Skip to content
Quick Start for:
Title 1. Property Tax Code
Subtitle D. Appraisal and Assessment

Chapter 25. Local Appraisal

Sec. 25.01. Preparation of Appraisal Records.
Sec. 25.011. Special Appraisal Records.
Sec. 25.02. Form and Content.
Sec. 25.026. Confidentiality of Violence Shelter Center and Sexual Assault Program Address
Sec. 25.025. Confidentiality of Certain Home Address Information. Information.
Sec. 25.027. Information Regarding Certain Residential Property.
Sec. 25.03. Description.
Sec. 25.04. Separate Estates or Interests.
Sec. 25.05. Life Estates.
Sec. 25.06. Property Encumbered by Possessory or Security Interest.
Sec. 25.07. Leasehold and Other Possessory Interests in Exempt Property.
Sec. 25.08. Improvements.
Sec. 25.09. Condominiums and Planned Unit Developments.
Sec. 25.10. Standing Timber.
Sec. 25.11. Undivided Interests.
Sec. 25.12. Mineral Interest.
Sec. 25.13. Exempt Property Subject to Contract of Sale.
Sec. 25.135. Qualifying Trusts.
Sec. 25.14. Repealed.
Sec. 25.15. Repealed.
Sec. 25.16. Property Losing Exemption during Tax Year.
Sec. 25.17. Property Overlapping Taxing Unit Boundaries.
Sec. 25.18. Periodic Reappraisals.
Sec. 25.19. Notice of Appraised Value.
Sec. 25.195. Inspection by Property Owner.
Sec. 25.20. Access by Taxing Units.
Sec. 25.21. Omitted Property.
Sec. 25.22. Submission for Review and Protest.
Sec. 25.23. Supplemental Appraisal Records.
Sec. 25.24. Appraisal Roll.
Sec. 25.25. Correction of Appraisal Roll.

Sec. 25.19. Notice of Appraised Value.

(a) By May 15 or as soon thereafter as practicable, the chief appraiser shall deliver a clear and understandable written notice to a property owner of the appraised value of the property owner's property if:

(1) the appraised value of the property is greater than it was in the preceding year;

(2) the appraised value of the property is greater than the value rendered by the property owner; or

(3) the property was not on the appraisal roll in the preceding year.

(b) The chief appraiser shall separate real from personal property and include in the notice for each:

(1) a list of the taxing units in which the property is taxable;

(2) the appraised value of the property in the preceding year;

(3) the taxable value of the property in the preceding year for each taxing unit taxing the property;

(4) the appraised value of the property for the current year and the kind and amount of each partial exemption, if any, approved for the current year;

(5) if the appraised value is greater than it was in the preceding year, the amount of tax that would be imposed on the property on the basis of the tax rate for the preceding year;

(6) in italic typeface, the following statement: "The Texas Legislature does not set the amount of your local taxes. Your property tax burden is decided by your locally elected officials, and all inquiries concerning your taxes should be directed to those officials";

(7) a detailed explanation of the time and procedure for protesting the value;

(8) the date and place the appraisal review board will begin hearing protests; and

(9) a brief explanation that the governing body of each taxing unit decides whether or not taxes on the property will increase and the appraisal district only determines the value of the property.

(b-1) For real property, in addition to the information required by Subsection (b), the chief appraiser shall state in a notice required to be delivered under Subsection (a), the difference, expressed as a percent increase or decrease, as applicable, in the appraised value of the property for the current tax year as compared to the fifth tax year before the current tax year.

(c) In the case of the residence homestead of a person 65 years of age or older or disabled that is subject to the limitation on a tax increase over the preceding year for school tax purposes, the chief appraiser shall indicate on the notice that the preceding year's taxes may not be increased.

(d) Failure to receive the notice required by this section does not affect the validity of the appraisal of the property, the imposition of any tax on the basis of the appraisal, the existence of any tax lien, or any proceeding instituted to collect the tax.

(e) The chief appraiser, with the approval of the appraisal district board of directors, may dispense with the notice required by Subsection (a)(1) if the amount of increase in appraised value is $1,000 or less.

(f) In the notice of appraised value for real property, the chief appraiser shall list separately:

(1) the market value of the land; and

(2) the total market value of the structures and other improvements on the property.

(g) By May 15 or as soon thereafter as practicable, the chief appraiser shall deliver a written notice to the owner of each property not included in a notice required to be delivered under Subsection (a), if the property was reappraised in the current tax year, if the ownership of the property changed during the preceding year, or if the property owner or the agent of a property owner authorized under Section 1.111 makes a written request for the notice. The chief appraiser shall separate real from personal property and include in the notice for each property:

(1) the appraised value of the property in the preceding year;

(2) the appraised value of the property for the current year and the kind of each partial exemption, if any, approved for the current year;

(3) a detailed explanation of the time and procedure for protesting the value; and

(4) the date and place the appraisal review board will begin hearing protests.

(h) A notice required by Subsection (a) or (g) must be in the form of a letter.

(i) Delivery with a notice required by Subsection (a) or (g) of a copy of the pamphlet published by the comptroller under Section 5.06 or a copy of the notice published by the chief appraiser under Section 41.70 is sufficient to comply with the requirement that the notice include the information specified by Subsection (b)(7) or (g)(3), as applicable.

(j) The chief appraiser shall include with a notice required by Subsection (a) or (g):

(1) a copy of a notice of protest form as prescribed by the comptroller under Section 41.44(d); and

(2) instructions for completing and mailing the form to the appraisal review board and requesting a hearing on the protest.

(k) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, the chief appraiser may not deliver a written notice concerning property that is required to be rendered or reported under Chapter 22 until after the applicable deadline for filing the rendition statement or property report.

Acts 1979, 66th Leg., p. 2274, ch. 841, 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1982. Amended by Acts 1981, 67th Leg., 1st C.S., p. 159, ch. 13, 107, 162, eff. Jan. 1, 1982; Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 185, 2, eff. Jan. 1, 1987; Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 947, 11, eff. Jan. 1, 1988; Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 745, 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1989; Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 784, 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1990; Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 796, 24, eff. Sept. 1, 1989; Acts 1990, 71st Leg., 6th C.S., ch. 12, 2(32), eff. Sept. 6, 1990; Acts 1991, 72nd Leg., ch. 836, 2.1, eff. Jan. 1, 1992; Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1039, 24, eff. Jan. 1, 1998; Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 1358, 4, eff. Jan. 1, 2000; Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 1517, 1, eff. Jan. 1, 2000; Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 1173, 10, eff. Jan. 1, 2004; Acts 2005, 79th Leg., ch. 412, 11, 12, eff. Sept. 1, 2005; Acts 2005, 79th Leg., ch. 1255, 1, eff. Jan. 1, 2006.

