessedÐ — Ðvalue)€of€centrally„assessed€public€utility€property.€€Such€a€reduction€is€an€appropriate€remedy€whereÐ ƒ Ðthe€reduction€causes€the€appraised€value€of€such€centrally„assessed€personal€property€within€eachÐ óo Ðlocal€tax€jurisdiction€to€bear€the€same€ratio€to€fair€market€value€as€obtains€for€€the€personal€propertyÐ ß[ Ðwithin€such€local€jurisdiction€that€is€appraised€and€assessed€by€local€taxing€authorities.€The€judgmentÐ ËG Ðof€the€Court€of€Appeals€is€reversed,€and€this€case€is€remanded€to€the€Tennessee€Board€ofÐ ·3 ÐEqualization€for€further€proceedings€consistent€with€this€opinion.Ð £ ÐÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€11€Application€for€Permission€to€Appeal;€Reversed€and€Remanded.òòó óÐ {÷  ÐÌFrank€F.€Drowota,€III,€Jóó.,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€whichòòóó€òòRiley€Anderson,€C.€J.,óóÐ S!Ï" ÐòòAdolpho€A.€Birch,€Jr.,óó€òòJanice€M.€Holder,óó€and€òòWilliam€M.€Barker,€JJ.,óó€joined.Ð ?"»# ÐÌAttorney€General€Paul€G.€Summers€and€Jimmy€G.€Ô_ÔCreecyÔ_Ô,€Chief€Special€Counsel,€Office€of€theÐ $“ % ÐAttorney€General,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€appellant,€Tennessee€State€Board€of€Equalization.Ð %!& ÐÌJames€W.€McBride,€Washington,€D.€C.,€Stephen€D.€Goodwin,€Memphis,€Tennessee,€and€Brigid€T.Ð Û&W#( ÐMiller,€Nashville,€Tennessee€for€intervenors/appellants,€Coalition€of€Certain€Utilities.Ð Ç'C$) ÐÌT.€Arthur€Scott,€Jr.€and€Suzanne€S.€Cook,€Kingsport,€Tennessee,€for€intervenors/appellants,Ð Ÿ)&+ ÐAppalachian€Power€Company€and€Kingsport€Power€Company.Ð ‹*', Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àÌJames€L.€Charles€and€Paul€Ô_ÔKrivackaÔ_Ô,€Nashville,€Tennessee€for€appellee,€The€MetropolitanÐ c,ß(. ÐGovernment€of€Nashville€and€Davidson€County.Ð O-Ë)/ý ÐÑOYÑâ âѰ„Ñâ âÑ  ÑJeffrey€D.€Ô_ÔMoseleyÔ_Ô,€Franklin,€Tennessee,€Ô_ÔDonnieÔ_Ô€E.€Wilson,€Memphis,€Tennessee,€Robert€B.Ð ° ÐÔ_ÔRolwingÔ_Ô,€Memphis,€Tennessee,€and€Jean€Dyer€Harrison,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€appellees,€ShelbyÐ œì Ðand€Williamson€Counties.€Ð ˆØ ÐÓ¸ÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÐ `° ÐÌòòóóÓ  Óà@Ñ Ñ ìàòòò òFactual€and€Procedural€Backgroundó óóóˆÐ 8 ˆ Ðà  àThe€issue€presented€in€this€case€is€whether€the€Tennessee€State€Board€of€EqualizationÐ $ t Ð(ð ðBoard€of€Equalizationðð)€has€the€legal€authority€to€grant€a€reduction€in€the€appraised€(and€thereforeÐ  ` Ðassessed)€value€of€tangible€personal€property€owned€by€public€utility€companies.€€The€applicants€areÐ ü L  Ðthe€Board€of€Equalization€and€certain€public€utility€companies€(airlines,€railroads,€truckingÐ è 8  Ðcompanies,€power€companies,€etc.)€the€tangible€personal€property€of€which€is€appraised€forÐ Ô$  ÐTennessee€property€tax€purposes€pursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€€67„5„1301€et€€seq.€€In€accordanceÐ À  Ðwith€this€statute,€public€utilitiesðð€tangible€personal€property€as€well€as€their€real€property€is€appraisedÐ ¬ü  Ðfirst€by€the€Comptroller€of€the€Treasury€and€then€by€the€Board€of€Equalization.Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àMost€tangible€personal€property€used€in€business€is€appraised€and€assessed€for€Tennessee€taxÐ pÀ Ðproperty€purposes€by€the€county€taxing€authorities€in€the€counties€where€the€owners€of€such€propertyÐ \¬ Ðdo€business.€€Pursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€ðð€67„5„901,€òòet€seq.óó,€industrial€and€commercial€taxpayersÐ H˜ Ðmust€annually€file€a€schedule€on€which€they€list€the€tangible€personal€property€they€use€in€theirÐ 4„ Ðbusinesses.