HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-5601John L. Sweezy, Petitioner :
Cumberland County Board of :
Assessment and Appeals, :
Respondent :
In the Court of Common Pleas of
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania
Appeal from Board Order of
August 31, 2001
PETITION FOR REVIEW
TO THE HONORABLE, THE JUDGES OF SAID COURT:
Petitioner John L. Sweezy respectfully petitions
the Court
pursuant to the provisions of the Fourth to Eighth Class County
Assessment Law, 72 P.S. ~5453.704 (hereinafter FECLAW) for
review of the order of the Cumberland County Board of Assessment
and Appeals (hereinafter Board) dated August 31, 2001, denying
Petitioner's appeal from the Board's assessment ~r Occupation
tax in the category of "700 Attorney", for reasons as follows:
1. Petitioner John L. Sweezy is a resident of 125 Victoria
Drive, Lower Allen Township (Mechanicsburg), Cumberland County,
Pennsylvania, and is an attorney licensed to practice law
pursuant to rules of the Pa. Supreme Court.
2. Lower Allen Township and West Shore School District
have levied Occupation taxes on Petitioner under Board's schedule
of assessments in the category of "700 Attorney" for the tax
years 2000 and 2001, and 2000-01 and 2001-02, respectively; and
Petitioner has filed timely appeals with the Board and has paid
all Occupation taxes thus levied "Under Protest" in the total
amount of $1029.00.
3. On August 31, 2001 the Board held a hearing on Petitioner's
appeal at which Petitioner presented evidence substantially the
same as is contained in the within Petition; and on August 31, 2001
the Board issued an order denying Petitioner's appeal and request
for change in Occupation assessment (Cf. Exhibit 1 attached).
4. Economic return to the prac~ti~nsr is an essential ingredient
in the value of an Occupation tax assessed under the Local Tax
Enabling Act, 53 P.S. §6901 et seq.
federal and state income tax returns
sources for the year 2000.
(hereinafter LTEA); Petitioner's
show a net loss from professional
5. Occupation taxes as ~sessed under LTEA and FECLAW are un-
constitutional on their face in that they patently violate Article
III Section 1 of the Pa. Constitution requiring all taxes to be
uniform upon the same class of taxpayers; a wide disparity of
economic return exists both among and within classes of taxpayers
taxable under controlling law.
6. The Board has the power and duty under FECLAW to value
and assess "all professions, trades and occupations..." 72 P.S.
~5453.201(b); the Board has unconstitutionally applied the law
by failing to establish a category of assessment providing tax
uniformity for the class of taxpayers wh~se occupations now assessed
in high brackets do not yield a commensurate economic return.
7. LTEA exemption provisions at 53 P.S. ~6902 are inadequate
in that they authorize relief only for taxpayers whose income
from all sources is less than $5000 per annum; informal exemptions
granted by some taxing districts on an individual basis are
subjective in nature and inherently lack uniformity.
- 2 -
8. Occupation tax laws as presently enacted and applied
unjustly punish certain legal professionals and their pro bono
clients, since only fully-accredited, and thus Occupation-taxable,
attorneys may provide free legal service.
9. Act No. 24 of 2001 providing for possible elimination
of Occupation taxes by referendum does not rectify current abuses
nor ensure future tax uniformity, because its application is pros-
pective only, and uncertain of approval by a majority of the tax-
paying electorate.
WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests that the Court
set this matter down for a de novo hearing pursuant to 72 P.S.
25453.704, to determine whether Petitioner shall be granted relief,
to include establishing through Court order and/or through remand
to the Board a separate Occupation tax category exempting from
future Occupation tax assessment Petitioner and others in his
class of high-bracketed/low job-related income taxpayers;
allowing refund to Petitioner under FECLAW or 72 P.S.~5566b of
Occupation tax payments previously made to Lower Allen Township
and West Shore School District; setting aside the Board's order
of August 31, 2001; and such other relief as the Court may
deem appropriate.
Exhibit 1
Attachment - Board Order
of August 31,2001
Dated: September/~ , 2001
125 Victoria Drive
Mechanicsburg, Pa. 17055-3527
Petitioner
ID 15506
GAY O. McGEARY
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
RANDY L. WAGGONER
CHIEF ASSESSOR
STEPHEN D. TILEY
ASSISTANT SOLICITOR
ONE COURTHOUSE SQUARE, CARLISLE, PA 17013 TELEPHONE (717) 240-6350
August31,2001
John L. Sweezy
125 Victoria Drive
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-3527
Re: Occupation Assessment Appeal
Dear Mr. Sweezy:
As a result of the recently concluded appeal hearings, the Board of Assessment has
issued the following order:
No change to current assessment of 700, Attorney
Any person aggrieved by the order of the Board of Assessment may appeal to
the Court of Common Pleas by filing a petition in the Prothonotary's office on or before
September 29, 2001,
Sincerely,
Gay O. McGeary
Director of Finance
VERIFICATION
I verify that the statements made in the foregoing Petition
for Review are true and correct. I understand that false state-
ments herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.
§4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
j~OHN L~. ~W~E~Z ~y~ '/~e t i t ion e r
Dated: September ~ , 2001
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I am this day serving the foregoing
Petition for Review upon the persons indicated below by first
class mail postage prepaid:
Stephen D. Tiley, Solicitor
Cumberland County Board of
Assessment & Appeals
5 South Hanover Street
Carlisle, Pa. 17013
Honorable Mike Fisher
Attorney General of
Pennsylvania
c/o Secretary
16th Floor Strawberry Square
Harrisburg, Pa. 17120
JO~HNL.~'S~tioner
Dated: September ~ , 2001
John L. Sweezy, Petitioner
Cumberland County Board of
Assessment and Appeals,
Respondent
In th~ Court of Common Pleas of
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania
Appeal from Board Order of
August 31, 2001
ORDER
AND ~OW. this~"~ay of ~.~ .2001. upon
consideration of the foregoing Petition for Review of the
order of the Cumberland County Board of Assessment and Appeals
dated August 31, 2001, and upon application of John L. Sweezy,
Petitioner, a hearing de novo is hereby granted to determine
whether the said Board order shall be set aside and relief
granted as sought in the Petition.
Hearing set for~/~./ ~~ ~2001, at,~.M.,
in Courtroom No.~ of the Courthouse in Carlisle, Pa.
John L. Sweezy, Petitioner
Cumberland County Board of
Assessment and Appeals,
Respondent
In th~ Court of Common Pleas of
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania
:
Appeal from Board Order of
: August 31, 2001
ORDER
A~D ~0~, this~"~ay of a~/O~ ,2001, upon
consideration of the foregoing Petition for Review of the
order of the Cumberland County Board of Assessment and Appeals
dated August 31, 2001, and upon application of John L. Sweezy,
Petitioner, a hearing de novo is hereby granted to determine
whether the said Board order shall be set aside and relief
granted as sought in the Petition.
Hearing set forW~. ~~ ~2001, at,~.M.
in Courtroom No.~ / '
of the Courthouse in Carlisle, Pa.
VI b ~,"A"I,'kSN hl.~ d
LB :S ~':ic] .7,- ~.30 I0
Ab'VIi.. ' ,-': '
JOHN L. SWEEZY, PETITIONER
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD
OFASSESSMENTAPPEALS,
RESPONDENT
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
;
;
: APPEAL FROM BOARD ORDER OF
: AUGUST 31, 2001
:
: NO. 2001-5601 CIVIL TERM
ANSWER
TO THE HONORABLE. THE JUDGES OF SAID COURT:
Respondent, Cumberland County Board of Assessment Appeals, by Stephen D. Tiley,
Esquire, Assistant Cumberland County Solicitor, submits this Answer to the Petition for Review in
the above captioned matter of which the following is a statement:
1. Admitted.
2. Admitted in part. Denied in part. The averments of this paragraph are admitted
except it is denied that Petitioner paid any of such taxes "under protest" as the information
concerning whether or not a taxpayer pays taxes "under protest" is solely within the control of the
taxpayer and the tax collectors and Respondent does not have sufficient information with which to
form an opinion as to the accuracy of this averment.
3. Admitted.
4. Denied. Respondent has insufficient information for which to form a belief as to
the accuracy of the averment that Petitioner's Federal and State Income Tax returns show a net loss
from professional sources for the year 2000. Respondent avers that if true the fact of such net loss
for the year 2000 is irrelevant to the administration of the Pennsylvania Occupation Tax for the year
2001 or any other year. Furthermore, the averments of this paragraph set forth conclusions of law
to which no responsive pleading is required.
5. Denied. The avemaents of this paragraph are denied as they set forth conclusions of
law to which no responsive pleading is required.
6. Denied. The averments of this paragraph are denied as they set forth conclusions of
law to which no responsive pleading is required.
7. Denied. The averments of this paragraph are denied as they set forth conclusions of
law to which no responsive pleading is required.
8. Denied. The averments of this paragraph are denied as they set forth conclusions of
law to which no responsive pleading is required.
9. Denied. The averments of this paragraph are denied as they set forth conclusions of
law to which no responsive pleading is required.
WHEREFORE, Respondent respectfully respects Your Honorable Court to deny
Petitioner's appeal.
Respectfully submitted,
Dated:
Stephen l~. Tiley, Esquire
Attorney for Cumberland County
Board of Assessment Appeals
and Cumberland County
5 South Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 2430-5838
Supreme Court I.D.#32318
VER~
I verify that the statements made in the foregoing Answer are tree and correct, partially
upon personal knowledge and partially upon my belief; to the extent language in the Answer is
that of my attorneys, I have relied upon my attorneys in making this Verification. I understand
that false statements herein are made and subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. §4904 relating to
unswom falsification to authorities.
