Ingemanson says there are two reasons for going after McGowan. The property tax battle is four years old and she has filed six cases, one of which went all the way to the Nevada Supreme Court. The case was completed a year ago and the judge still refuses to provide a ruling. She was left holding the bag and the bill, so-to-speak. In the case against McGowan, the law requires that the judge rule and that the ruling occur in a set time period.

Ingemanson believes she has uncovered a labyrinth that suggests the courts, commercial property taxes collected (especially those of the casinos), and McGowan are members of a "good 'ol boy" network in which they protect each other. Meanwhile the residential properties in Incline are taking the hit for this mismanagement.

On October 19 the court granted Robert McGowan a stay (time period) to appear before the court on the charge of malfeasance. The issue now goes before the Nevada Supreme Court for testimony, and the judge will decide if the case should go forward to trial. The case involves McGowan's job, as well as, residential and commercial property tax issues.

The big 2005 tax increase and the suit charging malfeasance are the most recent additions to the property- tax powder keg in Incline. In 2004 the Assessor's office calculated an 8% (land factor) property tax increase for Area 1 (Incline Village to Story County line) that was to be imposed in 2005. This year the tax increase was to be the same for all of Area 1 residents. This change, it seems, is the Assessor's response to controversies over Incline owners receiving higher taxes and being taxed as a separate sector (within Area 1) in previous years. --- By Jules Witek

McGowan and John Faulkner (a tenured appraiser) clarified how factors are produced. The 8% factor is calculated from formulas, market values, principles from the Marshall Swift book (the bible for appraisers), Nevada Revised Statutes, and Nevada Administrative Codes. The Department of Taxation then studies the values and reports to the State Tax Commission for a vote of approval or disapproval on calculated factors.

McGowan states for the record: "He does not believe there is any other office more audited of checked-on than the Assessor's office. As well, any other system would produce higher taxable values."

McGowan adds, "The recent ratio study shows that we are conservative in out calculations, and if you (property tax payers) find one parcel out of whack we will fix it."

Ingemanson's group believes the whole system and its leader are out of whack and has appealed the 8% land factor before the County Board of Equalization (BOE). For those interested in understanding the issue and its outcome, this proceeding produced some of the most confusing reports of who appealed what and where.

The BOE, Washoe County, Nevada Feb 16 and 17, 2005 minutes for the decision read: "The 8% land factor is appealed as invalid and was ruled as invalid. The failure to equalize (property taxes) inside and outside of Washoe County was ruled as not within the Board's purview to equalize properties inside with those outside of the county. Failure to provide due process, the ruling states there was no failure to do so. Failure to follow proper rules and regulations, the ruling states yes there was a failure to do so." In summary, the appellants were granted relief from the 8% tax increase.

Pertinent to the result, Vice Chairman, Gary Schmidt, suggested that, "if the Board of Equalization does grant any relief concerning the 8% factor, the motion be worded so that it only applies to the parcels (in the appeal) that received the factor."

Controversially, Board Chairman, Steven Sparks, later commented, "It is my opinion that the tax system in Nevada is broken, but it is the system that everyone must work within." He also expressed his belief that the new regulations are a "band-aid" specifically for Incline Village/Crystal Bay and wondered how they would affect other counties."

Coming as no surprise, McGowan's office promptly filed and appeal with the State Tax Commission to overturn the decision granting tax relief. According to Terry Rubald of the State Tax Commission, the appeal submitted by the Assessors office reads two fold: "The 8% tax factor is a valid factor to be imposed and that it would be unfair to only provide relief to those appealing." The Tax Commission overturned the BOE's decision and re-imposed the 8% tax in an August decision.

Oddly, in April 2005, between February and Augusts' decisions in this case, the Nevada Legislature passed a Tax Commission recommended 3% cap on tax bills for residential property and a 6.9% cap for commercial property in Washoe County.

Many homeowners scratch their heads and wonder why a system would impose a tax, claim it's valid, and then correct it.

Most are convinced the problem dates back to the 1981 Nevada tax shift. The shift from the previous "market approach" to the now "modified cost approach," McGowan explains, resulted from the negative effects on California property tax revenues caused by Proposition 13. This bill applied a fixed rate of property taxes and annually increases are no more than the rate of inflation or 2%, whichever is less.

Ingemanson has her take on what are realistic tax increases: "Since buying my home in 1961 my taxes, prior to 1981, had risen approximately 3-4 percent every year, which seems reasonable." In her opinion a 3-4 percent increase per year for the cost of living and increases or decreases in population would be a better way of evaluating property values for Washoe County.

The Village League to Save Incline Assets and Ingemanson has spent $350,000 in legal fees so that the people of Incline Village can be heard. If "the people" continue to be pushed aside, she is prepared to push forward with two more lawsuits.


For related feature stories, go to the tahoetopia.com archive on the Home Page and cllick Other Stories.