€€Section€67„5„903(f)€contains€a€schedule€of€allowable€rates€of€depreciation€forÐ  p Ðcommercial€and€industrial€tangible€personal€property.€€The€public€utility€companies€involved€in€thisÐ  \ Ðcase€do€not€use€the€depreciation€schedule€set€forth€in€ðð€67„5„903(f).€€These€utilities€contend€that€theÐ øH Ðrates€of€depreciation€in€the€ðð€67„5„903(f)€schedule€systematically€cause€locally€assessed€industrialÐ ä4 Ðand€commercial€tangible€personal€property€to€be€valued€significantly€below€the€fair€market€value€ofÐ Ð  Ðsuch€industrial€and€commercial€property,€and€below€the€appraised€value€of€comparable€public€utilityÐ ¼  Ðtangible€personal€property.Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àFor€the€taxable€year€involved€in€this€case,€1998,€the€Comptroller€of€the€TreasuryÐ €Ð Ð(ð ðComptrollerðð)€accredited€the€factual€assertions€made€by€the€public€utility€companies€regarding€theÐ l¼ Ðrelative€appraisals€of€public€utility€tangible€personal€property€versus€industrial€and€commercialÐ X ¨ Ðtangible€personal€property.€€On€August€3,€1998,€the€Comptroller€notified€public€utility€companiesÐ D!” Ðdoing€business€in€this€state€that€their€1998€tangible€personal€property€assessments€would€reflect€aÐ 0"€  Ð15%€reduction€in€evaluation.€€This€adjustment€was€made€in€an€effort€to€equalize€the€ratio€ofÐ #l! Ðappraised€value€to€fair€market€value€of€public€utility€tangible€personal€property€to€the€comparableÐ $X" Ðratio€for€industrial€and€commercial€tangible€personal€property.€€Upon€receiving€notice€of€this€15%Ð ô$D # Ðreduction€for€public€utility€property,€the€county€taxing€authorities€for€Davidson€County,€ShelbyÐ à%0!$ ÐCounty,€and€Williamson€County,€pursuant€to€Tennessee€Code€Ann.€ðð€67„5„1327(b),€filed€exceptionsÐ Ì&"% Ðwith€the€Comptroller€€and€objected€to€the€reduction€in€the€appraised€value€of€public€utility€tangibleÐ ¸'#& Ðpersonal€property€for€1998.Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌà  àThe€Comptroller,€pursuant€to€ðð€67„5„1327(c),€certified€the€reduced€appraisals€of€public€utilityÐ |*Ì%) Ðtangible€personal€property€for€1998€to€the€Board€of€Equalization.€€The€three€county€taxing€authoritiesÐ h+¸&* Ðreferred€to€the€exceptions€mentioned€above€with€the€Board€of€Equalization.€€Following€a€hearing,Ð ° Ðthe€Board€issued€a€final€decision€and€order€in€which€it€upheld€the€15%€reduction€in€the€appraisedÐ œì Ðvalue€of€public€utility€tangible€personal€property€for€1998.Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àThe€taxing€authorities€for€Davidson,€Shelby,€and€Williamson€counties,€pursuant€to€Tenn.Ð `° ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€4„5„322(b)(1)€and€Tennessee€Rule€of€Appellate€Procedure€12,€filed€a€petition€forÐ L œ Ðjudicial€review€of€the€Board€of€Equalizationððs€decision€directly€with€the€Court€of€Appeals€for€theÐ 8 ˆ ÐMiddle€Section.Ð $ t ÐÌà  àIn€dealing€with€the€only€issue€that€it€found€to€be€involved€in€the€petition€for€judicial€review,Ð ü L  Ðthe€Court€of€Appeals€held€as€follows:€€ð ðWe€simply€find€no€authorization€for€the€Board€to€reduce€theÐ è 8  Ðevaluation€of€taxable€property€below€the€fair€market€value€of€the€property€absent€legislativeÐ Ô$  Ðauthorization€to€do€so.€€We€have€found€no€legislative€authorization.€€However€commendable€theÐ À  Ðaction€of€the€Board€in€furthering€the€purpose€of€fairness€and€equity,€we€can€not€find€legalÐ ¬ü  Ðjustification€for€the€action.