Dated:
Bonnie M. Mahoney
Chief Assessor
JOHN L. SWEEZY, PETI~ONER
V.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD
OFASSESSMENTAPPEALS,
RESPONDENT
INTHECOURTOFCOMMONPLEASOF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
APPEAL FROM BOARD ORDER OF
AUGUST 31, 2001
NO. 2001-5601 CIVIL TERM
CERTIHCATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I am this date serving a true and correct copy of the within Answer
upon the Petitioner by sending the same by fu'st-class mail postage paid addressed as follow:
John L. Sweezy, Esquire
Petitioner
P.O. Box 224
Harrisburg, Pa 17108
John L. Sweezy
Petitioner
125 Victoria Drive
Mechauicsburg, PA 17055
Stephen'D. Tiley, Esquire
Frey & Tiley
Attorney for Cumb. County
Board of Assessment Appeals
5 S. Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
717-243-5838
JOHN L. SWEEZY, PETITIONER
Ve
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD
OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS,
RESPONDENT
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
: APPEAL FROM BOARD ORDER OF
: AUGUST31, 2001
: NO. 2001-5601 CIVIL TERM
AND NOW, this I~''I ~ day of November, 2001, the hearing scheduled for
Wednesday, November 21, 2001 at 1:00 p.m. is canceled and the matter is continued
generally at the call of either party, upon representation by Stephen D. Tiley, Esquire,
counsel for the Cumberland County Board of Assessment Appeals, that the parties
are in settlement negotiations and that Petitioner John L. Sweezy, Esquire concurs
with the general continuance of the case.
Edward E. Guido, J.
cc: Stephen D. Tiley, Esquire
John L. Sweezy, Esquire
John L. Sweezy, Petitioner
Cumberland County Board of
Assessment and Appeals,
Respondent
In the Court of Common Pleas of
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania
Appeal from Board Order of
August 31, 2001
No. 2001 - 5601 Civil Term
MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF RULE UPON RESPONDENT BOARD
TO SHOW CAUSE W~Y DISCOVERY SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED
AND BOARD COMPELLED TO RESPOND TO PETITIONER'S
WRITTEN INTERROGATORIES
AND NOW, April ~ , 2002, comes Petitioner John L. Sweezy,
pro se and as an attorney, and moves this Honorable Court to issue
a rule upon Respondent Board to show cause why discovery should not
be allowed, and Board compelled to respond to Written Interrogatories
posed by Petitioner, and in support of said Motion states as follows:
1. This matter is before the Court pursuant to Petition for
Review filed 9-26-01; Board's Answer filed 11-02-01; Court Order
by Judge Guido dated ].1-19-01 granting general continuance pending
settlement negotiations, and subsequent exchanges between counsel of
correspondence and proposed settlement conditions.
2. On February 16, 2002 Petitioner served upon Respondent's
counsel Written Interrogatories analogous to RCP 4005, concerning
issues relevant to the subject matter of the above appeal, and issues
mooted between the parties during the course of the proceedings,
including Board establishment of a special occupation tax category
for certain professionals,
interest on such refunds.
refunds of taxes paid and appealed, and
(Cf. Interrogatories: Attachment A)
3. Assuming thirty days to
be a reasonable time (and as specified
on RCP 4005) for response to Interrogatories, such time has now
elapsed, and Respondent's counsel has raised by letter dated 3-25-02
(Attachment B) the defense that Rules of Civil Procedure as such
do not apply to tax assessment appeals and that discovery may be
invoked only by special allowance of the trial Court.
4. Respondent Board has not replied to Petitioner's letter of
March 6, 2002; Petitioner believes the present state of the record
satisfies the requirement of C.C.R.P. 206-2(c). (Cf. Attachment C t
5. The current law~ncerning use of discovery ~ in tax assess-
ment appeals in lower Courts is reflected in Appeal of Borough of
Churchhill, 525 Pa. 80, 575 A2 550 (1990) at Pa. p.89 and A2fp. 554
and in a subsequent line of cases to the following effect:
"Since the Rules of Civil Procedure are inapplicable to'
statutory appeals, rules of practice and procedure did not
have to be enacted in strict compliance with the provisions
of Rule 239. Rather, our trial courts have had the right
to enact rules and publish these to cover practice in this
area of the law, Where they have not enacted such rules,
then each trial court has been vested with the full authority
of the court to make rules of practice for the proper dis-
position of cases before them, and that we have enforced those
rules unless they violated the Constitution or laws of the
Commonwealth or United States or our statewide rules."
(See also Rutkowski v. CW Dept. of Trans., 780 A2 860,
Pa. Cmwlth 2001, at A2 p. 862)
6. Petitioner has been unable to find in this Court's local
rules any reference which addresses or provides guidance to the
manner in which discovery is to be authorized and executed in tax
appeal matters, nor has Pe~c~er's search of reported Cumberland
County cases 1983 to date disclosed any relevant holdings.
7. Since allowance of discovery in tax appeals is a question
of law to be decided by the trial Court, Petitioner has concluded
that proceeding by motion is fitting in this case.
8. Petitioner be~es that access to matters adduced in the
Interrogatories is essential to a fair and just resolution of the
appeal.
WHEREFORE, Petitioner moves this Honorable Court to
issue a rule upon Respondent Board to show cause why discovery
should not be allowed and Board compelled to respond to Peti-
tioner's Written Interrogatories, pursuant to such procedures
as the Court deems appropriate.
ectfully submitted,
125 Victoria Drive
Mechanicsburg, Pa. 17055-3527
(717) 697-7003
ID 15506
Dated: April ~, 2002
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that i am this day serving the foregoing
Motion for Rule to Show Cause upon the person indicated below
by first class mail postage prepaid:
Stephen D. Tiley, Solicitor
Cumberland County Board of
Assessment & Appeals
5 South Hanover Street
Carlisle, Pa. 17013
John L. Sweez~yttorney
Petitioner
Dated: April ~ , 2002
John L.Sweezy, Petitioner
Cumberland County Board of
Assessment and Appeals,
Respondent
In the Court of Common Pleas pf
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania
Appeal from Board Order of
August 31, 2001
:
: No. 2001 - 5601 Civil Term
INTERROGATORIES ADDRESSED TO RESPONDENT BOARD
PURSUANT TO RCP 4005
Petitioner John L. Sweezy hereby serves the following
interrogatories to be answered by the respondent Board and
verified, within thirty (30) days from date of service.
These interrogatories are continuing and any additional
information which becomes kn(~n to respondent or respondent's
counsel after answers are filed, shall be set forth in supple-
mentary answers which are to be filed, without demand by
petitioner, as soon as the additional information is known.
Whenever the word "Board" appears hereinafter, it shall be
construed to mean not only respondent in its own right, but
also respondent's agents, servants, employes or attorneys.
JOHN L.' itioner
Post Office Box 224
Harrisburg, Pa. 17108-0224
(717) 697-7003
ID 15506
GENERAL INFORMATION
1. State:
a.Name and business address of the person responding to
these interrogatories.
b. Nature of employment, title and how long employed by
Board.
c. Whether person responding is responsible for:
(1) Determination of content of Cumberland County
Assessment Schedule and changes thereto.
(2) Changes in occupation classification of individual
taxpayers, including reclassification into category
"100 Part Time Work".
(3) Determination as to refunds to be paid to individual
taxpayers, where tax was improperly assessed and
collected.
(4) Determination as to whether interest is to be paid
on refunds and from what dates.
(5) Determination of Board policy generally, concerning
assessment and collection of occupation taxes.
Is the Cumberland County Assessment Schedule currently used
(hereinafter CCAS) based (a) on a standard model employed
by taxing districts generally, or (b) a construct devised
for use in Cumberland County.
If (a) in 2. above, identify the source of the model
any substantial departures from it in the Cumberland
County version.
and'
If (b) in 2. above, describe-the manner in which statistical
(economic) data used in establishing the rating categories
for various occupations, was arrived at.
5. Is category "100 Part Time Work" in CCAS derived from a model or~
construct by the Board.
Are you familiar with the recent proposal to change
petitioner's classification from "700 Attorney" to
"100 Part Time Work".
b. Has the Board at least preliminarily approved such
proposal.
Given the disparity in the economic value (earnings) within
taxpayers in the same occupational category, has the
Board considered establishing an assessment scheme which
more nearly reflects economic variations within a specific
category.
a. If yes, has it done so with respect to category
"700 Attorney" or any other professional 700 designation.
- 2 -
Given the disparity in the economic value (earnings) as
among numerical categories in the CCAS, what relief, if any,
has the Board proposed or considered to relieve such inequity.
In situations where a taxpayer in a-t~xable category is shown
to have no net occupational earnings during the tax year,
has the Board proposed or considered establishing a non-taxable
assessment category reflecting that fact.
a. If not, what legal or other impediment prohibits the
Board from doing so.
With respect to professional occupations where a taxpayer
with no occupational earnings is required to be licensed
and meet other qualifications in order to maintain professional
standing, has the Board proposed or considered establishing
a non-taxable category reflecting that fact.
10.
a. If not, what prohibits rhe Board from doing so.
Given that "100 Part Time Work" contemplates earnings for
up to 50% of a normal half-year's work activity, what is
the Board's rationale for assigning it a lower numerical
category.
11.
Is the'~-"l~ Part Time Work" categ)~ generally applied by
the Board to reclassify for purposes of tax relief regardless
of the category originally assigned·
12.
In the past five years how many occupational taxpayers in
Cumberland County in categories 200 through 500 were reclassi~ed
to "100 Part Time Work".
a. How many of these were taxpayers of Lower Allen Township
and/or West Shore School District.
13.
In the past five years how many occupational taxpayers in
Cumberland County in categories' 600 through 1000 were reclassified
to "100 Part Time Work".
a. How many of these were taxpayers of Lower Allen Township
and/or West Shore School District.
b. How many of these were in licensed profession~ categories.
c. How many were reclassified from "700 Attorney".
14.
In the past five years how many occupational taxpayers in
Cumberland County have been granted refunds as the result of
reclassification to lower numerical categories or to non-taxable
(100) categories.
15.
In the past five years how many taxpayers in Cumberlan~ County
have been paid interest on refunds where (a) amount of tax
(not validity) was in question, and (b) validity of tax as
assessed wss at issue.
a. If any, from what date (taxpayer's payment or thereafter)
was interest paid.
16.
Is the Board aware of any action or proposed action by West
Shore School District to reinstate the occupation tax for
future years notwithstanding the 2001 referendum result.
Dated: February ~ , 2002
John L. S~titioner
- 4 -
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I am this day serving the original
and two copies of the foregoing written interrogatories upon
the person indicated below by first class mail postage prepaid:
Stephen D. Tiley, Solicitor
Cumberland County Board of
Assessment & Appeals
5 South Hanover Street
Carlisle, Pa. 17013
~~titioner
Dated: February ~ , 2002
FREY & TILEY
ATrORNEY$-AT-LAW
$ ~oLn~ HANOVER ~TREE~
P~AI~ISL~, P~NNSYI.VANIA 17013
ROBERT M, FREY
OF COUNSEL
STEPHEN D. TILEY
ROBERT G. FREY
TELEPHONE (717) 243-5838
FACSIMILE (717) 243-6441
February 25, 2002
John L. Sweezy, Esquire
P.O: Box 224
Harrisburg, PA 17108
Re: Occupation Assessment Appeal
No. 2001-5601 Civil Term
Dear Mr. Sweezy:
I am in receipt of your letter of February 16, 2002 and its enclosures.