Cross References:
Appraised value defined, see Sec. 1.04(8).
Assessed value defined, see Sec. 1.04(9).
Deadline for filing protest depends on mailing of this notice, see Sec. 41.44.
Delivery of notice, see Sec. 1.07.
Effective tax rate calculation, see Sec. 26.04.
Failure to deliver notice, see Sec. 41.411.
Identification of taxing units, see Sec. 21.01.
Improvements defined, see Sec. 1.04(3).
Market value defined, see Sec. 1.04(7).
Notice required, see art. VIII, Sec. 21, Tex. Const.
Partial exemption defined, see Sec. 1.04(11).
Real and personal property defined, see Sec. 1.04(2) & (4).
Rendering property and deadlines, see Ch. 22.
Separately taxable estates, see Sec. 25.04.
Submission of records for review and protest, see Sec. 25.22.
Supplemental records require notice, see Sec. 25.23.

Notes:
Section 25.19 is procedural, rather than jurisdictional. The appraisal district's failure to provide an appraisal notice did not deprive the taxpayer of due process, as the protest procedure of Section 41.411 permitted administrative review. The taxpayer's failure to protest timely to the appraisal review board about the lack of notice precluded judicial review. The taxpayer did not receive a notice of appraised value for the inclusion of omitted property on the appraisal roll. Rather than filing a protest for failure to receive a required notice, the taxpayer paid the taxes and filed suit against the appraisal district claiming that the appraisal was void. Denton Central Appraisal District v. CIT Leasing Corp., 115 S.W.3d 261 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2003, pet. filed).

Failure of prior property owners to assert lack of notice precludes subsequent owners from challenging the validity of past appraisals. Failure to deliver timely notices nullifies changes in appraisal rolls only with regard to the property owner at the time. Although the Tax Code authorizes notices of appeal by a "party other than a property owner," the parties contemplated are the chief appraiser and other governmental entities. The tax payment requirement of Section 42.08 was upheld as a requirement to maintain an appeal. Houston Land & Cattle Co. v. Harris County Appraisal District, 104 S.W.3d 622 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, pet. denied).

When the appraisal district failed to send notices of appraised value to a taxpayer for a number of years after the recording of deeds on purchased property, that failure of notice constituted a denial of due process, thus making the assessment of penalties and interest void. The fact that the taxpayer later paid the void taxes did not cause them to be unrecoverable. The voluntary payment rule cannot be applied to taxes imposed without due process. The award of attorney fees to the taxpayer was upheld as within the guidelines concerning declaratory judgments and was supported by evidence. Appraisal Review Board of the El Paso Central Appraisal District v. Fisher, 88 S.W.3d 807 (Tex. App.-El Paso 2002, pet. denied).

Taxpayer purchased a residence in 1992 but did not record the deed or apply for a homestead exemption. Appraisal district continued to appraise property as a homestead under the prior owner's homestead application. Appraisal district discovered the transfer and terminated the prior owner's exemption in 1997. Taxpayer submitted a homestead application in 1998. Appraisal district denied the homestead exemption in 1993 through 1996. Appraisal district properly denied the homestead exemption for 1993 through 1996. Purchasers of residences must reapply for a homestead exemption. The homestead exemption for a prior owner terminates upon conveyance of the property. Appraisal district may remove erroneous exemptions if discovered within five years. A taxpayer may file a homestead exemption application up to one year late. An appraisal district can only be held to the requirements of Section 25.19(g) if put on notice of a transfer of property. Dallas Central Appraisal District and Dallas County Appraisal Review Board v. Brown, 19 S.W.3d 878 (Tex. App. - Dallas [5th Dist.] 2000, no pet.).

Notices of appraised value met Section 25.19 requirements and properly notified property owner of omitted property for the change in appraised value. The property owner should have been on notice of a tax change when he constructed a large improvement on property and his original property tax bill did not change, and the owner failed to introduce evidence that the tax notices had not been sent. Escamilla v. City of Laredo, 9 S.W.3d 416 (Tex. App. - San Antonio 1999, pet. denied).

To prove that notice of appraised value was delivered as required by the Tax Code, the appraisal district must show that: the correct amount of postage was placed on the envelope; how the notice itself was put into the mail as a first-class letter; whether the taxpayer's most recent address was used; and that the notice was not returned. A mere stipulation of valid notice was insufficient. Harris County Appraisal District v. Dincans, 882 S.W.2d 75 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1994, rehearing denied, error denied).

The chief appraiser is not required to notify a taxpayer of his property's appraised value where the value is the same as the previous year's. Estepp v. Miller, 731 S.W.2d 677 (Tex. App.-Austin 1987, writ ref'd n.r.e.).

Where taxpayer protested 1984 value before ARB, appealed ARB order to district court, appeal was still pending in 1985, and 1985 value was unchanged from 1984, suit was sufficient notice of dissatisfaction with the 1985 appraisal. Taxpayer was not required to file a formal protest or appear before the ARB on the 1985 value and could request the court to rule on the 1985 value as well. Id.

Where taxpayer testified he did not receive an appraisal notice, presumption of delivery under Sec. 1.07 was rebutted and burden shifted to the appraisal district to show evidence of delivery, e.g. that notice was mailed to property owner. New v. Dallas Appraisal Review Board, 734 S.W.2d 712 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1987, writ denied).

Appraisal district must deliver notice of appraisal value before it obtains jurisdiction to increase a value. Id.

To satisfy Sec. 1.07 (b), notice must be addressed to current property owner. Notice addressed to prior property owner is insufficient, even if the district's records show only the previous owner. Id.

The taxpayer waived his challenge to the fact that the notice of appraised value was not sent at least 20 days before the date the review board began to consider protests when he voluntarily appeared before the review board and was given a full hearing. Gruy v. Jim Hogg County Appraisal District, 715 S.W.2d 170 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 1986, no writ).

The failure of the appraisal district to deliver a notice of appraised value denied due process to the taxpayer and deprived the appraisal review board of jurisdiction to consider any increase in taxpayer's valuation above the amount rendered. Because the board did not acquire jurisdiction over the valuation, the taxpayer was not confined to remedies under the Property Tax Code and could challenge the assessments through a collateral attack. Garza v. Block Distributing Co., 696 S.W.2d 259 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1985, writ ref'd n.r.e.).