ðð€€For€the€reasons€set€forth€below€we€hold€that€there€is€such€legislativeÐ ˜è  Ðauthorization.Ð „Ô  ÐÌÌòòà@‚‚&ìàò òAnalysisóóó óˆÐ H˜ Ðà  àPrior€to€an€amendment€that€was€adopted€in€1972€and€became€effective€on€January€1,€1973,Ð 4„ ÐArticle€II,€ðð€28€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution€included€the€following€provisions€regarding€theÐ  p Ðtaxation€of€property:Ð  \ ÐÌà8  àAll€property,€real,€personal€or€mixed,€shall€be€taxed,€.€.€.€All€property€shall€be€taxedÐ ä4 Ðaccording€to€its€value,€.€.€.€€No€one€species€of€property€from€which€a€tax€may€beÐ Ð  Ðcollected€shall€be€taxed€higher€than€any€other€species€of€property€of€the€same€value.м Ð Ð  ÐÌBased€on€this€pre„1973€version€of€Article€II,€ðð€28€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution,€the€Supreme€CourtÐ ”ä Ðrendered€its€decision€in€òòCarroll€v.€Ô_ÔAlsupÔ_Ôóó,€107€Tenn.€257,€64€Ô_ÔS.W.Ô_Ô€193€(1901).€€In€that€case€an€ownerÐ €Ð Ðof€real€property€in€Shelby€County€paid€property€taxes€under€protest€and€sued€for€a€refund.€€TheÐ l¼ Ðtaxpayer€contended€that€his€property€was€assessed€at€90%€of€its€value,€whereas€other€pieces€ofÐ X ¨ Ðsurrounding€€property€were€assessed€at€75%,€60%,€and€40%€of€their€respective€values.€€In€denyingÐ D!” Ðrelief€to€the€taxpayer,€this€Court€òòóóstated:Ð 0"€  ÐÌà8  àWe€have€therefore€in€the€present€case€a€property€owner,€who€confesses€that€hisÐ $X" Ðproperty€is€assessed€at€less€than€its€actual€value,€complaining€because,€in€his€opinion,Ð ô$D # Ðhis€neighborsðð€property€is€assessed€at€a€still€lower€evaluation.€€It€is€no€ground€forÐ à%0!$ Ðrelief€for€him;€nor€can€any€taxpayer€be€heard€to€complain€of€€his€assessments,€whenÐ Ì&"% Ðit€is€below€the€actual€cash€value€of€the€property,€on€the€ground€that€his€neighborsððÐ ¸'#& Ðproperty€is€assessed€at€a€lesser€percentage€of€its€true€or€actual€value€than€his€own.€Ð ¤(ô#' ÐWhen€he€comes€into€court€asking€relief€of€€his€own€assessment,€he€must€be€able€toÐ )à$( Ðallege€and€show€that€his€property€is€assessed€at€more€than€its€actual€cash€value.€Ð |*Ì%) ÐòòCarrollóó,€107€Tenn.€at€291„92,€64€Ô_ÔS.W.Ô_Ô€at€201„02.Ðh+¸&*Ð Ð  Їà  àAs€amended,€effective€as€of€January€1,€1973,€Article€II,€ðð€28€of€Ð ° Ðthe€Tennessee€Constitution€now€states:Ð œì ÐÌà8  àIn€accordance€with€the€following€provisions,€all€property€real,€personal€or€mixed€shallÐ tÄ Ðbe€subject€to€taxation,€.€.€.€Ð`°Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àòòThe€ratio€of€assessment€to€value€of€property€in€each€classóó€òòor€subclass€shall€be€equalÐ 8 ˆ Ðand€uniform€throughout€the€State,€the€value€and€definition€of€property€in€each€classÐ $ t Ðor€subclass€to€be€ascertained€in€such€manner€as€the€Legislature€shall€directóó.€€EachÐ  ` Ðrespective€taxing€authority€shall€apply€the€same€tax€rate€to€all€property€within€itsÐ ü L  Ðjurisdiction.€(emphasis€added).Ðè 8 Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àThis€amendment€to€Article€II,€ðð€28€also€divided€property€ð ðfor€purposes€of€taxation,ðð€into€ð ðrealÐ À  Ðproperty,€tangible€personal€property€and€intangible€personal€property.