NHCaseLaw.com

DUGGAN, J. The defendant, City of Rochester (city), appeals a decision of the Superior Court (Morrill, J.) ruling that the city’s taxation of the plaintiff, Verizon New England, Inc. (Verizon), for its use and occupation of public property violated Verizon’s equal protection rights. We affirm.

The petitioners, Donald and Carol Latour, appeal year 2000 tax assessments by the respondent, City of Laconia (the “City”). Specifically, the petitioners claim that the City acted unlawfully and unreasonably when it classified certain trailers located on their property as buildings. See RSA 76:17. The New Hampshire Campground Owners’ Association (“NHCA”) filed an “Offer of Proof” as amicus curiae. The parties stipulated to the facts and the court heard argument based on those facts on September 27, 2002. All parties and the NHCA appeared. Because the court is satisfied that assessing the petitioner’s trailers as buildings is lawful and reasonable under the stipulated facts, the interests of justice would not be served by an abatement. RSA 76:17. Accordingly, the assessment by the respondent is AFFIRMED.

This is a Petition for a Declaratory Judgment by the City of Nashua (“the City”) against the State of New Hampshire (“the State”) seeking a determination that RSA 76:3 and RSA 198:38 through RSA 198:49, as amended by House Bill 616 (“HB 616”), violate the New Hampshire Constitution. On December 13, 2005, the matter came before the Court for a final hearing. For the reasons set forth herein, the Court GRANTS the petition in part and finds that RSA 76:3 and portions of RSA 198:38 through RSA 198:49, as amended by HB 616, are unconstitutional.

The plaintiff files this appeal claiming the Town of Farmington unconstitutionally imposed a land use change tax on the value of "earth" as if it were real estate contrary to Part 1, Article 28 of the New Hampshire Constitution and RSA 72-B. As a result, it seeks an order from this court setting aside the $35,000 Land Use Change Tax levied on the plaintiff's property. The defendant objects claiming the abatement request was untimely.