Where property owner or his agent received notice of appraised value at property owner's listed address and appraisal district complied with required procedures, notice is presumed delivered when it is placed in the mail and the validity of the appraisal and the existence of a tax lien remain unaffected. Dallas County Appraisal District v. Lal, 701 S.W.2d 44 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1985, writ ref'd n.r.e.).

Sec. 25.195. Inspection by Property Owner.

(a) After the chief appraiser has submitted the appraisal records to the appraisal review board as provided by Section 25.22(a), a property owner or the owner's designated agent is entitled to inspect and copy the appraisal records relating to property of the property owner, together with supporting data, schedules, and, except as provided by Subsection (b), any other material or information held by the chief appraiser or required by Section 25.01(c) to be provided to the appraisal district under a contract for appraisal services, including material or information obtained under Section 22.27, that is obtained or used in making appraisals for the appraisal records relating to that property.

(b) The owner of property other than vacant land or real property used for residential purposes or the owner's agent may not inspect any material or information obtained under Section 22.27.

(c) A property owner or the designated agent of an owner whose property is appraised by a private appraisal firm under a contract for appraisal services with an appraisal district is entitled to inspect and copy, at the office of that firm, all information pertaining to the property that the firm considered in appraising the property, including information showing each method of appraisal used to determine the value of the property and all calculations, personal notes, correspondence, and working papers used in appraising the property. This subsection does not apply to information made confidential by Section 22.27, except that the property owner or agent is entitled to inspect and copy any information relating to the owner's property, including otherwise confidential information.

(d) The appraisal firm shall make information covered by Subsection (c) available for inspection and copying by the owner or agent not later than the 15th day after the date the owner or agent delivers a written request to inspect the information, unless the owner or agent agrees in writing to a later date.

(e) If an owner or agent states under oath in a document filed with an appraisal review board in connection with a proceeding initiated under Section 25.25 or Chapter 41 that the applicable appraisal firm has not complied with a request for inspection or copying under Subsection (c) related to the property that is the subject of the proceeding, the board may not conduct a hearing on the merits of any claim relating to that property and may not approve the appraisal records relating to that property until the board determines in a hearing that:

(1) the appraisal firm has made the information available for inspection and copying as required by Subsection (c); or

(2) the owner or agent has withdrawn the motion or protest that initiated the proceeding.

Added by 1983 Tex. Laws, p. 5079, ch. 920, Sec. 1; amended by 1987 Tex. Laws, ch. 38, Sec. 1; amended by 1997 Tex. Laws, p. 3910, ch. 1039, Sec. 5; amended by 2001 Tex. Laws, p. 487, ch. 268, Sec. 3 and p. 644, ch. 372, Sec. 1.

Cross References:
Public Information Act, see ch. 552, Government Code.
Working papers and personal correspondence not supporting data, see Sec. 25.01.
Information made confidential, see Secs. 22.27 & 23.45.

Notes:
Neither Utilities Code Section 39.001 nor any other provision enacted in the 1999 legislation deregulating the electric utility industry affects a property owner's right of access to appraisal information under Tax Code Section 25.195. In 1997, the legislature amended Section 25.195 to include the express reference to Section 22.27 in subsection (a) of section 25.195 and to add subsection (b). The effect of these amendments appears to have been to limit the right of access to information filed by others and made confidential under Section 22.27 to owners of vacant land and residential real property, thus precluding owners of real property used for commercial purposes from obtaining such information. As amended by S.B. 1737, subsections (c) through (e) provide a property owner a right of access to information used to appraise the owner's property in the possession of the appraisal district and in the possession of the private appraisal firm. The latter type of access makes available to a property owner an array of information, including information that the private appraisal firm is not required to provide to the appraisal district. Section 25.195 (c) and (d) gives property owners a new right of access to information in the possession of a private appraisal firm, and expands the type of information to which a property owner has access. Op. Tex. Att'y Gen. No. JC-424 (2001).

Appraisal district that purchases sales commercially must make the sales available to taxpayers on request. Op. Tex. Att'y Gen. ORD-550 (1990).

Section 25.195 gives the property owner access to confidential sales information used in making the appraisal of his property. Op. Tex. Att'y Gen. No. ORD-500 (1988).

Sec. 25.20. Access by Taxing Units.

The chief appraiser shall give the assessor for a taxing unit in the district reasonable access to the appraisal records at any time.

Amended by 1981 Tex. Laws (1st C.S.), p. 161, ch. 13, Sec. 108; amended by 1985 Tex. Laws, p. 2497, ch. 312, Sec. 2; amended by 1989 Tex. Laws, p. 3599, ch. 796, Sec. 25.

Cross References:
Public Information Act, see ch. 552, Government Code.
Working papers and personal correspondence not supporting data, see Sec. 25.01.
Information made confidential, see Secs. 22.27 & 23.45.
Suit to compel compliance with deadlines, see Sec. 43.04.

Sec. 25.21. Omitted Property.

(a) If the chief appraiser discovers that real property was omitted from an appraisal roll in any one of the five preceding years or that personal property was omitted from an appraisal roll in one of the two preceding years, he shall appraise the property as of January 1 of each year that it was omitted and enter the property and its appraised value in the appraisal records.

(b) The entry shall show that the appraisal is for property that was omitted from an appraisal roll in a prior year and shall indicate the year and the appraised value for each year.

Amended by 1981 Tex. Laws (1st C.S.), p. 161, ch. 13, Sec. 109; amended by 1991 Tex. Laws, p. 1417, ch. 367, Sec. 1, and 1991 Tex. Laws, p. 2891, ch. 836, Sec. 1.2.

Cross References:
Erroneously allowed exemptions, see Sec. 11.43(i).
Supplemental appraisal records, see Sec. 25.23.
Calculation of tax on omitted property, see Sec. 26.09.

Notes:
The chief appraiser's duty to back access property omitted from the appraisal roll whenever an error is discovered is mandatory and not discretionary. A taxing unit may sue the chief appraiser who fails to perform this duty. Back assessment for an erroneously granted exemption is a current year tax, and it is not subject to a taxing unit filing a challenge in the tax year in question. Atascosa County v. Atascosa County Appraisal District, 990 S.W.2d 255 (Tex. 1999).

Notices of appraised value met Section 25.19 requirements and properly notified property owner of omitted property for the change in appraised value. The property owner should have been on notice of a tax change when he constructed a large improvement on property and his original property tax bill did not change, and the owner failed to introduce evidence that the tax notices had not been sent. Escamilla v. City of Laredo, 9 S.W.3d 416 (Tex. App. - San Antonio 1999, pet. denied).

