Committee declines to advance bill that would change local tax-refund appeals procedure

The House Judiciary Committee considered House Bill 1360, which would require local governing authorities to administratively consider claims for tax refunds before a taxpayer could seek judicial review. Aaron Kapler, who explained the bill to the committee, said the measure converts a discretionary administrative step into a mandatory one so local boards must ‘‘render an opinion or final decision on the merits’’ before court proceedings proceed.

Supporters and critics sparred over how the bill would interact with existing assessment and valuation processes. Kapler told the committee the measure deals with refunds for ‘‘erroneously paid or illegally paid taxes or fees’’ and does not replace the regular tax-assessment appeal processes. Representative Julie Silcox asked whether the bill would affect assessment freezes; Kapler and others said it would not, emphasizing the distinction between valuation appeals and refund claims.

Jordan Reed of the Georgia Bridal Lawyers Association testified against the bill’s substitute, saying the measure ‘‘by removing the ability to have a class action … would no longer give y’all’s constituents the ability to hold local governments accountable.’’ Reed urged the committee to oppose the substitute because it would curb a common mechanism plaintiffs use when many taxpayers face similar harms.

Committee members discussed examples, including local fees such as stormwater and fire-fee structures calculated by square footage rather than by property value. Kapler said those methods have prompted class-action litigation against smaller counties and cities; he cited a settlement example he said totaled about $5,000,000 with roughly $2,000,000 in lawyer fees and a substantial payment to the class representative.

After public testimony and discussion the chair called for motions to advance HB 1360. The committee recorded no motion and the chair announced the bill ‘‘does not advance due to lack of a motion, second and affirmative vote.’’

What happens next: The bill did not move forward in this committee hearing. Sponsors may seek to rework the language or reintroduce the measure at a later date.