Please be advised that the Rules of Civil Procedure, including the rules
concerning discovery, are not applicable to assessment appeals because it
is a statutory appeal. See Appeal of the Borough of Churchill, 575 A2.d 550
(PA.1990). Cumberland County has not made the Rules of Civil Procedure
applicable to assessment appeals and therefore discovery is at the discretion of
the Court.
I assume that You will either choose to petition the Court for discovery or
settle this case as previously discussed. I understand that the only issue
outstanding concerning settlement is your desire for interest on the refund.
Stephen D. Tiley
SDT/tl
CC:
Joanne D. Sommer, Esquire
Steven P. Miner, Esquire
Bonnie M. Mahoney, Ch ef Assessor
A3'-TAC H MEN"{- 0
JOHN L, SWEEZ¥
A.T'TORI~E¥ AT LAW
March 6, 2002
Stephen D. Tiley, Esquire
Frey & Tiley
5 South Hanover Street
CarliSle, Pa. 17013
John L. Sweezy
No. 2001 - 9601 Civil Term
Dear Mr. Tiley:
This w~<~kn0wledge receipt of your letter of
February 25, 2002.
Assuming the Board does not modify its position
it is my present intention to request the Court to decide
that use of interrogatories under the aegis of RCP 4005
is appropriate in the present appeal, affording of course
reasonable additional time for ::'the Board to answer or
object to the discovery being sought.
Since a considerable exchange of correspondence has
already taken place, I believe characterizing one issue
as being paramount might only impede settlement at this
time.
uly yo%~rs,
John L. Sweezy i v
JLS: dar
ATq'-Ac H M E N'I-
APR 0 5 200Z
John L. Sweezy, Petitioner
Cumberland County Board of
Assessment and Appeals,
Respondent
In the Court of Common Pleas of
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania
Appeal from Board Order of
August 31, 2001
No. 200t - 5601 Civil Term
ORDER
AND NOW, this ~Oay of April, 2002, upon consideration
of the appended Motion and upon application of John L. Sweezy,
attorney, Petitioner, a rule is hereby granted upon Respondent
Board to show cause why discovery should not be allowed and
Board compelled to resPond to Petitioner's Written Interroga-
tories~ under such procedures as the Court may prescribe.
o,,!e rst~,,=b~e ~ne day o~ , 2002.
JOHN L. SWEEZY,
PETITIONER
Mo
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CUMBERLAND COUNTY : NO. 2001-5601 CIVIL
BOARD OF ASSESSMENT:
APPEALS, :
RESPONDENT :
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 20va day of MAY, 2002, argument on Petitioner's Motion to
Compel Discovery is scheduled before the undersigned on TI-IURSDAY~ JUNE 13~
2002~ at 1:00 p.m.
Edward E. Guido, J.
Stephen D. Tiley, Esquire
For Board of Assessment Appeals
:sld
JOHN L. SWEEZY, :
Plaintiff :
:
V. :
:
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF :
ASSESSMENT APPEALS, :
Defendant :
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
01-5601 CIVIL TERM
QRDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 13th day of June, 2002, after argument,
the Court feels it is in the interest of justice to allow
petitioner limited discovery. The Respondent Board is directed to
answer and/or object to the interrogatories attached to
petitioner's motion within 30 days of today's date. The parties
are then directed to try to resolve any objections between
themselves. If a satisfactory resolution cannot be reached, the
matter may be submitted to the Court. We will then set a briefing
schedule and argument in connection with the unresolved
objections.
By the
Edward E. Guido, J.
John L. Sweezy, Esquire
For Petitioner
Stephen D. Tiley, Esquire
For the Respondent
it
JOHN L. SWEEZY, PETITIONER
V=
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD
OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS,
RESPONDENT
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
: APPEAL FROM BOARD ORDER OF
: AUGUST31, 2001
..
: NO. 2001-5601 CIVIL TERM
R N ENT' AN WERS & ECTI NS TO INTERR ATORI S
AND NOW comes Respondent, by its attorney, Stephen D. Tiley, Assistant
Cumberland County Solicitor, and makes the following Answers and Objections to
Petitioner's Interrogatories.
Dated: ~7,~ /~ ,.~:~,:~
Respectfully Submitted,
Stephen D. Tiley, Esquire
Attorney for Cumberland County
Board of Assessment Appeals
and Cumberland County
5 South Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 2430-5838
Supreme Court I.D.#32318
JOHN L. SWEEZY, PETITIONER
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
V. CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD i APPEAL FROM BOARD ORDER OF
OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, AUGUST 31, 2001
RESPONDENT :
: NO. 2001-5601 CIVIL TERM
la.
AN~ BJECTIONS T INTERR ATORiESz_
Bonnie M. Mahoney
I Courthouse Square
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013
lb. Chief Assessor since September 10, 2001
Assessor since October 1, 1984
lc(1). No.
lc(2). Objection. The Objection to Interrogatory 5 is incorporated herein by
reference thereto.
Partial Answer. Changes and reclassifications are made by staff in the
occupational assessment office, which operates under the Chief Assessor.
lc(3). No. Refund amounts to be paid are determined and made by the
taxing bodies and tax collectors. The Assessment Office only determines
assessments.
lc(4). No.
lc(5). No.
~Because the space provided for answers to the Interrogator/es was insufficient for some of the
answers and objections, Respondent provides answers or objections to all of the Interrogatories in
this one document as it may be more convenient for all such responses to be in one place.
Answers and Objections to Interrogato#es _ Sweezy vs. Bd. of Assessment Appea/s
Page I of 7
2(a). I am unaware of any model like that of Cumberland County in existence
in the immediately surrounding counties.
2(b). The Assessment office has no knowledge of when or how the current
Cumberland County occupation assessment schedule was adopted.
3. Not Applicable.
4. Unknown.
5. Objection. This interrogatory, and its subparts, is objected to as in
violation of Pa.R.C.P. 4003.1 and 401 l(a) in that it seeks information that would be
inadmissible at trial and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence.2 The category "100 Part Time Work" is totally irrelevant to this
appeal of the taxpayer's "Attorney 700" classification. As Petitioner admitted to the
Court during oral argument on June 13, 2002, the category "100 Part Time Work" was
only raised as part ora settlement offer by Respondent. Pa.R.E. 408 provides, inter
alia, that: "Evidence of conduct or statements made in compromise negotiations is
likewise not admissible." Petitioner's placement of settlement negotiations before
the Court is wholly inappropriate, and interrogatories in aid of that effort are "sought in
bad faith" pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 4011(a).
The gravemen of Petitioner's appeal is that he is inappropriately assessed
as an Attorney, or that the entire Occupation Assessment scheme in Pennsylvania is
unconstitutional, because it does not take into consideration the "economic return''3 of
the Petitioner/taxpayer. The Petitioner evidently chooses to only provide pro bono
legal services, and therefore evidently has no "net income" (emphasis added) from
his law practice.4 Although interrogatories concerning the "Attorney 700" classification
may be somewhat relevant to the appeal since it relates to attorneys, whether or not
~References are made to the Rules of Civil Procedure as instructive, but not binding upon the Court.
See Appeal of the Borough of Church#/, 525 Pa. 80, 575 A.2d 550 (1990).
3 See Petition for Review filed in this case, paragraphs 4, 5 & 6.
4 Quote is from second full paragraph of Brief of Petitioner Re Motion To Compel Discovery. See also
Petition for Review filed in this case, paragraph 8. Reference is also made to Petitioner's statements
during oral argument on June 13, 2002.
Answers and Objections to Interrogatories. Sweezy vs. Bd. of Assessment Appeals Page 2 of 7
they have income due to limiting their practice to pro bono work, no other assessment
classification is at all relevant.
In the Brief of Petitioner Re Motion To Compel Discovery, Petitioner
described his appeal as follows:
"Petitioner has contended from the outset that the Occupation tax (although
not an income tax) is fiscal in nature, and that absent evidence of net earnings in
the taxed category, there is no lawful basis for the levy. Petitioner has contended
further that because of its patent inequity as among and within classes of
taxpayers, the Occupation tax -- if not on its face unconstitutional as lacking
uniformity under Pa. Constitution Article III Section 10 --- then is an unconstitutional
· IDgJL~aJJ_~ by the Board which institutes and perpetuates widespread tax injustice."
[Brief of Petitioner Re Motion To Compel Discovery, page 1. Emphasis supplied.]
"... Petitioner has urged a constitutional duty in the Board to establish a special
occupational classification effectively exempting occupational taxpayers who are
not retired but earn no net income from their classified occupations." [Brief of
Petitioner Re Motion To Compel Discovery, page 2.]
Even if the category "100 Part Time Work" was not being raised solely because of
settlement negotiations, nothing in Petitioner's contentions has any relevance to
category "100 Part Time Work", or to any reclassification of individuals to that category.
Other than being raised solely because of settlement negotiations, information
regarding category "100 Part Time Work" is no more relevant than information
regarding any other category.
Partial Answer. Irrespective of the objectionable nature of interrogatories
concerning the "100 Part Time Work" category, Respondent answers that there is no
Board policy, procedure or history of offering 100 Part Time Work as an alternative
classification for attorneys nor any other class of taxpayer. Petitioner was offered this
classification only after an appeal was filed to court and because he described
himself as semiretired and it was felt that if Petitioner in fact worked less than the
1040 hours (the limit provided for the part-time category) that this would be both an
appropriate category for him and an appropriate settlement. To the knowledge of the
Assessment office and the assistant County Solicitor this is the only instance in which
the "100 Part Time Work" category has been offered to an attorney, and its offer is
limited to the facts of this case.
Answers and Objections to Interrogatories - Sweezy vs. Bd. of Assessment Appeals Page 3 of 7
6. Objection. This interrogatory, and its subpart, is objected to as in
violation of Pa.R.C.P. 4003.1 and 4011(c) in that it seeks information that would be
inadmissible at trial and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence. Economic disparity within job categories is irrelevant to the
occupation assessment scheme. Even if the Board had made such considerations,
they would not be relevant to the question of whether or not the present Cumberland
County job classification system is constitutional. The question is over broad as there
is no timeframe for such considerations and therefore the interrogatory is objected to
as in violation of Pa.R.C.P. 401 l(b) & (e). The county has no readily available history
of Board hearings and the question could conceivably involve a review of
Commissioners' minutes back into 1800's when, at least, the occupation
assessment scheme was first implemented.