A recent statutory amendment reducing the period for adding omitted property to the tax roll from ten years to five years was retroactive. An appraisal district may add improvements to the appraisal roll as omitted property even if the taxpayer had timely filed a rendition form describing the property. Harris County Appraisal District v. Reynolds/Texas, J.V., 884 S.W.2d 526 (Tex. App.-El Paso 1994, rehearing overruled).

Fraud by a taxpayer in its rendition of business personal property voided the appraisal district's initial assessment; thus, all of the property escaped taxation for the purposes of Sec. 25.21. Beck & Masten Pontiac-GMC, Inc. v. Harris County Appraisal Dist., 830 S.W.2d 291 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1992, writ denied).

Building erroneously excluded from appraisal records could be added to the appraisal roll as omitted property, even though the appraisal records already listed a value for improvements. El Paso Central Appraisal District v. Montrose Partners, 754 S.W.2d 797 (Tex. App.-El Paso 1988, writ denied).

Property mistakenly granted an exemption from taxation under Sec. 11.01(d) could be back assessed as omitted property under provisions of Sec. 25.23. Friedrich Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Company v. Bexar Appraisal District, 762 S.W.2d 763 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1988, no writ).

Where improvement was omitted, appraisal district had authority to add it to roll under this section, even though taxpayer had paid taxes on land. Cameron County Appraisal Review Board v. Creditbanc Savings Association, 763 S.W.2d 577 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi, 1988).

The fact that real property had not been assessed in prior years was a condition precedent for a back assessment. Yamini v. Gentle, 488 S.W.2d 839 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1972, writ ref'd n.r.e.).

A back assessment made without giving the taxpayer notice and an opportunity to be heard was void. Republic Ins. Co. v. Highland Park Independent School District, 171 S.W.2d 342 (Tex. Comm'n App. 1943).

A corporation that locates property omitted from the appraisal rolls may be organized, but no taxing unit may enter a contingent fee, tax ferret contract with the corporation. Op. Tex. Att'y Gen. No. JC-290 (2000).

Real property upon which ad valorem taxes were duly assessed and paid may not be back assessed on the ground that the land was undervalued for tax purposes. Op. Tex. Att'y Gen. No. C-781 (1966).

Sec. 25.22. Submission for Review and Protest.

(a) By May 15 or as soon thereafter as practicable, the chief appraiser shall submit the completed appraisal records to the appraisal review board for review and determination of protests. However, the chief appraiser may not submit the records until the chief appraiser has delivered the notices required by Subsection (d) of Section 11.45, Subsection (d) of Section 23.44, Subsection (d) of Section 23.57, Subsection (d) of Section 23.79, Subsection (d) of Section 23.85, Subsection (d) of Section 23.95, Subsection (d) of Section 23.9805, and Section 25.19.

(b) The chief appraiser shall make and subscribe an affidavit on the submission substantially as follows:

"I, __________, (Chief Appraiser) for __________ solemnly swear that I have made or caused to be made a diligent inquiry to ascertain all property in the district subject to appraisal by me and that I have included in the records all property that I am aware of at an appraised value determined as required by law."

(c) The chief appraiser may require of his employees who are engaged in listing and appraising property an affidavit similar to his own.

Amended by 1981 Tex. Laws, p. 2359, ch. 581, Sec. 2; amended by 1981 Tex. Laws (1st C.S.), p. 161, ch. 13, Sec. 110; amended by 1985 Tex. Laws, p. 2497, ch. 312, Sec. 4; amended by 1989 Tex. Laws, p. 3599, ch. 796, Sec. 26; amended by 1999 Tex. Laws, p. 3195, ch. 631, Sec. 7.

Cross References:
Notice of denial or modified exemption application, see Sec. 11.45.
Notice of denial of agricultural use valuation, see Sec. 23.44(d).
Notice of denial of open-space designation, see Sec. 23.57(d).
Notice of denial of timber land designation, see Sec. 23.79(d).
Notice of denial of public access airport property designation, see Sec. 23.85.
Notice of denial of application for recreational, park, or scenic land designation, see Sec. 23.95(d).
Notice of denial of application for restricted-use timber land, see Sec. 23.9805(d).
Notice of increase in appraised value, see Sec. 25.19.
Review of records by review board, see ch. 41.
Suit to compel compliance with deadline, see Sec. 43.04.
Begin review in 10 days, see Sec. 6.42.

Sec. 25.23. Supplemental Appraisal Records.

(a) After submission of appraisal records, the chief appraiser shall prepare supplemental appraisal records listing:

(1) each taxable property the chief appraiser discovers that is not included in the records already submitted, including property that was omitted from an appraisal roll in a prior tax year;

(2) property on which the appraisal review board has not determined a protest at the time of its approval of the appraisal records; and

(3) property that qualifies for an exemption under Section 11.13(n) that was adopted by the governing body of a taxing unit after the date the appraisal records were submitted.

(b) Supplemental appraisal records shall be in the form prescribed by the comptroller and shall include the items required by Section 25.02 of this code.

(c) As soon as practicable after determining the appraised value of a property listed in supplemental appraisal records, the chief appraiser shall deliver the notice required by Section 25.19, if applicable, and submit the records for review and determination of protest as provided by Section 25.22.

(d) Supplemental appraisal records are subject to review, protest, and appeal as provided by Chapters 41 and 42 of this code. However, a property owner must file a notice of protest within 30 days after the date notice is delivered as required by Section 25.19. If a property owner files a notice of protest, the appraisal review board shall hear and determine the protest within 30 days after the filing of the protest or as soon thereafter as practicable. If a property owner does not file a protest within the protest deadline, the appraisal review board shall complete its review of the supplemental appraisal records within 30 days after the protest deadline or as soon thereafter as practicable.

(e) The chief appraiser shall add supplemental appraisal records, as changed by the appraisal review board and approved by that board, to the appraisal roll for the district and certify the addition to the taxing units.

Amended by 1981 Tex. Laws (1st C.S.), p. 162, ch. 13, Sec. 111; amended by 1983 Tex. Laws, p. 4945, ch. 884, Sec. 2; amended by 1989 Tex. Laws, p. 3599, ch. 796, Sec. 27; amended by 1991 Tex. Laws, p. 2891, ch. 836, Sec. 1.3; amended by 1991 Tex. Laws (2nd C.S.), p. 35, ch. 6, Sec. 43; amended by 1999 Tex. Laws, p. 4187, ch. 1199, Sec. 2.