ðð€€Tangible€personal€propertyÐ ¬ü  Ðwas€further€divided€into€subclassifications€as€follows:Ð ˜è  ÐÌà8  àTangible€Personal€Property€shall€be€divided€into€three€(3)€subclassifications€andÐ pÀ Ðassessed€as€follows:Ð\¬Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àÐ ` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(a)€Public€Utility€Property,€to€be€assessed€at€fifty„five€(55%)€percentÐ 4„ Ðof€its€value;€Ð p` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(b)€Industrial€and€Commercial€Property,€to€be€assessed€at€thirty€(30%)Ð  \ Ðpercent€of€its€value;€andÐøH` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(c)€All€other€Tangible€Personal€Property,€to€be€assessed€at€five€(5%)Ð ä4 Ðpercent€of€its€value;€provided,€however,€that€the€Legislature€shallÐ Ð  Ðexempt€Seven€Thousand€Five€Hundred€($7,500)€Dollars€worth€ofÐ ¼  Ðsuch€Tangible€Personal€Property€which€shall€cover€personalÐ ¨ø Ðhousehold€goods€and€furnishings,€wearing€apparel€and€other€suchÐ ”ä Ðtangible€property€in€the€hands€of€a€taxpayer.ЀÐ` x` x ÐÌà  àBased€on€this€constitutional€amendment,€the€General€Assembly€enacted€the€followingÐ X ¨ Ðlegislation,€which€is€currently€codified€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€67„5„901(a):Ð D!” Ðà0  àà ° àà8(#(#àÐ (#(# Ðà8  à(1)€Public€utility€property€shall€be€assessed€at€fifty„five€percent€(55%)€of€its€value;€Ð#l!Ð Ð  Ðà8  à(2)€Industrial€and€commercial€property€shall€be€assessed€at€thirty€percent€(30%)€ofÐ $X" Ðits€value;€andÐô$D #Ð Ð  Ðà8  à(3)(A)€All€other€tangible€personal€property€shall€be€assessed€at€five€€percent€(5%)€ofÐ à%0!$ Ðits€value,€òòexcept€that€for€the€purpose€of€taxation€under€this€chapter,€all€other€tangibleÐ Ì&"% Ðpersonal€property€shall€be€deemed€to€have€no€valueóó.€(emphasis€added).и'#&Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àIn€òòSherwood€Co.€v.€Claryóó,€734€S.W.2d€318€(Tenn.€1987),€this€Court€held€that€the€provisionÐ )à$( Ðâ âin€ðð€67„5„901(a)€stating€that€tangible€personal€property€other€than€public€utility€property,€industrialÐ |*Ì%) Ðproperty,€and€commercial€property€shall€be€deemed€to€have€no€value€did€not€violate€equal€protectionÐ ° Ðprinciples.€€The€Court€stated€its€rationale€as€follows:Ð œì Ðâ âÌà8  àThe€General€Assembly€concluded€that€no€appreciable€revenue€could€be€obtained€byÐ tÄ Ðan€attempt€to€tax€household€goods€and€chattels€or€other€non„business€tangibleÐ `° Ðpersonal€property.€€Such€property€often€does€not€generate€revenue€while€industrialÐ L œ Ðand€commercial€business€property€does€so.€Ð8 ˆÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  àGiven€the€fact€that€the€1972€amendment€exempted€the€entire€amount€of€individualÐ  ` Ðð ðpersonal€or€family€checking€or€savings€accountsðð€and€substantial€amounts€ofÐ ü L  Ðtangible€personal€property,€the€attempt€to€levy€€ad€valorem€taxes€upon€private€assetsÐ è 8  Ðof€individuals€not€used€in€commerce€or€industry€proved€futile€and€self„defeating.€Ð Ô$  ÐòòSherwoodóó,€734€S.W.2d€at€321.ÐÀ Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àOur€decision€in€òòSherwoodóó,€also€included€the€following€language:Ð ˜è  ÐÌà8  àAppellant€(which€was€an€owner€of€tangible€personal€property€used€in€its€business)Ð pÀ Ðpaid€its€tangible€personal€property€taxes€under€protest€and€sued€for€a€refund.€€It€isÐ \¬ Ðdoubtful€that€this€remedy€is€available€to€it€in€the€state€courts€under€the€leading€caseÐ H˜ Ðof€òòCarroll€v.€Ô_ÔAlsupÔ_Ôóó,€107€Tenn.€257,€64€Ô_ÔS.W.Ô_Ô€193€(1901).€€There€this€Court€held€thatÐ 4„ Ðif€a€taxpayer€was€unable€to€show€improper€assessment€of€his€own€property,€he€couldÐ  p Ðnot€seek€relief€simply€because€other€property€might€by€assessed€at€a€smallerÐ  \ Ðpercentage€of€its€true€or€actual€value€than€his€own.ÐøHÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  àAs€pointed€out€by€the€Court€of€Appeals€for€the€Sixth€Circuit€in€the€case€of€òòLouisvilleÐ Ð  Ð&€Nashville€Railroad€Company€v.€Public€Service€Commissionóó,€631€F.