Partial Answer. Irrespective of the objectionable nature of this
interrogatory, if the question is limited to the present Board of Assessment Appeals
for Hearings and the present Commissioners Board of Assessment Appeals, the
answer is: No.
Further Partial Answer: Irrespective of the objectionable nature of this
interrogatory, the Assessment Office understands that some years ago the
Commissioner's Office searched for historical records concerning the longstanding
assessment schedule but found nothing.
7. Objection. The objection to Interrogatory 6 is incorporated herein by
reference thereto.
Partial Answer. Irrespective of the objectionable nature of this
interrogatory, some years ago, say about 10, a "blue ribbon panel" was appointed by
the Cumberland County Commissioners to consider changes to the assessment
category schedule. Ultimately that panel did not recommend any changes to the
category schedule.
Answers and Objections to Interrogatodes - Sweezy vs. Bd. of Assessment Appeals Page 4 of 7
8. The Objection, and Partial Answer, to Interrogatory 6 is incorporated
herein by reference thereto.
8a. The Objection to Interrogatories 5 & 6 are incorporated herein by
reference thereto. By way of further objection, the Interrogatory calls for the creation of
a legal opinion, which is not a proper subject for discovery.
9. The Objection, and Partial Answer, to Interrogatory 6 is incorporated
herein by reference thereto.
9a. The Objection to Interrogatory 8a is incorporated herein by reference
thereto.
10. The Objections, and Answers or Partial Answers, to Interrogatories 2, 4
& 5 are incorporated herein by reference thereto.
Partial Answer. Irrespective of the objectionable nature of this
interrogatory, although the undersigned does not have specific knowledge regarding
the adoption of the present occupation assessment category schedule, which has
been in use for more than 20 years, Respondent would be willing to assume and
therefore stipulate that perceptions earnings potential was a factor in establishing all
of the occupation assessment categories, including the 100 Part Time Work"
category.
11. The Objection, and Partial Answer, to Interrogatory 5 is incorporated
herein by reference thereto.
12 & 12a. The Objection, and Partial Answer, to Interrogatory 5 is
incorporated herein by reference thereto. The question is in violation of Pa.R.C.P.
401 l(b) & (e) as it would involve a significant amount of administrative time and effort
for no relevant end. The are, presumably, a number of individuals who left full time
work for part time work and had their occupation assessment changed. Whatever that
number is, it is wholly irrelevant to this preceding.
Answers and Objections to Interrogato#es . Sweezy vs. Bd. of Assessment Appeals Page 5 of 7
13, 13a, 13b, 13c. The Objection to Interrogatories 12 & 12a is incorporated
herein by reference thereto.
14. The Objection to Interrogatories 12 & 12a is incorporated herein by
reference thereto. There are presumably quite a number of individuals who were
successful in having their job classification changed because they were assessed at
one classification, but were able to show that they property fit into a lower
classification. However, whatever that number is, it is wholly irrelevant to this
preceding. By way of further objection, the 100 categories are not nontaxable, but
rather are taxable at the rate of 100.
15 & 15a. The Objection, and Partial Answer, to Interrogatory 5 is
incorporated herein by reference thereto. In addition, the question is in violation of
Pa.R.C.P. 401 l(b) & (e) as it would involve a significant amount of administrative time
and effort for no relevant end. Respondent firmly objects to the raising of
Interrogatories concerning the issue of interest on refunds as Respondent believes
that Petitioner only raises it as a result of failed settlement negotiations. The issue of
interest on refunds, if it is before the Court at all, is a legal issue for resolution by the
Court and concerning which the prior practices of the County would be irrelevant. The
Interrogatory is also over broad as it references "taxpayers," which would include
payers of real estate taxes who were later deemed entitled to a refund. The
Interrogatory concerns issues outside of the knowledge of the County as the County
does not impose an occupation tax and therefore would not pay any refunds, nor,
therefore, pay any interest on any refunds. Only certain municipalities and school
districts impose such a tax. The County only fixes the Assessment.
Partial Answer. Irrespective of the objectionable nature of interrogatory,
to the best of the recollection and knowledge of the undersigned, no Cumberland
County taxing body has ever paid interest on a refund of occupation or real estate
taxes.
16. Objection. This interrogatory, and its subparts, is objected to as in
Answers and Objections to Interrogatories. Sweezy vs. Bd. of Assessment Appeals Page 6 of 7
violation of Pa.R.C.P. 4003.1 and 4011(c) in that it seeks information that would be
inadmissible at trial and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence. The Objection to Interrogatory 5 is incorporated herein by
reference thereto, insofar as it discusses the subject matter of Petitioner's appeal.
Whether or not West Shore School District would choose to impose an occupation
assessment is irrelevant to the question of whether or not the Petitioner's
assessment is prOper, or constitutional.
Respondent so Answers and Objects to Petitioner's Interrogatories.
Dated:
Regarding Objections,
St~phc-,~ D. Tiley, Esquire
Attomey for Cumberland County
Board of Assessment Appeals
and Cumberland County
5 South Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 2430-5838
Supreme Court I.D.#32318
VERIFICATION REGARDING ANSW~I~,.~
I verify that the statements made in the foregoing Answers (and Partial
Answers) to Interrogatories are true and correct, partially upon personal knowledge
and partially upon my knowledge, information and belief; to the extent language in
the Answer is that of my attorneys, I have relied upon my attorneys in making this
Verification. I understand that false statements herein are made and subject to the
penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
Dated:
Bonnie M. Mahoney ~r
Chief Assessor
Answers and Objections to Interrogatories. Sweezy vs. Bd. of Assessment Appeals
Page 7of7
JOHN L. SWEEZY, PETITIONER :
V. ·
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD :
OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, ..
RESPONDENT ..
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
APPEAL FROM BOARD ORDER OF
AUGUST 31, 2001
NO. 2001-5601 CIVIL TERM
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I am this date serving a true and correct copy of the within Answers and
Objections to Petitioner's Interrogatories upon the Petitioner by sending the same by first-class
mail postage paid addressed as follow:
John L. Sweezy, Esquire
Petitioner
P.O. Box 224
Harrisburg, Pa 17108
John L. Sweezy
Petitioner
125 Victoria Drive
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
Dated:
Si~phelfD. Tiley, Esquire
Frey & Tiley
Attorney for Cumb. County
Board of Assessment Appeals
5 S. Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
717-243-5838
JOHN L. SWEEZY
V.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
:
: NO. 2001-5601 CIVIL
BOARD OF ASSESSMENT:
APPEALS :
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 31 sT day of JULY, 2002, Plaintiff is strongly admonished not to
copy this Court with his correspondence to opposing counsel. Any communication with
the Court shall be by Petition or as otherwise authorized by the Rules. Plaintiff's letter to
Attorney Tiley dated, July 25, 2002, has not been considered by the Court.
Edward E. Guido, J.
John L. Sweezy, Esquire
P.O. Box 224
Harrisburg, Pa. 17108
Stephen D. Tiley, Esquire
5 South Hanover Street
Carlisle, Pa. 17013
t?. ol.o-t-.;
:sld
JOHN L. SWEEZY
ATTORNEY AT LAW
HAI:~J41~BU~0m, PA. ! 710~1
July 25, 2002
Stephen D. Tiley, Esquire
Frey & Tiley
5 South Hanover Street
Carlisle, Pa. 17013
Re:
Sweezy v. Board of Assessment
No. 2001-5601 Civil Term
Dear Mr. Tiley:
This letter is being written pursuant to Judge Guido's
direction in his order of June 13, 2002 and remarks at argument,
that the parties should.initially attempt to resglve between
themselves any differences as to Petitioner's Written Interroga-
tories and the Board's responses thereto.
Generally, the Board's factual answers are so minimally-
reaponsive that they provide few insights as to how the Board
administers the occupation tax program in terms of reliance upon
the program's rationale, contents and origins. This is to be
contrasted with the Board's own more expansive view of its occupa-
tion tax mission as set forth forth in Cumb.Co.Disclpsure State-
ment 2-26-99: "Cumberland County, through its Assessment Office,
establishes occupation tax assessments..."; and in the Board's
detailing in cumb,CoJOcc.Tax RuleS & Re~.~93 of the statutory
sections undergirding its powers in this~ area.
The Board's objections are mainly on grounds of relevance, with
particular objections varying with the nature of the information
sought. However, the true test to be applied here is "relevance
to the subject matter of the pending action" (RCP 4003.1(a).
The subject matter in this case is the whole ambit ~ occupation
tax procedure, from establishment of assessment schedules and
individual assessments, through Board action in changing individual
assessments and possible creation of new categories, to final dis-
position of appeals. By this criterion, little of Petitioner's
discovery is properly excludable as irrelevant, and much of it,
such as the Assessment Schedule and its components, has been in
the record from the outset.
Certainly nothing in the Interrogatories is so irrelevant
as to warrant the implication of "bad f~ith" as suggested by
the Board's responses.
Furthermore, in discovery matters "the seeking party does not
need to justify complete relevance in advance''~and "the objecting
party has the burden of establishing the right to refuse discovery."
Standard Pa. Practice 2d 34:18 and 34:~19.
Stephen D. Tiley, Esquire July 25, 2002
Also of doubtful merit is the Board's reliance upon
principles enunciated in Pa. Rules of Evidence, since information-
seeking through discovery is preliminary in nature and "the rules
should be liberally construed" (Ibid. 34:3), while acceptance
at trial is an actual admission for probative purposes. More
particular~¥ the Board's attempt to disqualify discovery re
"100 Part Time Work" by citing Pa. Rule of Evidence 408 is ~lso
not persuasive, .since the Assessment Schedule and its categories
are integral to the occupa'tion tax process, and Rule 408 e×pressly
provides: "this rule does not require the exclusion of an
admission of fact because it is submitted in the course of
compromise negotiations."
Moreover, the Board's objection in response 8.a that the
Interrogatory "calls for the creation of a legal opinion"
runs completely counter to the m~n~fest purpose ~ RCP 4003.1
in revoking prior prohibitions upon opinion .discovery, and is
not validated by any other Rule pertaining to Discovery of
opinion material.