Cross References:
Approval prohibited until substantially all protests completed, see Sec. 41.12.
Omitted property, see Sec. 25.21.
Percentage homestead exemption, see Sec. 11.13(n).
Changes to tax rolls, see Sec. 26.15.
Supplemental tax bills, see Sec. 26.15.
Listing of supplemental records, see Sec. 26.01(c).

Notes:
Court does not have jurisdiction to hear appeal cancellation of 1-d-1 appraisal where taxpayer did not appeal within 10 days after notification and the appraisal review board had already approved the records. Dallas CAD v. Seven Investment Company and Dallas CAD v. Las Colinas Corporation, 813 S.W.2d 197 (Tex. App.- Dallas 1991), rev'd on other grounds 835 S.W.2d 75 (Tex. 1992).

Building erroneously excluded from appraisal records could be added to the appraisal roll as omitted property, even though the appraisal records already listed a value for improvements. El Paso Central Appraisal District v. Montrose Partners, 754 S.W.2d 797 (Tex. App.-El Paso 1988, writ denied).

Property mistakenly granted an exemption from taxation under Sec. 11.01(d) could be back assessed as omitted property under provisions of Sec. 25.23. Friedrich Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Company v. Bexar Appraisal District, 762 S.W.2d 763 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1988, no writ).

Where improvement was omitted, appraisal district had authority to add it to roll under this section, even though taxpayer had paid taxes on land. Cameron County Appraisal Review Board v. Creditbanc Savings Association, 763 S.W.2d 577 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi, 1988, writ denied).

Sec. 25.24. Appraisal Roll.

The appraisal records, as changed by order of the appraisal review board and approved by that board, constitute the appraisal roll for the district.

Amended by 1981 Tex. Laws (1st C.S.), p. 162, ch. 13, Sec. 112.

Cross References:
Approval prohibited until substantially all protests completed, see Sec. 41.12.
Appraisal records generally, see Sec. 25.02.

Notes:
Under Property Tax Code Section 25.25(c)(3), the appraisal review board may not look past the actual appraisal roll to determine whether an error had actually occurred as to the "form of the property" as shown on that roll. The statutory meaning of "form of the property" concerns whether the property is correctly identified as real property, personal property, an improvement to real property or some other typical physical description of that property. A review board's previous actions in reviewing the actual physical condition of a business property was therefore incorrect. It was not relevant that the appraisal review board had used this methodology of review in the past to modify items other than what information was shown on the appraisal roll. Dallas Central Appraisal District v. G.T.E. Directories Corporation, 905 S.W. 2d 318 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1995, writ denied).

Sec. 25.25. Correction of Appraisal Roll.

(a) Except as provided by Chapters 41 and 42 of this code and by this section, the appraisal roll may not be changed.

(b) The chief appraiser may change the appraisal roll at any time to correct a name or address, a determination of ownership, a description of property, multiple appraisals of a property, or a clerical error or other inaccuracy as prescribed by board rule that does not increase the amount of tax liability. Before the 10th day after the end of each calendar quarter, the chief appraiser shall submit to the appraisal review board and to the board of directors of the appraisal district a written report of each change made under this subsection that decreases the tax liability of the owner of the property. The report must include:

(1) a description of each property; and

(2) the name of the owner of that property.

(c) The appraisal review board, on motion of the chief appraiser or of a property owner, may direct by written order changes in the appraisal roll for any of the five preceding years to correct:

(1) clerical errors that affect a property owner's liability for a tax imposed in that tax year;

(2) multiple appraisals of a property in that tax year; or

(3) the inclusion of property that does not exist in the form or at the location described in the appraisal roll.

(d) At any time prior to the date the taxes become delinquent, a property owner or the chief appraiser may file a motion with the appraisal review board to change the appraisal roll to correct an error that resulted in an incorrect appraised value for the owner's property. However, the error may not be corrected unless it resulted in an appraised value that exceeds by more than one-third the correct appraised value. If the appraisal roll is changed under this subsection, the property owner must pay to each affected taxing unit a late-correction penalty equal to 10 percent of the amount of taxes as calculated on the basis of the corrected appraised value. Payment of the late-correction penalty is secured by the lien that attaches to the property under Section 32.01 and is subject to enforced collection under Chapter 33. The roll may not be changed under this subsection if:

(1) the property was the subject of a protest brought by the property owner under Chapter 41, a hearing on the protest was conducted in which the property owner offered evidence or argument, and the appraisal review board made a determination of the protest on the merits; or

(2) the appraised value of the property was established as a result of a written agreement between the property owner or the owner's agent and the appraisal district.

(e) If the chief appraiser and the property owner do not agree to the correction before the 15th day after the date the motion is filed, a party bringing a motion under Subsection (c) or (d) is entitled on request to a hearing on and a determination of the motion by the appraisal review board. A party bringing a motion under this section must describe the error or errors that the motion is seeking to correct. Not later than 15 days before the date of the hearing, the board shall deliver written notice of the date, time, and place of the hearing to the chief appraiser, the property owner, and the presiding officer of the governing body of each taxing unit in which the property is located. The chief appraiser, the property owner, and each taxing unit are entitled to present evidence and argument at the hearing and to receive written notice of the board's determination of the motion. A property owner who files the motion must comply with the payment requirements of Section 42.08 or forfeit the right to a final determination of the motion.

(f) The chief appraiser shall certify each change made as provided by this section to the assessor for each unit affected by the change within five days after the date the change is entered.

(g) Within 45 days after receiving notice of the appraisal review board's determination of a motion under this section, the property owner or the chief appraiser may file suit to compel the board to order a change in the appraisal roll as required by this section.

(h) The appraisal review board, on the joint motion of the property owner and the chief appraiser filed at any time prior to the date the taxes become delinquent, shall by written order correct an error that resulted in an incorrect appraised value for the owner's property.

(i) A person who acquires property after January 1 of the tax year at issue is entitled to file any motion that this section authorizes the person who owned the property on January 1 of that year to file, if the deadline for filing the motion has not passed.

(j) If during the pendency of a motion under this section the ownership of property subject to the motion changes, the new owner of the property is entitled to proceed with the motion in the same manner as the property owner who filed the motion.

(k) The chief appraiser shall change the appraisal records and school district appraisal rolls promptly to reflect the detachment and annexation of property among school districts under Subchapter C or G, Chapter 41, Education Code.

(l) A motion may be filed under Subsection (c) regardless of whether, for a tax year to which the motion relates, the owner of the property protested under Chapter 41 an action relating to the value of the property that is the subject of the motion.