€2d€426,€(6thÐ ¼  ÐCir.€1980),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€450€U.€S.€959,€101€S.€Ct.€1418,€67€Ô_ÔL.EdÔ_Ô.2d€384€(1981),€thereÐ ¨ø Ðhas€been€little€departure€from€the€rule€of€the€òòCarrollóó€case€òòsupraóó,€in€the€state€courts.€Ð ”ä ÐòòIdóó.€at€319.ЀÐÐ Ð  ÐÌà  àAs€explained€in€the€discussion€below,€one€area€of€property€taxation€in€which€there€has€beenÐ X ¨ Ða€substantial€departure€from€the€ð ðrule€of€the€òòCarrollóó€caseðð€is€the€Board€of€Equalizationððs€authorityÐ D!” Ðto€adjust€the€evaluation€of€public€utility€property€for€purposes€of€equalizing€such€evaluations€withÐ 0"€  Ðthe€prevailing€evaluations€of€€industrial€and€commercial€property€in€each€county.Ð #l! ÐÌà  àIn€òòSherwoodóó,€we€recognized€that€the€amendment€to€Article€II,€ðð€28€of€the€TennesseeÐ ô$D # ÐConstitution€gave€the€General€Assembly€broad€authority€regarding€the€evaluation€of€property€forÐ à%0!$ Ðproperty€tax€purposes;€in€this€regard€this€Court€stated:€Ð Ì&"% ÐÌà8  àIn€our€opinion€the€General€Assembly€was€not€constitutionally€required€to€attempt€toÐ ¤(ô#' Ðadminister€and€maintain€an€impractical€system€of€taxation€(i.e.,€taxation€of€non„Ð )à$( Ðbusiness€tangible€personal€property),€and€òòit€was€given€very€broad€discretion€withÐ |*Ì%) Ðrespect€to€determining€the€value€and€definition€of€property€in€each€of€the€authorizedÐ h+¸&* Ðclassifications€or€sub„classificationsóó.€(emphasis€added).€òòSherwoodóó,€734€S.W.2d€atÐ ° Ð321.МìÐ Ð  ÐÌà  àOur€holding€was€based€on€the€General€Assemblyððs€enactments€of€legislation€dealing€with€theÐ tÄ Ðevaluation€of€public€utility€property€pursuant€to€its€authority€under€the€amendment€to€Article€II,€ððÐ `° Ð28.€€Some€of€these€enactments€were€made€in€response€to€a€pair€of€federal€court€decisions.€€The€firstÐ L œ Ðof€these€was€òòLouisville€&€Nashville€Railroad€Co.€v.€Public€Service€Commission€of€Tennesseeóó,€249Ð 8 ˆ ÐÔ_ÔF.SuppÔ_Ô.€894€(M.D.€Tenn.€1966),€òòÔ_ÔaffððdÔ_Ôóó,€389€F.2d€247€(6th€Cir.€1968)€(ð ðL€&€N€Iðð).€€In€òòL€&€€N€Ióó€theÐ $ t Ðfederal€district€court€held€that€the€central€evaluation€of€railroad€public€utility€property€(which€wasÐ  ` Ðthen€performed€by€the€Public€Service€Commission)€in€respective€counties€at€a€higher€percentageÐ ü L  Ð(60%€to€100%)€than€the€local€evaluation€of€industrial€and€commercial€property€in€such€countiesÐ è 8  Ð(35%€to€40%)€violated€the€railroadððs€right€to€equal€protection€under€the€United€States€ConstitutionÐ Ô$  Ðand€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€€Citing€òòCarrollóó,€the€United€States€District€Court€in€òòL€&€N€Ióó€statedÐ À  Ðthat€the€railroad€company€was€not€entitled€to€relief€under€then€current€Tennessee€law.€€However,€theÐ ¬ü  Ðcourt€held€the€railroad€company€was€entitled€to€a€reduction€in€the€evaluation€of€its€property€underÐ ˜è  Ðfederal€law.€€The€court€stated:Ð „Ô  ÐÌà8  àThis€Court€holds€that€the€right€of€the€taxpayer€whose€property€alone€is€taxed€at€100%Ð \¬ Ðof€its€true€value€is€òòto€have€€his€assessment€reduced€to€the€percentage€of€that€value€atÐ H˜ Ðwhich€others€are€taxedóó€even€though€this€is€a€departure€from€the€requirement€of€theÐ 4„ Ðstatute.€€The€conclusion€is€based€on€the€principle€that€where€it€is€impossible€to€secureÐ  p Ðboth€the€standard€of€the€true€value,€and€the€uniformity€and€equality€€required€by€law,Ð  \ Ðthe€latter€requirement€is€to€be€€preferred€as€the€just€and€ultimate€purpose€of€the€law.Ð øH Ð(emphasis€added).€€òòL€&€N€Ióó,€249€F.€Supp.€at€902.