This transmittal is not intended to address exhaustively
each of the Board's responses, but to demonstrate that material
sought is generally discoverable under the law and applicable
rules. ~bjection that response to to certain Interrogatories
would require an "unreasonable investigation" contrary to Rule
4001(e) is met by the expedient of making records available for
inspection. Reference in Inter£ogatory 14 to "non-ta~ab~e
categories" is a typo and was intended to read "non-taxable
(000) categories." Interrogatory 16 is surplusage, in that
it h~ been overtaken by events.
In summary, as asserted in Petitioner's recent Brief,
matters of Board and Board-related policy re the occupation tax
are replete with uncertainties which frustrate Petitioner's
quest for relief and which discovery is intended to help remedy.
The Board's responses have thrown little light on two main
concerns:
First, the extent to which the Board has employed the
100 Part Time Work category -- despite i~ disclaimer
in Objection 6 that "Economic disparity within job categor-
ies is irrelevant to the occupation tax scheme" -- to
mitigate obvious cases of injustice in situations other
than those (which the Board speculates in response 12
but does not clearly state) which involve taxpayers merely
changing from full-time to part-time employment. The
Board offers only in response 5 that this is the sole case
this category,.has been offered to "an attorney."
Page Two
Stephen D. Tiley, Esquire
July 25, 2002
Secondly, and more pertinent to Petitioner's case, why --
in the face of obvious public discontent and informed
condemnation of the occupation tax system -- the Board
has not seen fit to create a non-taxable category or
categories exempting those who can demonstrate absence
of net earnings from the occupation assessed, whether
or not licensed in that occupation. To accomplish this
the Board can act on its own, without legislative or
judicial assistance.
Finally, the Board's moving positively upon this latter
concern would do much to alleviate inequities in the system,
and to assist in prompt resolution of the present appeal.
JLS:dar
Very truly yours,
cc: Honorable Edward E. Guido
PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT
TO THE BROT]{ONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND cOUNTY:
Please list the within matter for the next Aruja~ent court.
CAPTION OF CA~E
(ent~xe caL~tio~ ~ust be stated in full)
John L. Sweezy, Petitioner
In the Court of Common Pleas of
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania
Appeal from Board Order of
Au.gus. t .31, 2001
(Petitioner)
Cumberland County Board of
Assessment and Appeals,
Respondent
(Respondent)
No. 5601 . Civil~erm
State matter to be argued (i.e., plaintiff's moticm for new tria~, defendant's
demuzx~ to c~p]Aint, etc. ):
Petitioner's Motion for Summary Judgment (filed December 9, 2002)
Identify counsel w~ w9 ~l arg~ case:
' ' (a) f&e.~~: John L. Sweezy, Esquire 125 Victoria. Drive
~]dress: Mechanicsburg, 'Pa. 17055-3527
Re sDon__d_e_.n.t:
(b) for ~t: Stephen D. Tiley, Esquire
5 South Hanover Street
Address: Carlisle, Pa. 17013
(Solicitor"for Board_)
I ~.~ 1 notify all partm in writing withJ~ two days that this case has
been Listed for ~t.
4. argm~t Court
January 7, 2003
February 12, '2003
~y for Een~oner
JOHN L. SWEEZY, PETITIONER :
V. :
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD :
OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, :
RESPONDENT :
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
APPEAL FROM BOARD ORDER OF
AUGUST 31, 20{}1
NO. 2001-5601 CIVIL TERM
RESPONSE TO MOTION BY PETITIONER
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
AND NOW, comes the Cumberland County Board of Assessment Appeals, and files this
response to the Motion by Petitioner for Summary Judgment dated December 9, 2002:
1. Admitted.
2. Admitted in part. Denied in part. It is admitted that the record includes the pleadings
and the affidavit filed by the Petitioner, but the record does not include other items listed by
Petitioner at paragraph two, such as his brief, or the text reference: and Hearing Memorandum set
forth as Exhibits "A" and "D" of Petitioner's December 9, 2002 Affidavit.
3. Admitted in part. Denied in part. It is admitted that no genuine issue of material fact
exists, however, the facts are not as stated by Petitioner and the record does not establish the facts as
listed by Petitioner, specifically, Respondent responds as follows:
(a) Admitted. It is Denied that the fact that Petitioner has a "limited
practice" is relevant. Petitioner has previously maintained that he has no "net
income" and Respondent believes, and therefore avers, that the fact that
Petitioner has some income from his law practice is a part of the record.
(b) Admitted in part. Denied in parL The averments of this paragraph
are admitted except that Respondent does not have independent knowledge of the
amounts of tax, which are irrelevant to the disposition of the matter.
(c) Admitted. While Respondent has no independent knowledge as to
the payment of the occupation taxes, respondent is willing to admit the same and
that Petitioner timely filed appeals.
(d) Admitted in part. Denied in part. Paragraph 6 of Respondent's
Answer & Objections to Interrogatories does not discuss [he blue ribbon panel
which considered the occupation tax about a decade ago. That matter is discussed
Response to Motion by Petitioner for Summary Judgment Page 1 of 3
at prargraph 7 of Respomdent's Answers & Objections. Nevertheless, the averred
fact of sub-paragraph "d" is admitted except that the blue ribbon panel declined to
"recommend" changes. The blue ribbon panel would not have the power to
"make" changes to the occupation assessment schedule. After consideration of
various alternatives, the blue ribbon panel could not decide on another schedule
which was superior to the one in existence at that time, and continuing to today. It
is admitted that the schedule has not been changed for at least two decades.
Respondent maintains that there is no relevance to this action to the fact that no
changes have been made to the assessment schedule in over 20 years.
(e) Admitted in part. Denied in Part. Upon appeal by a taxpayer, the
Cumberland County Board of Assessment Appeals has the power to establish and
change individual occupation classifications and has done so with respect, probably,
to every single classification in the course of individual appeals where an applicant
has proved that they should have properly been classified differently. It is denied
that the power to establish and change classifications is re, levant at all to this appeal,
nor is the specific reference to the "100 Part Time Workers" classification relevant
to this appeal.
(f) Admitted. It is admitted that the occupation tax is fiscal in nature in
that it raises money for the taxing bodies. It is also admitted that the perception of
earnings potential was a factor in establishing all occupation assessment categories.
(g) Denied. The text reference included as Exhibit "A" to the affidavit
of Petitioner does not establish any facts but merely establishes an opinion of the
authors of the text. In addition, the text reference states that "inequities" exist but
it does not state that "gross inequities" exist as set forth in this sub-paragraph 3(g)
of Petitioner's motion. The reference also does not speak at all "to Petitioner in
particular" (as set forth in this sub-paragraph 3(g)) as the text reference speaks
only generally. While Respondent will admit that some :inequities do exist in the
occupation tax, Respondent denies any implied conclusion of law from that fact.
(h) Admitted. Notwithstanding the fact that k w°Uld be the Cumberland
County Commissioners and not the Respondent, Cumberland County Board of
Assessment Appeals, which would make any changes to the assessment schedule.
(i) Denied. This sub-paragraph sets forth conclusions of law as a fact
established by the record. It is further noted again that the Pennsylvania Rules of
Civil Procedure are not applicable to this appeal as this is a statutory appeal.
Response to Motion by Petitioner for Summary Judgment Page 2 of 3
4. Admitted.
WHEREFORE, Respondent prays Your Honorable Court to deny Petitioner's Motion for
Summary Judgment and to dismiss this action.
Resp~dtted,
Y v v
Stephen D. Tiley, Esquire
Attorney for Cumberland County
Board of Assessment Appeals
and Cumberland County
5 South Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 2430-5838
Supreme Court I.D .#32318
Response to Motion by Petitioner for Summary Judgment Page 3 of 3
JOHN L. SWEEZY, PETITIONER
V.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD
OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS,
RESPONDENT
IN THE COURT ,OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
APPEAL FROM BOARD ORDER OF
AUGUST 31, 2001
NO. 2001-5601 CIVIL TERM
RESPONSE TO MOTION BY PETrrIONER
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
AND NOW, comes the Cumberland County Board of Assessment Appeals, and files this
response to the Motion by Petitioner for Summary Judgment dated December 9, 2002:
1. Admitted.
2. Admitted in part. Denied in part. It is admitted that the record includes the pleadings
and the affidavit filed by the Petitioner, but the record does not include other items listed by
Petitioner at paragraph two, such as his brief, or the text reference and Hearing Memorandum set
forth as Exhibits "A" and "D" of Petitioner's December 9,200:2 Affidavit.
3. Admitted in part. Denied in part. It is admitted that no genuine issue of material fact
exists, however, the facts are not as stated by Petitioner and the record does not establish the facts as
listed by Petitioner, specifically, Respondent responds as follows:
(a) Admitted. It is Denied that the fact that Petitioner has a "limited
practice" is relevant. Petitioner has previously maintained that he has no "net
income" and Respondent believes, and therefore avers, that the fact that
Petitioner has some income from his law practice is a part of the record.
(b) Admitted in part. Denied in parts The aw:rments of this paragraph
are admitted except that Respondent does not have independent knowledge of the
amounts of tax, which are irrelevant to the disposition of the matter.
(c) Admitted. While Respondent has no independent knowledge as to
the payment of the occupation taxes, respondent is willing to admit the same and
that Petitioner timely filed appeals.
(d) Admitted in part. Denied in part. Paragraph 6 of Respondent's
Answer & Objections to Interrogatories does not discuss the blue ribbon panel
which considered the occupation tax about a decade ago. That matter is discussed
Response to Motion by Petitioner for Summary Judgment Page 1 of 3
at prargraph 7 of Respomdent's Answers & Objections. Nevertheless, the averred
fact of sub-paragraph "d" is admitted except that the blue: ribbon panel declined to
"recommend" changes. The blue ribbon panel would not have the power to
"make" changes to the occupation assessment schedule. After consideration of
various alternatives, the blue ribbon panel could not decide on another schedule
which was superior to the one in existence at that time, and continuing to today. It
is admitted that the schedule has not been changed for at least two decades.
Respondent maintains that there is no relevance to this action to the fact that no
changes have been made to the assessment schedule in over 20 years.