(m) The hearing on a motion under Subsection (c) or (d) shall be conducted in the manner provided by Subchapter C, Chapter 41.

(n) After a chief appraiser certifies a change under Subsection (b) that corrects multiple appraisals of a property, the liability of a taxing unit for a refund of taxes under Section 26.15(f), and any penalty or interest on those taxes, is limited to taxes paid for the tax year in which the appraisal roll is changed and the four tax years preceding that year.

(o) The failure or refusal of a chief appraiser to change an appraisal roll under Subsection (b) is not:

(1) an action that the appraisal review board is authorized to determine under this section;

(2) an action that may be the subject of a suit to compel filed under Subsection (g);

(3) an action that a property owner is entitled to protest under Section 41.41; or

(4) an action that may be appealed under Chapter 42.

Added by .Acts 1979, 66th Leg., p. 2276, ch. 841, 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1982. Amended by Acts 1981, 67th Leg., 1st C.S., p. 162, ch. 13, 113, eff. Jan. 1, 1982; Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 826, 1, eff. June 15, 1985; Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 796, 28, eff. Jan. 1, 1990; Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 829, 1, eff. June 14, 1989; Acts 1991, 72nd Leg., ch. 367, 2, eff. Jan. 1, 1992; Acts 1991, 72nd Leg., ch. 393, 2, eff. June 10, 1991; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 347, 4.12, eff. May 31, 1993; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 1031, 2, eff. Sept. 1, 1993; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 76, 17.01(48), eff. Sept. 1, 1995; Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 165, 6.76, eff. Sept. 1, 1997; Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 177, 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1997; Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1039, 26, eff. Jan. 1, 1998; Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 439, 1, eff. May 28, 2001; Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 1430, 6, eff. Sept. 1, 2001; Acts 2005, 79th Leg., ch. 1126, 7, eff. Sept. 1, 2005.

Cross References:
Appeal to district court generally, see ch. 42.
Correction of tax roll, see Sec. 26.15.
Definition of clerical error, see Sec. 1.04 (18).
Payment of taxes under protest, see Sec. 42.08.
Protests generally, see ch. 41.
School annexation and detachment, see ch. 41, Education Code.

Notes:
Taxpayer is able to use federal court bankruptcy proceedings to reappraise its property so long as the reappraisal is determined by using state court principles. Under Texas law, only grossly excessive values can be adjusted and the taxpayer must prove the excessive nature of the initial tax appraisal. The court cannot take into consideration conditions which arise after January 1 of the disputed tax year and/or any other factors which impact the taxpayer's actual distribution. Business value does not impact the actual value of the inventory held by that business. In Re: Quality Beverage Co., Inc., 170 Bankruptcy Reporter 310 (Southern District, Texas 1994).

Reliance on incorrect data contained in a property owner's rendition does not itself constitute a clerical error. In this case, although the rendition may have caused a property's value to be overstated, a clerical error, as defined by the Tax Code, did not cause the appraisal error. The court agreed a clerical error did not occur where the rendition to the appraisal district was based on allegedly incorrect data provided by another employee as well as an erroneous internal balance sheet. Marubeni Am. Corp. v. Harris County Appraisal Dist., 168 S.W.3d 860 (Tex. App. - Houston [1st] 2004, pet. denied.).

Taxpayer failed to apply for an open-space land designation upon a request by the chief appraiser and protested under Section 25.25 as a clerical error concerning the date of conveyance of property. The appraisal review board held for the appraisal district. The order determining protest was not delivered to the taxpayer for more than four months due to an address change. The trial court held that the property qualified for an open-space land designation without the need for re-application. The Court upheld the ruling. Because administrative remedies were exhausted and the taxpayer filed suit within 45 days of receiving the order, the Court held that it had jurisdiction to decide the controlling issue in the case. Cooke County Tax Appraisal District v. Teel, No. 2-03-115-CV (Tex. App.-Fort Worth, 2003, no pet. h.).

An unadjudicated protest filed by a taxpayer does not bar a hearing pursuant to a motion for late correction under Section 25.25(d). Dismissal of a protest for failure to appear at a hearing is not an adjudication of the rights of the parties. The taxpayer was not entitled, however, to recover attorneys fees under Section 41.45 as a result of the denial of the hearing on the motion for late correction. Koger Equity, Inc. v. Bexar County Appraisal Review Board, 123 S.W.3d 502 (Tex. App.-San Antonio, 2003, no pet. h.).

Interstate allocation of business aircraft was not permitted as a late correction to an appraisal roll, as also held in decisions by the Harris County appellate courts. WB Summit Properties, Inc. v. Midland Central Appraisal District, 122 S.W.3d 374 (Tex. App.-El Paso 2003, no pet. h.).

Tax Code Section 21.055 implies that a taxpayer who seeks allocation of value must provide information showing entitlement to allocation at the time of rendition. Further, the Court cited Rule 9.4033(e): "a property owner who is entitled to an allocation of property must file a rendition form that provides enough information necessary to . . . permit the chief appraiser to apply an allocation formula. . ." The language in Section 25.25(c)(3) refers to property that does not have any physical location in Texas through the entire year. The section does not permit a change in the appraisal roll for interstate allocation of the value of personal property. The Court expressly overruled its prior decision in Himont U.S.A. Inc. v. Harris County Appraisal District, 904 S.W.2d 740 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1995, no writ). Harris County Appraisal District v. Texas Gas Transmission Corp., 105 S.W.3d 88 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, pet. filed).

Failure of the taxpayer to show entitlement to interstate allocation for its aircraft at the time of rendition precluded the allocation. In addressing whether the aircraft was commercial rather than business in nature, it held that the aircraft's operator must be a "certified air carrier" for the commercial status to apply. SLW Aviation, Inc. v. Harris County Appraisal District, 105 S.W.3d 99 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, no pet.).

Section 25.25(c)(3) does not provide a means to allocate the value of a business aircraft used in interstate commerce. Harris County Appraisal District v. Texas Eastern Transmission Corp., 99 S.W.3d 849 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, pet. denied).

Section 25.25(c)(3) was not a proper remedy for the allocation of aircraft value because the property owner stipulated that the aircraft existed at the location and in the form described on the appraisal roll. It could not use the allocation provision of Section 21.03 to prove that the aircraft was not located in the appraisal district to correct a prior year roll. By failing to file timely a protest, the taxpayer waived its right to allocation for prior years. Kellair Aviation Co. v. Travis Central Appraisal District, 99 S.W.3d 704 (Tex. App.-Austin 2003, pet. denied).