Ðä4Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àIn€1978,€the€United€States€District€Court€for€the€Middle€District€of€Tennessee€decidedÐ ¼  ÐòòLouisville€&€Nashville€Railroad€Company€v.€Public€Service€Commission€of€Tennesseeóó,€493€F.€Supp.Ð ¨ø Ð162€(M.€D.€Tenn.€1978),€òòÔ_ÔaffððdÔ_Ôóó,€631€F.2d€246€(6th€Cir.€1980),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€450€U.€S.€959,€101€S.€Ct.Ð ”ä Ð1418,€67€Ô_ÔL.EdÔ_Ô.2d€384€(1981)€(ð ðL€&€N€IIðð).€€The€federal€district€court€again€held€that€a€discrepancyÐ €Ð Ðin€the€evaluation€of€public€utility€property€from€that€of€industrial€and€commercial€property€entitledÐ l¼ Ðrailroad€companies€to€equalization,€and€that€the€form€of€such€equalization€was€a€reduction€in€theÐ X ¨ Ðevaluation€of€the€railroadsðð€property.€€The€court€described€the€underlying€facts€in€òòL€&€N€IIóó€€asÐ D!” Ðfollows:€€Ð 0"€  ÐÌà8  àFrom€the€record€in€these€consolidated€cases€the€Court€finds€that€each€of€the€plaintiffsÐ $X" Ðhas€been€assessed€on€both€its€operating€and€non„operating€property€based€uponÐ ô$D # Ðevaluation€of€100%€of€market€value.€.€.€.€Ðà%0!$Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à[Ô_Ôt]heÔ_Ô€State„wide€median€of€appraisal€of€locally€assessed€properties€is€62.9%€of€value.€Ð ¸'#& ÐòòL€&€N€Ióó,€€493€F.€Supp.€at€164.Ф(ô#'Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àAgain€citing€òòCarrollóó,€the€Court€in€òòL€&€N€IIóó€stated€that€statutes€in€Tennessee€had€not€beenÐ |*Ì%) Ðchanged€to€entitle€the€railroad€companies€to€relief€under€state€law,€but€that€they€were€entitled€to€reliefÐ h+¸&* Ðunder€federal€law€based€on€equal€protection€grounds.€€The€court€described€the€appropriate€form€ofÐ ° Ðrelief€as€a€reduction€in€the€evaluation€of€the€public€utility€property;€the€court€stated:Ð œì ÐÌà8  àThe€Court,€therefore,€finds€that€all€property€must€be€valued€under€the€ConstitutionÐ tÄ Ðof€Tennessee€at€100%€of€market€value,€and€òòthe€failure€of€the€taxing€authorities€to€soÐ `° Ðvalue€one€or€more€sub„classes€permits€those€sub„classes€whose€property€is€appraisedÐ L œ Ðat€market€value€to€seek€and€obtain€equalizationóó.Ð8 ˆÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à.€.€.€Ð `` x` x ÐÌà8  àThe€sole€question€remaining€for€the€Courtððs€determination€is€òòthe€form€and€extent€ofÐ è 8  Ðthe€reliefóó€to€be€granted.€òòPlaintiffs€contend€that€the€relief€to€which€they€are€entitled€isÐ Ô$  Ða€reduction€of€their€final€assessments€to€63%€of€the€assessments€which€wouldÐ À  Ðotherwise€have€been€determined€based€upon€plaintiffsðð€property€values,€conceded€toÐ ¬ü  Ðbe€at€100%€of€actual€valueóó,€fixed€by€the€State€Board,€thereby€placing€the€amount€ofÐ ˜è  Ðtheir€taxes€on€a€constitutionally€proportionate€basis€with€taxes€paid€on€locallyÐ „Ô  Ðassessed€property.€€òòThe€Court€finds€such€a€reduction€to€be€appropriate€in€this€caseóó.€Ð pÀ ÐCourts€in€a€number€of€states€have€€determined€that€the€differential€in€propertyÐ \¬ Ðappraisal€levels€shown€by€an€assessment€to€sales€ratio€study€is€the€proper€indicatorÐ H˜ Ðof€relief€to€be€granted€in€the€property€tax€equalization€suits.€€.€.€.€(emphasis€added)Ð 4„ Ð(citations€omitted).€€òòL€&€N€IIóó,€493€F.€Supp.€at€168,€173.Ð pÐ Ð  ÐÌà  àThe€United€States€District€Court€in€òòL€&€N€IIóó€then€described€the€duties€imposed€on€the€€BoardÐ øH Ðof€Equalization€and€the€Public€Service€Commission€(now€Comptroller),€stating:Ð ä4 ÐÌà8  àIt€is€the€duty€of€the€State€Board€and/or€the€Commission,€to€certify€to€the€counties€andÐ ¼  Ðto€the€municipalities€the€proper€amount€of€assessed€values€determined€in€accordanceÐ ¨ø Ðwith€this€opinion€upon€which€the€counties€and€the€municipalities€are€entitled€to€levyÐ ”ä Ða€tax.