(e) Admitted in part. Denied in Part. Upon appeal by a taxpayer, the
Cumberland County Board of Assessment Appeals has the power to establish and
change individual occupation classifications and has done: so with respect, probably,
to every single classification in the course of individual appeals where an applicant
has proved that they should have properly been classified differently. It is denied
that the power to establish and change classifications is relevant at all to this appeal,
nor is the specific reference to the "100 Part Time Workers" classification relevant
to this appeal. ,
(f) Admitted. It is admitted that the occupation tax is fiscal in nature in
that it raises money for the taxing bodies. It is also admitted that the perception of
earnings potential was a factor in establishing all occupation assessment categories.
(g) Denied. The text reference included as Exhibit "A" to the affidavit
of Petitioner does not establish any facts but merely establishes an opinion of the
authors of the text. In addition, the text reference states 'that "inequities" exist but
it does not state that "gross inequities" exist as set forth in this sub-paragraph 3(g)
of Petitioner's motion. The reference also does not speak at all "to Petitioner in
particular" (as set forth in this sub-paragraph 3(g)) as the text reference speaks
only generally. While Respondent will admit that some inequities do exist in the
occupation tax, Respondent denies any implied conclusicm of law from that fact.
(h) Admitted. Notwithstanding the fact that it: would be the Cumberland
County Commissioners and not the Respondent, Cumberland County Board of
Assessment Appeals, which would make any changes to the assessment schedule.
(i) Denied. This sub-paragraph sets forth conclusions of law as a fact
established by the record. It is further noted again that the Pennsylvania Rules of
Civil Procedure are not applicable to this appeal as this is a statutory appeal.
Response to Motion by Petitioner for Summary Judgment Page 2 of 3
4. Admitted.
WHEREFORE, Respondent prays Your Honorable Court to deny Petitioner's Motion for
Summary Judgment and to dismiss this action.
Resp~tted,
Y~
Stephen D. Tiley, Esquire
Attorney for Cumberland County
Board of Assessment Appeals
and Cumberland C. ounty
5 South Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17012;
(717) 2430-5838
Supreme Court I.D.#32318
Response to Motion by Petitioner for Summary Judgment Page 3 of 3
JOHN L. SWEEZY, PETITIONER :
V. :
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD :
OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, :
RESPONDENT :
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
APPEAL FROM iBOARD ORDER OF
AUGUST 31, 2001
NO. 2001-5601 CIVIL TERM
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE_
I hereby certify that I am this date serving a true and correct copy of the within Response
upon the Petitioner by sending the same by first-class mail postage paid addressed as follow:
John L. Sweezy, Esquire
Petitioner
P.O. Box 224
Harrisburg, Pa 17108
John L. Sweezy
Petitioner
125 Victoria Drive
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
Dated:
~te~hen~l~. Tiley, Esquire
Frey & Tiley
Attorney for Cumb. County
Board of Assessment Appeals
5 S. Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
717-243-5838
John L. Sweezy, Petitioner
V.
Cumberland County Board of
Assessment and Appeals,
Respondent
: In the Court of Common Pleas of
: Cumberland County, Pennsylvania
:
: Appeal from Board Order of
: August 31, 2001
: No. 2001 - 5601 Civil Term
Dated:
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I am this day serving a copy of
of a Praecipe for listing Petitioner's Motion for Summary
Judgment for the next Argument Court upon the person
indicated below by first class mail postage prepaid:
Stephen D. Tiley, Esguire
Solicitor, Cumberland County Board
of Assessment & Appeals
5 South Hanover Street
Carlisle, Pa. 17013
V ~t~n~~__orney
January 7, 2003
JOHN L. SWEEZY,
Petitioner
VS.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
BOARD OF ASSESSMENT AND
APPEALS,
Respondent
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
01-5601 CIVIL
CIVIL ACTION - LAg;'
IN RE: PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR SUMM~MRY JUDGMENT
BEFORE BAYLEY AND HESS, J.J.
ORDER
AND NOW, this /9 ' day of March, 2003, the motic~n of the petition, John L.
Sweezy, for summary judgment is DENIED.
BY THE COURT,
John L. Sweezy, Esquire
Pro Se
Stephen D. Tiley, Esquire
For Cumberland County
:rlm
KyA. Hess, J.
JOHN L. SWEEZY,
Petitioner
VS.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
BOARD OF ASSESSMENT AND
APPEALS,
Respondent
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
01-5601 CIVIL
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
BEFORE BAYLEY AND HESS, J.J.
OPINION AND ORDER
The appellant in this case, John L. Sweezy, is a licensed Pennsylvania attorney residing
in Lower Allen Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. Under the Cumberland County
Assessment Schedule for occupation tax assessments, Sweezy is classified as a "700 Attorney."
He was assessed an occupation tax by the West Shore School District ($891.80) and by Lower
Allen Township ($205.80). He remitted the tax due under protest. He now disputes his "700
Attorney" classification and the assessment of an occupation tax in general.
On October 20, 2000, Mr. Sweezy filed a formal appeal with the Cumberland County
Board of Assessment Appeals. After holding a hearing, the Board denied his appeal. The instant
petition for review of the Board's order was subsequently filed irt the Cumberland County Court
of Common Pleas. There then followed an attempt to settle the matter. In addition, throughout
much of the year of 2002, there were several proceedings having to do with discovery. On
December 9, 2002, the petitioner filed a motion for summary judgment.
Occupation assessment appeals are governed by the same statutes as are applicable to real
estate assessment appeals. Specifically applicable are Section 201 of the General County
Assessment Law and Section 704 of the 4th to 8th Class County Assessment Law. Occupations
01-5601 CIVIL
are specifically described as subjects of taxation at Section 201 of the General County
Assessment Law 72 P.S. 5020-201(b). Section 704 of the 4th te, 8th Class County Assessment
Law states, inter alia, that a person "aggrieved by the order of the board ... may appeal ... to the
court and thereupon the court shall proceed ... to hear the said appeal ... and to make such orders
and decrees determining from the evidence submitted at the hearing." 72 P.S. 5453.704(a). Tax
assessment appeals are de novo and require the court to take evidence and make a determination
as to value. Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. Board of Property Assessment of Allegheny County,
652 A.2d 1306 (Pa. 1995).
Motions for summary judgment in civil cases are governed by Pa.R.C.P. 1035.1 et seq.
In this case, the rules of civil procedure are not technically applicable since this is a statutory
appeal. See Appeal of the Borough of Churchill, 525 Pa. 80, 575 A.2d 550 (1990). On the other
hand, we know of no authority for the proposition nor has the Board of Assessment Appeals
opposed the notion that we can entertain a motion for summary judgment in this particular case.
A party may move for summary judgment after pleadings are closed in two situations.
First is when there is no genuine issue of material fact that could be established by additional
discovery and, secondly, after discovery, if an adverse party bearing the proof has failed to
produce evidence of essential facts so as to warrant the submission of the issue to a jury.
Pa.R.C.P. 1035.2. See also, Fazio v. Fegley Oil Company Inc., 714 A.2d 510 (Pa. Cmwlth.
1998). Both parties here have agreed that there is no genuine issue of fact which would prevent
the court from considering the petitioner's motion for summary judgment. The petitioner has
established, by affidavit, that for the tax years in question his occupation was not only not
income-producing, but that he suffered a net income loss with respect to monies earned as a
lawyer. The respondent has not attempted to controvert these facts.
01-5601 CIVIL
As noted by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in Crosson v. Downingtown Area
School District, 270 A.2d 377, 381 (Pa. 1970):
Economic return is not the sole measure of the
value of an occupation .... It is apparent that other
factors than income affect the value which may be
attributed to an occupation. These may ilnclude
social status, historical attributes, type, kind and
quantity of work required, degree of education and
training demanded, and many other such real or
fancied social and economic distinctions.
Clearly, the petitioner cannot be assessed a different tax rate than others in the "700 Attorney"
classification because his income was less than others within that classification.
Furthermore, to grant petitioner a different tax rate would completely destroy the
legislature's desire for uniformity in the classifications. The court would be changing the
occupational tax into an income tax, which is not the legislature's intent nor within the power of
this court. "The fact that the local occupational tax as administered is archaic, outmoded,
ineffectual, inequitable, illogical and incapable of meeting modem standards of municipal
taxation were problems to be considered by the legislature and the municipalities, were not
legally sufficient reasons to declare such a tax invalid." Archbold v. Condors Tp. School
District, 33 D.&C.2d 311 (1963).
The petitioner next argues that the occupation tax violates Article XIII, Section 1 of the
Pennsylvania Constitution which requires that "all taxes shall be uniform, upon the same class of
subjects, within the territorial limits of the authority levying the tax, and shall be levied and
collected under general laws." This so-called uniformity clause applies to occupation taxes.
Crosson v. Downingtown Area School District, supra. "The uniformity clause requires that two
conditions be met: (1) that the classification of taxpayer subject to a specified tax must be
01-5601 CIVIL
reasonable; and (2) that the tax itself must be applied equally 'a4thin the designated class. If
either condition fails, the tax is unenforceable for want of uniformity." Carl v. Southern
Columbia Area School District, 400 A.2d 650, 651 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1979).
An occupation tax is based on the assessed value of an occupation regardless of the
taxpayer's income from the occupation. Appeal of Haberman, 388 A.2d 1159, 1162
(Pa. Cmwlth. 1978). Evidence of a shift in occupational earnings, without more, is not sufficient
to show a violation of uniformity with respect to an occupation tax assessment. Id. Clearly, the
occupational tax is not violative of the uniformity clause of Article XIII Section 1 of the Pa.
Constitution in that it is unreasonable. Furthermore, if the court granted the petitioner's motion
for summary judgment, that decision would violate requirement two of the uniformity clause; the
tax would no longer be "applied equally within the designated class."
The final claim raised by the petitioner is that the occupation tax violates Article V
Section 10 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. This section, of course, gives the Supreme Court
exclusive authority to prescribe general rules governing practice,' and procedure as well as the
adoption of standards for admission to the bar and the practice of law. As the petitioner candidly
admits, the weight of appellate case law is against him on this issue.
ORDER
AND NOW, this /2" day of March, 2003, the motion of the petition, John L.
Sweezy, for summary judgment is DENIED.
BY THE COURT,
K~y~n' A. Hess, J.