The taxpayer must follow statutory procedures for allocation of value to apply. The owner waived constitutional entitlement to interstate allocation by failing to protest before the appraisal review board. The aircraft was located in the district on January 1 of each year in question, and the taxpayer did not challenge the description of the property on the appraisal rolls. The aircraft value therefore could not be allocated for prior years. A & S Air Service, Inc. v. Denton Central Appraisal District, 99 S.W.3d 340 (Tex. App.-Ft. Worth 2003, no pet.).

The taxpayer exhausted its administrative remedies by protesting to the appraisal review board the inclusion of certain vehicles in the appraised value of a property account. The taxpayer therefore could raise the defense of non-ownership in a suit to collect delinquent taxes, even though the appraisal protest was not continued in subsequent years. City of Pharr v. Boarder to Boarder Trucking Svc., Inc. 76 S.W.3d 803 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 2002, pet. denied).

Section 25.25(c) was an improper method of seeking the commercial aircraft interstate allocation found in Section 21.05. As reasoned in the Texarkana court in Aramco Associated Co., the legislature has given property owners two specific procedures to challenge the appraised value on appraisal rolls under Chapters 41 and 42 and under Section 25.25(d). The legislature placed restrictions on the right to challenge the appraised value in both procedures. Broadly construing "location" to permit a challenge under Section 25.25(c)(3) to the allocation of appraised value would be contrary to the legislative scheme. Gunn v. Bexar County Appraisal District, 71 S.W.3d 425 (Tex. App. - San Antonio [4th Dist.] 2002, pet. denied).

Tax Code Section 25.25(c), subject to a five-year limitation, gives the appraisal review board the authority to change the appraisal roll on motion of the chief appraiser or a property owner. Section 25.25(b) does not contemplate the filing or presentation of any protest, or authorize the appraisal review board to review the chief appraiser's decision. Western Athletic Clubs, Inc. v. Harris County Appraisal District and Harris County Appraisal Review Board, 56 S.W.3d 269 (Tex. App. - Amarillo 2001, no pet.).

Section 25.25(d) does not provide for the appeal of the denial of an exemption. Taxpayer failed to timely file a protest under Chapter 41. Bexar Appraisal District v. Wackenhut Corrections Corporation, 52 S.W.3d 795 (Tex. App. - San Antonio 2001, no pet.).

The statutory language in Tax Code Section 25.25(d) provides that the tax roll could not be changed if the property was subject of a prior protest brought under Tax Code Chapter 41 and resolved by an earlier negotiated resolution. Royal Production Company, Inc. v. San Jacinto County Central Appraisal District and San Jacinto County Appraisal Review Board, 42 S.W.3d 373 (Tex. App. - Beaumont 2001, no pet.).

Because owners of agricultural land are informed of the appraised market value of their land in the notices of appraised value, they are sufficiently alerted to any error in the appraised market value at the time of the appraisal. Therefore, even though they are not taxed on the market value of their land, these owners have the right to protest the appraised market value immediately upon receiving their notice of appraised value, long before any rollback tax may be imposed because of a change in use. Any motion made pursuant to Section 25.25(d), including a motion to correct the appraised market value of agricultural property, must be filed before the date the yearly property taxes - not the rollback taxes - on the subject land become delinquent. Tarrant Appraisal District and Tarrant Appraisal Review Board v. Gateway Center Associates, Ltd., 34 S.W.3d 712 (Tex. App.- Fort Worth [2nd Dist.] 2000, no pet.).

Taxpayer sought relief under Section 25.25 regarding the value of an airplane for 1991 through 1995. 1991 and 1992 were not properly before the court since protests were filed, but dismissed when taxpayer did not appear for the hearing. 1994 and 1995 were not properly before the court either since protests were filed and written settlements executed. No protest was pursued for 1993. However, since the parties stipulated to the form and location of the airplane as described in the appraisal, Section 25.25(c) provided no relief for 1993. Allocation of value cannot be corrected using Section 25.25(c). Aramco Associated Company v. Harris County Appraisal District and Harris County Appraisal Review Board, 33 S.W.3d 361 (Tex. App. - Texarkana 2000, pet. denied).

A property owner's ability to change the approved tax appraisal rolls is clearly limited. Any motion made pursuant to Section 25.25(d), including a motion to correct the appraised market value of agricultural property, must be filed before the date the yearly property taxes - not the rollback taxes - on the subject land become delinquent. The term "taxes" used in Section 25.25(d) refers only to the yearly property taxes. Anderton v. Rockwall Central Appraisal District and Appraisal Review Board, 26 S.W.3d 539 (Tex. App.- Dallas [5th Dist.] 2000, pet. denied).

Under Section 25.25(c)(3), "inclusion of property that does not exist in the form or at the location described in the appraisal roll" allows correction of the appraisal roll only when the appraisal roll erroneously reflects that a particular form of property exists at a specified location and, in fact, no such property exists at that location. Because the property owner complained about property value, not the existence or nonexistence of certain "forms" of property at the particular location, the appraisal roll was not amended under Section 25.25(c)(3). Because Section 25.25(c)(3) only authorizes changes for errors in the description of the form or location of property in the appraisal roll, the court has not authority to look behind the appraisal roll to the rendition filed by the property owner's agent. Titanium Metals Corporation v. Dallas County Appraisal District, 3 S.W.3d 63 (Tex. App. -- Dallas [5th District] 1999).

Relying on the finding in G.E. American Communication and 1997 legislative amendments, a court appeal under Section 25.25(g) requires a substantive review of the appraisal review board proceedings and decision. The trial court determines whether the review board's decision is reasonably supported by substantial evidence and is otherwise free from fraud, bad faith, and an abuse of discretion. Benmar Place, L.P. v. Harris County Appraisal District, 997 S.W.2d 282 (Tex. App. -- Houston [14th District] 1999).

Square footage errors are correctable as clerical errors, and the appraisal review board under Section 25.25(c)(1) may review to determine whether a clerical error was made. Handy Hardware Wholesale, Inc. v. Harris County Appraisal District, 985 S.W.2d 618 (Tex. App. -- Houston [1st District] 1999).

Based on the 1997 amendments by the Texas Legislature, taxpayers are entitled to full judicial review of appraisal review board decisions under Section 25.25 made after January 1, 1998. Decisions prior to January 1, 1998 are made under a substantial evidence de novo standard. G.E. American Communication v. Galveston Central Appraisal District, 979 S.W.2d 761 (Tex. App. -- Houston [1st District] 1998).