€€In€view€of€the€fact€that€the€appraisal€levels€vary€from€county€to€county,€rangingÐ €Ð Ðfrom€an€average€of€23%€of€value€in€Hancock€County€to€an€€average€of€89%€of€valueÐ l¼ Ðin€Sullivan€County,€the€defendants€may€find€it€advisable€to€certify€assessments€basedÐ X ¨ Ðupon€each€countyððs€average€level€of€appraisal€rather€than€the€state„wide€median€forÐ D!” Ðall€counties€.€.€.€Ð0"€ Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àJudgment€will€be€entered€declaring€the€rights€of€the€plaintiffs€in€accordance€with€thisÐ $X" Ðopinion€and€enjoining€defendants€from€certifying€or€enforcing€the€challengedÐ ô$D # Ðassessment€of€plaintiffsðð€properties€without€prejudice€to€òòthe€right€of€the€State€BoardÐ à%0!$ Ðto€rehear€and€reconsider€the€assessments€for€the€sole€purpose€of€a€reduction€to€63%Ð Ì&"% Ðof€the€assessments€that€would€otherwise€have€been€determined€based€upon€plaintiffsððÐ ¸'#& Ðproperty€values€fixed€by€the€State€Boardóó.€€Pending€such€redetermination€the€casesÐ ¤(ô#' Ðwill€be€retained€on€the€active€docket€with€any€party€having€the€right€to€apply€to€theÐ )à$( ÐCourt€at€any€time€for€other€or€additional€orders.€€(emphasis€added).€€òòL&N€IIóó,€€483€F.Ð |*Ì%) ÐSupp.€at€173„74.Ðh+¸&*Ð Ð  Їà  àIn€response€to€the€foregoing€federal€court€decisions,€the€General€Assembly€enacted€PublicÐ ° ÐActs€1980,€Chapter€No.€827,€the€preface€to€which€included€the€following:Ð œì ÐÌà8  àWhereas,€the€U.€S.€District€Court€in€Nashville€has€determined€that€all€property€inÐ tÄ ÐTennessee€must€be€valued€at€100%€of€market€value€and€the€failure€of€taxingÐ `° Ðauthorities€€to€value€one€or€more€sub„classes€permits€those€sub„classes€whoseÐ L œ Ðproperty€is€appraised€at€market€value€€to€seek€and€obtain€equalization€.€€.€.€.€Ð8 ˆÐ Ð  ÐÌà  àPublic€Acts€1980,€Chapter€No.€827€included€an€amendment€to€a€statute€that€is€now€codifiedÐ  ` Ðat€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€67„5„1302€(b)(1).€€This€statute€provides€as€follows:Ð ü L  ÐÌà8  à(1)€The€assessments€of€public€utility€property,€as€set€by€the€comptroller€of€theÐ Ô$  Ðtreasury€in€accordance€with€sub„section€(a),€shall€be€adjusted,€where€necessary,€onÐ À  Ðthe€basis€of€appropriate€ratios,€as€are€determined€by€the€board€of€equalization€forÐ ¬ü  Ðpurposes€of€equalizing€the€values€of€public€utility€property€to€the€prevailing€level€ofÐ ˜è  Ðvalue€of€property€in€each€jurisdiction.Ð„Ô Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àPublic€Acts€1980,€Chapter€No.€827€and€Public€Acts€1980,€Chapter€No.€820€also€includedÐ \¬ Ðprovisions€requiring€the€Board€of€Equalization€to€conduct€periodic€appraisals€of€real€property€andÐ H˜ Ðto€notify€local€taxing€authorities€of€the€results€of€such€appraisals.€€The€purpose€of€these€reappraisalsÐ 4„ Ðis€to€maintain€an€equality€in€each€county€in€the€ratio€of€appraised€value€to€actual€value€for€publicÐ  p Ðutility€property€as€for€commercial€and€industrial€property.€€These€statutes€are€currently€codified€atÐ  \ ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€67„5„1601€òòet€seqóó.Ð øH ÐÌà  àThe€authority€to€adjust€the€appraised€values€of€public€utility€property€to€achieve€equalizationÐ Ð  Ðwith€industrial€and€commercial€property€is€found€in€ðð€67„5„1509(b).