In a recent case before the Appellate Court of Connecticut, Judge Jose A. Suarez penned an opinion holding that owners of income-producing real property bear the burden of updating municipalities of a change in their address, and that a failure to do so may have legal ramifications.
An issue in the case before the Appellate Court was Connecticut General Statutes § 12-63c, which allows municipalities to impose a 10% penalty increase on assessed value on property of taxpayers who do not timely file required income and expense (I&E) reports by June 1 of each year. In the case, the owner of a piece of real property in Greenwich did not receive an I&E reporting form from the town until after the filing had become due, and therefore could not timely file. As a result of the late filing, the town imposed a 10% penalty on the property taxes for that grand list year.
This was in part because the property owner changed their mailing address three years earlier, and the town sent the I&E form to the owner's prior mailing address. The property owner argued that mailing the I&E form to its old mailing address did not satisfy the town’s burden under Connecticut General Statutes § 12-63c(a) that the I&E form be “provided by the assessor” to the property owner at least 45 days before it became due.
The Appellate Court looked to dictionary definitions of the term “provide,” and found that the common definition of provide means “to make available.” Further, they compared Connecticut General Statutes § 12-63c(a) with other statutory provisions that impose more robust delivery requirements (e.g., Connecticut General Statutes § 12-53(a) which states that the tax collector shall “mail or hand a bill to the owner”) and determined that had the legislature intended that the I&E form be actually received by property owners, they could have written the law that way.
Highlighting their view that municipalities need only “make available” to taxpayers the I&E forms required by Connecticut General Statutes § 12-63c(a), the Court further held that it would be “nearly impossible” for towns to be sure that they always had the current mailing address of each property owner in town, and that property owners are best positioned to update municipalities as to changes in address.
Importantly, the property owner in the case provided testimony that they had sent a universal mailing to each of their vendors after they changed addresses, which they argued would have included the town and ought to satisfy their burden to update the town as to the current mailing address. However, the property owner was unable to provide any documentary evidence to verify any such mailing to the town, which the Court said led to “inherent uncertainty” as to whether the notice was mailed and, if mailed, whether it was sufficient. The Court ultimately held in favor of the town, that mailing the I&E report to the most recent known mailing address of a property owner was sufficient to meet its obligations under Connecticut General Statutes § 12-63c(a).
This provides valuable insight to owners of income-producing real property. Property owners who change their mailing address should promptly notify the municipalities in which they own income-producing real property to ensure that the municipalities have an up-to-date mailing address. Further, documentation is key: property owners should keep records of such notices (and any confirmation of receipt by the municipalities) to ensure that there is sufficient evidence to show that the property owner notified the municipality of any change of address.
[View source.]