Tax Code Section 25.25(g) provides for full judicial review of appraisal review board decisions made pursuant to Section 25.25. The relief available under Section 25.25 is clearly different and more limited than that available under Chapter 41. GE Capital Corporation v. Dallas Central Appraisal District, 971 S.W.2d 591 (Tex. App. -- Dallas 1998).

The prior property owner's settlement of a protest barred a future owner from Property Tax Code Section 25.25(d) relief for that tax year. Dallas Central Appraisal District v. Park Stemmons, Ltd., 948 S.W.2d 11 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1997).

Property Tax Code Section 1.04(18) definition of clerical error should be read that subsections (A) and (B) are independent of each other. Subsection (A) is not limited to errors by the appraisal district or taxing units, but may include errors by the taxpayer. Comdisco, Inc. v. Tarrant County Appraisal District, 927 S.W.2d 325 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 1996, rehearing overruled).

Section 25.25(c)(1) of the Tax Code allows an appraisal review board to correct the appraisal roll for the taxpayer's clerical errors since the term "clerical error in 25.25(c)(1) includes errors made by the taxpayer. Comdisco, Inc., v. Tarrant County Appraisal District., 927 S.W.2d 325 (Tex. App. - Fort Worth 1996, writ refused).

The 45-day provision in Property Tax Code Section 25.25(g) is mandatory and jurisdictional. Fountain Parkway, Ltd. v. Tarrant Appraisal District, 920 S.W.2d 799 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 1996, writ denied).

Under Property Tax Code Section 25.25(c)(3), the appraisal review board may not look past the actual appraisal roll to determine whether an error had actually occurred as to the "form of the property" as shown on that roll. The statutory meaning of "form of the property" concerns whether the property is correctly identified as real property, personal property, an improvement to real property or some other typical physical description of that property. A review board's previous actions in reviewing the actual physical condition of a business property was therefore incorrect. It was not relevant that the appraisal review board had used this methodology of review in the past to modify items other than what information was shown on the appraisal roll. Dallas Central Appraisal District v. G.T.E. Directories Corporation, 905 S.W.2d 318 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1995, writ denied).

When appraising railroad rolling stock, an appraisal district must correct its failure to grant an interstate use allocation under Section 25.25 (c)(3) - "property was not in the location shown on the appraisal roll." Failure of the taxpayer to render its property does not foreclose the use of Section 25.25. The filing of such a rendition is permissive and not mandatory, notwithstanding the statutory language contained in Section 22.01. Himont USA, Inc. v. Harris County Appraisal District, 904 S.W.2d 740 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st District] 1995).

The subsequent purchaser of property is not barred from contesting the property's value under Section 25.25(d) when the previous owner had timely filed a protest of the property's value and then withdrew the protest because of the pending land sale. Jim Sowell Construction Company, Inc. v. Dallas Central Appraisal District, 900 S.W.2d 82 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1995, writ pending).

A clerical error under Sec. 25.25(c)(1), Tax Code, does not include a mistake made by a property owner. Collin County Appraisal Dist. v. Northeast Dallas Assoc., 855 S.W.2d 843 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1993, no writ).

The term "form" in Sec. 25.25(c)(3) refers to the physical description of the property, not to the use of the property. Id.

Chapter 41, Tax Code, provides protest procedures a taxpayer may use to correct an error made by the taxpayer. To allow Sec. 25.25(c)(1)'s clerical error provision to do the same thing would give a taxpayer two identical remedies, which was not the intent of the Legislature. Id.

In a case involving double payments by taxpayers on the same property, in response to the argument by the taxing units that the taxpayers had to exhaust administrative remedies under chapters 41 and 42, Tax Code, before filing suit, the court said that Sec. 25.25(a) provides remedies other than the "protest" remedy listed in chapters 41 and 42. Brooks County Central Appraisal District v. Tipperary Energy Corporation, 847 S.W.2d 592 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1992, no writ).

In a case where the taxing units argued that even if the appropriate remedies were sought by the taxpayers, the taxpayers were still required to file a "correction motion" with the appraisal review board under Sec. 25.25(c), as well as appear before the board to present evidence substantiating their "clerical error" allegation. The court found that the taxpayer had made several requests to the various taxing units for refunds, and that the appraisal review board had twice considered and denied the motion for tax refund due to overpayment or erroneous payments. In addition, the court found that there was no evidence to indicate that the review board sent the taxpayer notice of the hearing on its motion. The court also found that chapter 25, Tax Code, has no detailed procedure corresponding to the procedure set forth in chapters 41 and 42. Section 25.25(c) refers to a "motion" but does not require that the review board hold a hearing on such motion, nor that the taxpayer appear at such hearing. Therefore, the court concluded that there was still sufficient compliance with the statutory administrative prerequisites prior to filing suit by the taxpayer. Id.

The trial court erred in granting summary judgment for a taxpayer based upon the failure of the appraisal district and appraisal review board to answer requests for admission resulting in a deemed admission that the taxpayer's 1982 appraisal was the result of a clerical error. The determination that an error is clerical in nature is a question of law; thus, it is not subject to resolution by a deemed admission. Fort Bend Central Appraisal District v. Hines Wholesale Nurseries, 844 S.W.2d 857 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 1992, writ denied).

Sec. 25.25 gives a trial court jurisdiction to decide whether a clerical error exists in an appraisal roll. A mistake which is clerical in nature is one which is not the result of judicial reasoning, evidence, or determination. Whether an error is clerical is a question of law. Matagorda County Appraisal District v. Conquest Exploration Co., 788 S.W.2d 687 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 1990, no writ).

A taxpayer seeking correction of a clerical error that affects tax liability must exhaust his administrative remedies by filing a correction motion with the Appraisal Review Board before bringing suit in district court for a refund. Liland v. Dallas CAD, 731 S.W.2d 109 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1987, no writ).

While a taxing unit is not bound to do anything by a court decision against the appraisal district and appraisal review board, the unit is affected by court ordered changes by the appraisal district and review board in correcting rolls because of initial inappropriate appraisal procedures. Alief Independent School District v. Harris County Appraisal District and Harris County Appraisal Review Board, 731 S.W.2d 628 (Tex. App.-Houston 1987, writ ref'd n.r.e.).

Under Sec. 25.25(d), an ARB may correct an erroneous market value of real property that was appraised at a value based on a capitalization method used in Secs. 23.41, 23.52 or 23.73 if the corrected market value would be less than the appraised value, and Sec. 25.25(d) is otherwise complied with. Tex. Att'y Gen. LO-94-019 (1994).