4
01-5601 CIVIL
John L. Sweezy, Esquire
Pro Se
Stephen D. Tiley, Esquire
For Cumberland County
:tim
John L. Sweezy, Petitioner
v~
Cumberland County Board of
Assessment and Appeals,
Respondent
: In the Court of Common Pleas of
: 'CUmberland County, Pennsylvania
:
: Appeal from Board Order of
: August 31, 2001
: No. 2001 - 5601 Civil Term
PETITIONER'S
MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF RULE UPON BOARD TO
SHOW CAUSE WHY AMENDMENT OF PETITION FOR
REVIEW SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED PURSUANT TO
RCP 1033
AND NOW, ~k 9~ , 2003, comes John L. Sweezy, pro se
and as an attorney, and moves this Honorab~ Court.~r issuance
of a rule upon Board to show cause why amendment of the Petition
for Review should not be allowed as set forth in the proposed
Amendment attached hereto, and in support of said Motion states
as follows:
1. RCP 1033 provides inter alia that a party may by leave
of Court amend his pleading in accordance with the provisions
of said Rule, including averment of'kransactions or occurrences
which have happened before or after the filing of the original
pleading...".
2. The material sought to be included by amendment is
directly relevant to the subject matter of the instant case,
and should as a matter of justice be added to the record for
purposes of furor review by this Court and possible appeal.
3. This case was initially assigned to Honorable Edward E.
Guido for disposition, and Petitioner's Motion for Summary Judgment
was heard by Honorable Kevin A. Hess and Honorable Edgar B. Bayley.
WHEREFORE, Petitioner moves this Honorable Cou~ to issue a
rule upon Respondent Board to show cause why amendment of his
Petition for Review filed September 26, 2001 as set forth in the
attached proposed Amendment, should not be allowed.
~espectfully submitted,
JOHN L. SWEEZY, P~itioner
125 Victoria Drive
Mechanicsburg, Pa. 17055-3527
717-697-7003
ID 15506
Attachment:
Amendment to
Petition for Review
Dated: April B0 , 2003
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I am this day serving the foregoing
Motion for Rule to Show Cause and proposed Amendment to the
Petition for Review upon the person indicated below by first
class mail postage prepaid:
Stephen D. Tiley, Solicitor
Cumberland County Board of
Assessment & Appeals
5 South Hanover Street
Carlisle, Pa. 17013
Petit loner
Dated: April ~ , 2003
John L. Sweezy, Petitioner
v.
Cumberland County Board of
Assessment and Appeals,
Respondent
In the .Court of Common Pleas of
'Cumberland County, Pennsylvania
Appeal from Board Order of
August 31, 2001
No. 2001 - 5601 Civil Term
AMENDMENT TO PETITION FOR REVIEW
The Petition for Review filed September 26, 2001 is hereby
amended to add the following after paragraph 6:
"6a. Board has a continuing duty to annually
evaluate and adjust for equity the classifications of its
Occupation Assessment Schedule and may not lawfully perpe-
tuate an inherently-inequitable system which is at least
twenty years old and has not been reviewed for at least
ten years. That review and updating is legally appropriate
and practically, feasible iS co. nfirmed by the Lycoming County
(pa.) Board of Assessment's complete 1997 revamping of its
Occupation Tax program and annual fine-tuning adjustments
since. An excerpt titled "Alphabetical Occupation Listing"
from the Lycoming County 2002 Assessors Manual, and copy
of letter dated March 8, 2002 from the Lycoming County
Director of Administration, are attached hereto as Exhibit 2
of the Amended Petition for Review; and the entire Lycoming
County 2002 Assessors Manual is incorporated herein and
made a part herecf by referep.ce."
~~hn Leq~ul~y sqbmi~ted'
. S titioner
125 Victoria Drive
Mechanicsburg, Pa. 17055-3527
717 697-7003
ID 155.06
Attachment - Exhibit 2:
Excerpt titled "Alphabetical Occupation Listing"
from Lycoming County (Pa.) 2002 Assessors
Manual, and letter March 8, 2002
Dated: April , 2003
VERIFICATION
I verify that the statements made in the foregoing Amend-
ment to Petition for Review are true and correct. I understand
that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties
of 18 Pa.C.S. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to
authorities. ~~~W~EZY, p' . .~~. ~rt~'ltloner
Dated: April ~D, 2003
Alphabetical Occupation Listing · · · · ·
Code Occupational Title Remarks Value
00020 Acco~ntantJAuditor 90
00015 Accountant CPA 0 - 5 Years 120
00035 Accountant CPA 6 - 10 Years 225
00030 Accountant CPA 10 + Years 300
00040 Activities/Program/Recreation Director 80
00060 Advertising Agent 90
00090 Air Traffic Controller Federal/State 200
00100 Airport Director Local Government 175
02320 Animal Hospital Owner 375
00120 Announcer Radio/TV 80
00160 Architect 225
00180 Artificial Inseminator 90.
00190 Artists/Sculptors 50
00200 Assessor- Elected/Appointed Local Government 0
00210 Assessor- Field Local Government 60
01930 Assistant Manager I - 5 Employees 70
01931 Assistant Manager 6 - 15 Employees 80
01932 Assistant Manager 16 - 50 Employees 90
01933 Assistant Manager 51 - 100 Employees 110
01934 Assistant Manager 101 - 250 Employees 120
01935 Assistant Manager 251 - 350 Employees 140
01936 Assistant Manager 351 - 500 Employees 175
01937 Assistant Manager 500 + Employees 200
00244 Attorney 0 - 5 Years 90
00242 Attorney 6 - 10 Years 225
00240 Attorney 11 + Years 325
00246 Attorney Public Service 110
00250 Auctioneer 0 - 4 Employees 120
00251 Auctioneer 5 + Employees 250
00260 Auditor Independent 150
Contractor
00275 Auto Mechanic Head 120
00270 Auto Mechanic/Body Tech 70
02820 Auto/Truck Mechanic w/License 80
02110 Automobile Dealer New Single Franchise 200
02111 Automobile Dealer New Multi Franchise One 400
Locale
02112 Automobile Dealer New Multi Franchise Multi 600
Locale
02116 Automobile Dealer/Owner (Used Auto) 0 - 3 employees 150
02115 Automobile Dealer/Owner (Used Autos) 4 + employees 225
00360 Aviation Flight Attendant 90
00370 Aviation Mechanic Industrial 90
30
Code Occupational Title Remarks Value
00320 Aviation Pilot 175
00380 Aviation Pilot Instructor 70
00390 Baby-sitter 30
00405 Baker- Industrial 90
00400 Baker- Retail 50
00420 Bank Examiner Federal/State 225
00430 Bank Loan Officer/Branch Manager 120
00440 Bank President Regional 600
00445 Bank President Local 300
00450 Bank Teller 50
00460 , Bank Trust Officer 175
00470 Bank Vice-President 250
00480 Barber/Beautician Employee 70
00500 Barber/Beautician Owner/Manager 90
00490 Bartender i 60
03530 Beverage Distributor 120
00520 Boilermaker Industrial 1 '~0
00530 BookkeepedPayroll Clerk/Tax Preparer
$0
02854 Briefer (Federal Aviation Administration 225
Employees)
00590 Broker/Sales Real Estate - Sales, 150
non - owner
00592 Broker/Sales Stock - Sales, non - 300
owner
00594 Broker/Sales Fire and Casualty 225
Insurance - Sales,
non owner
00596 Broker/Sales Life Insurance - 150
Sales, non owner
00600 Bus Driver Over - the - Road 120
00610 Bus Driver Public Transportation 90
00620 Bus Driver School 30
00720 Carpenter- Basic 50
00725 Carpenter - Finishing 60
00730 Carpet Installer 60
00750 Cashier Retail 50
00760 Caterer 120
00770 Cementer/Cement Finisher 60
00800 Chef/Brewer 80
00810 Chemist Industrial 175
01440 Chief Administrator/Department County Officials 150
Manager
01290 City Officials Local Government 100
00860 Cleaners and Dyers Worker 50
01055 College Assistant Professor 130
101050 , College Associate Professor , 150
3!