€€This€statute€provides:Ð ¼  ÐÌà8  à(b)€€Equalization€may€be€made€by€the€board€or€commission,€as€the€case€may€be,€byÐ ”ä Ðreducing€or€increasing€the€appraised€values€of€properties€within€any€taxingÐ €Ð Ðjurisdiction,€or€any€part€thereof,€in€such€manner€as€is€determined€by€the€state€boardÐ l¼ Ðof€equalization€will€enable€the€board€or€commission€to€justly€and€equitably€equalizeÐ X ¨ Ðassessments€in€accordance€with€law.ÐD!”Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àIn€òòNorthwest€Airlines,€Inc.€v.€Tennessee€State€Board€of€Equalizationóó,€861€S.W.2d€232€(Tenn.Ð #l! Ð1993),€we€acknowledged€the€existence€of€the€equalization€process,€stating:Ð $X" ÐÌà8  àPursuant€to€the€provisions€of€Ô_ÔT.C.A.Ô_Ô€ðð€ðð€67„5„1302(b)(1)€and€67„5„1606(c),€the€valueÐ à%0!$ Ðof€commercial€air€carriersðð€property€that€is€assessed€by€the€Public€ServiceÐ Ì&"% ÐCommission€is€adjusted€so€that€the€value€of€such€property€within€each€local€taxÐ ¸'#& Ðjurisdiction€bears€the€same€ratio€to€fair€market€value€as€does€the€property€within€suchÐ ¤(ô#' Ðlocal€jurisdiction€that€is€appraised€and€assessed€by€local€taxing€authorities.€€ThisÐ )à$( Ðprocess€is€generally€referred€to€as€ð ðequalization.ðð€òòNorthwest€Airlinesóó,€861€S.W.2d€atÐ |*Ì%) Ð234.Ðh+¸&*Ð Ð  Їà  àThe€United€States€Court€of€Appeals€for€Sixth€Circuit,€in€òòÔ_ÔCSXÔ_Ô€Transportation,€Inc.€v.Ð ° ÐTennessee€State€Board€of€Equalizationóó,€964€F.2d€548€(6th€Cir.€1992),€described€the€equalizationÐ œì Ðprocess€as€follows:Ð ˆØ ÐÌà8  àThe€State€Board€of€Equalization€reviews€the€assessments€made€by€the€Public€ServiceÐ `° ÐCommission.€€Ô_ÔT.C.A.Ô_Ô€ðð€67„5„1328.€€The€State€Board€of€Equalization€is€part€of€anÐ L œ Ðelaborate€statutory€process€in€Tennessee€to€ensure€that€centrally€valued€€railroadÐ 8 ˆ Ðproperty€is€assessed€at€the€same€level€as€locally€valued€property.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ð $ t Ððð€67„5„1603,€et.€seq.€€The€local€assessment€of€property€values€is€usually€below€100%Ð  ` Ðof€fair€market€value€because€most€counties€do€not€value€all€real€property€annually.€Ð ü L  ÐRailroad€property,€on€the€other€hand,€is€appraised€annually€at€full€value€by€theÐ è 8  ÐCommission.€€More€frequent€assessment€generally€results€in€higher€relative€taxation,Ð Ô$  Ðsince€more€of€the€actual€current€market€value€is€captured€in€the€assessed€value€toÐ À  Ðwhich€the€statutory€assessment€ratios€are€then€applied.€€In€Tennessee,€a€statutoryÐ ¬ü  Ðprocess€known€as€equalization€is€meant€to€ensure€that€centrally€valued€railroadÐ ˜è  Ðproperty€is€assessed€at€the€same€level€as€local,€county€assessed€property.€€òòÔ_ÔCSXÔ_ÔÐ „Ô  ÐÔ_ÔTransporationÔ_Ôóó,€€964€F.2d€€at€551„52.ÐpÀÐ Ð  ÐÌÌà@  %ìàò òòòConclusionóóó óˆÐ 4„ Ðà  àThe€Tennessee€Board€of€Equalization€is€authorized€to€reduce€(or€increase)€the€appraised€(andÐ  p Ðtherefore€corresponding€assessed)€value€of€centrally„assessed€public€utility€tangible€personal€propertyÐ  \ Ðas€part€of€the€equalization€process,€the€purpose€of€which€is€to€equalize€the€ratio€of€the€appraisedÐ øH Ðvalue€to€fair€market€value€of€public€utility€property€in€any€particular€county€with€the€correspondingÐ ä4 Ðratio€for€industrial€and€commercial€property€in€that€county.€€The€judgment€of€the€Court€of€AppealsÐ Ð  Ðis€reversed,€and€the€case€is€remanded€to€the€Tennessee€Board€of€Equalization€for€further€proceedingsÐ ¼  Ðconsistent€with€this€opinion.€€Costs€of€this€appeal€are€assessed€to€Davidson€County,€Shelby€County,Ð ¨ø Ðand€Williamson€County.Ð ”ä ÐÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à_____________________________________Ð 0"€  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àFRANK€F.€DROWOTA,€III,€JUSTICEÐ #l! ÐÌÌÌ