Code Occupational Title Remarks Value
01060 College Dean 200
01095 College Department Head 150
01053 College Instructor 110
01080 College President 450
01090 College Professor 175
00045 College Program Director 120
01105 College Residential Advisor 80
01100 College Residential Director 150
01292 Commissioner County Officials 150
01120 Computer Mainframe Operator 90
01130 Computer Programmer/PC Specialist 120
01140 Computer'Repairman 90
01150 Computer Systems Analyst 175
01160 Constable Local Government 90
01170 Construction General Manager 150
01190 Construction Superintendent 120
01220 Construction Foreman 90
01180 Construction Worker 60
01210 Consultant Business/Technical 12.0
01232 Controller/Comptroller 0 - 50 Employees 100
01233 Controller/Comptroller 51 - 100 Employees 110
01234 Controller/Comptroller 101 - 250 Employees 120
01235 Controller/Comptroller 251 - 350 Employees 150
01236 Controller/Comptroller 351 - 500 Employees 225
01237 CQntroller/Comptroller 500 + Employees 300
00705 Cook 30
01260 Cost Estimator 110
Cottage/Casual Business Owner 40
01265
01270 Counselor Guidance 140
01275 Counselor Marriage 140
01300 Credit Analyst 70
01330 Custodian/Housekeeper/Groundskeeper 50
01350 Dance Instructor- Non owner 50.
00830 Daycare Worker 40
01380 Delivery ICC Commercial 110
01370 Delivery Local 60
01400 Dental Assistant 50
01405 Dental Hygienist 80
01410 Dentist General Practice 400
01411 Dentist Specialist 600
01431 Department Manager 0 - 15 Employees 80
01432 Department Manager 16 - 50 Employees 100
01433 Department Manager 51 - 100 Employees 120
01434 Department Manager 101 - 250 Employees 140
01435 Department Manager 251 - 350 Employees 175
Code Occupational Title Remarks Value
01436 Department Manager 351 - 500 Employees 200
01437 Department Manager 500 + Employees 225
000000000 Detective County Officials 140
-01465
02856 Director Federal Aviation 300
Administration
Employees
01500 Dishwasher 30
01510 Dispatcher 50
00248 District AttorneyI County Officials 350
01520 District Magistrate
County
Officials
1
50
I
51 - 100 Employees 250
01423 Division Manager I 101 - 250 Employees 300
01424 Division Manager
01425 Division Manager 251 - 350 Employees 350
01426 Division Manager 351 - 500 Employees 400
01427 Division Manager 500 + Employees 450
00110 Doctor Anesthesiologist 750
~ 01530 Doctor Cardiology 600
00840 Doctor Chiropodist 450
00850 Doctor Chiropractor 225
01545 Doctor Gastorente nology 600
04590 Doctor Nuclear Medicine 750
03010 Doctor Optometrist 150
03415 Doctor Psychiatrist 300
03416 Doctor Psychologist 200
04110 Doctor Radiologist 750
,04025 Doctor/General Internist/Pediatrician 300
01540 Doctor/Family Practice/Medical
Doctor/Doctor of Osteopathy Less than 5 years 300
04010 Doctor/Specialist Non-Surgical 450
04030 Doctor/Surgeon General 675
04035 Doctor/Surgeon Specialist 750
01550 Domestic/Hotel Worker/Maid 30
01570 Draftsman 80
01580 Driller Industrial 90
01620 Electrician 70
03482 Engineer Aeronautical 200
03483 Engineer Civil 120
03484 Engineer Construction 110
03485 Engineer Consulting 200
03486 Engineer Electrical 100
03487 Engineer Environmental 140
03480 Engineer RadioFl'V 80
03481 Engineer Structural 130
03489 Engineer (Industrial Designer) Mechanical 140
03488 Engineer (Time Study) Industrial , 130
Code Occupational Title Remarks Value
01860 Engraver Industrial 80
01200 Equipment Operator Light 70
04550 Equipment Operator Heavy 90
01900 Executive Secretary 90
01920 Exterminator 50
04560 Facilities/Plant Manager 80
01950 Factory/Plant/Industrial Worker 70
00290 Farm Machinery Operator 30
01980 Farmer With Employees 150
02000 Farmer 70
02010 FBI Agent Federal/State 225
02858 Federal Marshall/Investigator 100
02030 Financial Advisor/Counselor 140
02040 Fire Chief County Officials 140
(paid)
02042 Fireman - Captain Local Government 120
02050 Fireman - Firefighters Local Government 100
02046 Fireman - Inspector Local Government 110
02044 Fireman - Lieutenant Local Government 110
00700 Food Service Worker 30
00701 Food Service Worker Institutional 40
02080 Forest Ranger Federal Government 80
02090 Forester 90
02100 Foundryman Industrial 70
02120 Freight Handler 40
02130 Funeral Director/Owner 200
02880 Funeral Home Employee 50
02180 Galvanizer Industrial 60
00915 General Clerk Government 50
00910 General Clerk - Retail Shelf 50
Stocker/Customer
Service
01881 General Manager 0- 15 Employees 90
01882 General Manager 16 - 50 Employees 120
01883 General Manager 51 - 100 Employees 150
01884 General Manager 101 - 250 Employees 175
01885 General Manager 251 - 350 Employees 200
01886 General Manager 351 - 500 Employees 375
01887 General Manager 500 + Employees 425
02290 Health Officer Federal Government 130
02330 Health Officer Local Government 100
02310 Highway Worker 80
02340 Hostess 50
02380 Houseperson/Unemployed 0
03460 Inspector/Quality Control 70
00050 Insurance Adjuster 90
34
Code Occupational Title Remarks Value
02520
02521
02530
02531
02532
02533
02534
02535
02536
02537
02540
02545
02580
02585
02600
01294
01970
02610
Insurance Agent/Sales
Insurance Agent/Sales
Insurance Owner/General Manager
Insurance Owner/General Manager
Insurance Owner/General Manager
Insurance Owner/General Manager
Insurance Owner/General Manager
Insurance Owner/General Manager
Insurance Owner/General Manager
Insurance Owner/General Manager
Interior Design/Decorator
Investigator
Judge
Judge - Senior
Junk Dealer/Wholesale
Jury Commissioner
Laborer- Farm
Laborer- Landscaper
Life Insurance
General Liability and
Auto
0 - 5 Employees
6 - 15 Employees
16 - 50 Employees
51 - 100 Employees
101 - 250 Employees
251 - 350 Employees
351 - 500 Employees
500 + Employees
Public
80
100
225
3OO
375
450
5O0
5OO
500
500
7O
140
350
Federal 80
Industrial 450
County Officials
2O
30
3O
01955 Laborer- non skilled 30
00930 Law Clerk 90
03770 60
Legal Secretary
Librarian Administrator and Specialist
Library Worker
Locksmith Non owner
Lumberyard Worker
Machinist
Maintenance Worker
Manager- Borough
Manager - Township
Mason/Brick/Stone Layer
0265O
Material Handler
0264O
02670
02690
02730
04568
Industrial
Industrial
Building
Local Government
Local Government
Industrial
Local Government
00540
00545
00580
02780
02800
02810
03780
02555
02850
Mayor City
Meat Cutter
Medical Secretary
Medical Technician
Meteorologist (Federal Aviation
Administration Employees)
Minister/Priest/Rabbi/Nun
Mortician Non owner
Municipal Worker
02860
02890
00550 Local Government
Music Teacher Private
02910
02920. Musician/Actor
01610
03430
Newspaper Editor
Newspaper Publisher/Owner
110
30
50
50
80
7O
80
225
70
40
150
7O
60
90
225
0
8O
6O
7O
70
Industrial 120
Industrial 300
35
Code Occupational Title Remarks Value
02940 Newspaper/Magazine Distributor 300
Owner/Manager
99991 Non-Resident Moved Out of County 0
02960 Nurse Aide/Orderly 30
02970 Nurse LPN 60
02980 Nurse RN 80
02550 Nurse Specialist 90
01490 Nutritionist/Dietician 80
03040 Painter Commercial 120
03041 Painter Residential 90
03050 Paper Cutter/Hanger Wallpaper 80
03060 Paralegal Public 80
03065 Paralegal Private 70
03070 Paramedic 60
03265 Patrol Officer Borough/Township 110
03090 Patternmaker Industrial 60
03020 Personal Homecare 40
03101 'Personnel Director 0 - 15 Employees 70
03102 Personnel Director 16 - 50 Employees 80
03103 Personnel Director 51 - 100 Employees 90
03104 Personnel Director 101 - 250 Employees 120
03105 Personnel Director 251 - 350 Employees 130
03106 Personnel Director 351 - 500 Employees 140
03107 Personnel Director 500 + Employees 175
03110 Pet Breeder 30
03120 Pet Groomer 30
00230 Pet Sitter 20
01600 Pharmacist Non-Owner 100
03140 Photographer 100
03145 Photographer Commercial 200
01905 Physician Assistant/Intern/Resident MD Less than 5 years 100
03150 Physicist Industrial 225
03160 Piano Tuner 100
03170 Pipefitter Industrial 100
03180 Planner Federal Government 150
03185 Planner Local Government 120
03190 Planner - Assistant Federal Government 120
03195 Planner Assistant Local Government 90
03200 Plaster/Drywaller 60
03210 Plumber 70
03215 Plumber with License 90
00820 Police Chief Borough Local Government 110
03220 Police Chief City Local Government 150
03235 Police Commissioned Officer Local Government 140
01460 Police Detective Federal Government 120
03245 Police Noncommissioned Officer Local Government 130
36
Code
Occupational Title
Remarks Value
03260
Police Patrolman
Local Government
120
03230 Police State Commissioned Officer 200
03240 Police State Noncommissioned Officer 175
03250 Police State Trooper 150
04520
03300
03290
0189O
01891
01892
01893
01894
01895
01896
Postal Worker
Postmaster City
Postmaster Other
President/Owner/Plant Manager
President/Owner/Plant Manager
President/Owner/Plant Manager
President/OwnedPlant Manager
President/OwnedPlant Manager
President/OwnedPlant Manager.
President/Owner/Plant Manager
PresidentYOwnedPlant Manager
Print Press Operator
01897
Federal Government
0 - 5 Employees
6 - 15 Employees
16 - 50 Employees
51 - 100 Employees
101 - 250 Employees
251 - 350 Employees
351 - 500 Employees
500 + Employees
Industrial, large
machine
03320
100
275
150
150
20O
275
350
450
5O0
6OO
75O
6O
03322 Print Press Operator Industrial, small 50
machine
03324 Print Press Operator Industrial, web 80
machine
03345 Prison Guard/Correction Officer Local Government 70
03340 Prison Guard/Corrections Officer Federal/State Govt 100
02560 120
Private Investigator
Probation Officer
Proof ReadedEditor Writing
120
03380 Federal Government
03390 Probation Officer Local Government 90
03401 Professional Athlete Local b0
03400 Professional Athlete National 750
100
Public Relations
Purchasing Agent
Purchasing Agent
Purchasing Agent
Purchasing Agent
Purchasing Agent
Purchasing_Agent
Quality Control
Quarryman
Radio/TV Station Programmer
Radiologist
03410
03420
03452
O3453
16-50 Employees
51-100 Employees
101-250 Employees
251- 350 Employees
351-500 Employees
500 + Employees
Industrial
Industrial
0 - 15
Employees/Agents
6-15
Employees/Agents
16 +
~ Employees/Agents
03454
03455
03456
O3457
03461
04610
03490
04110
03504
Real Estate Agency OwnedManager
03505
03506
Real Estate Agency OwnedManager
Real Estate Agency Owner/Manager
150
80
90
120
150
175
200
9O
60
150
450
225
3OO
375
37
,de Occu 3ational Title Remarks Value
03500 Real Estate Agent 100
03509 Real Estate Appraiser 120
03510 Receptionist 50
99990 Record Deleted Deceased or 0
Duplicates
00080 Repairman Commercial 80
00130 Repairman Residential 60
02140 Repairman/Maintenance - Industrial Factory/Plant 100
03520 Reporter Radio/TV/Press 80
99992 Resident Non-Taxable (Military, etc.) Disabled, Age, 0
Nursing Home
00150 Residential House Manager 60
03531 Restaurant Manager 100
03550 Retired 0
03570 Roadmaster Railroad '~ 80
: 60
03580 Roofers ,
01285 ROW Officers County Officials 120
01280 ROW Officers Deputies County Officials 90
00010 Sales - Account Executive 120
00280 Sales - Automobile 80
00140 Sales - Commercial 120
02170 Sales - I nd ustrial 300
01590 Sales - Pharmaceutical 175
04570 Sales - Retail 50
04575 Sales - Telemarketer 40
04540 Sanitation Worker Non-Owner 50
01165 ~-afety Officer 120
04620 School Business Manager 175
03700 School Princip_al Public 200
03705 School Principal Private/Headmaster 110
03711 School Substitute Teacher - Public Day - to - Day 40
03710 School Substitute Teacher-Public Long-Term 90
03720 School Superintendent 225
03735 School Teacher - Private Full - Time 40
03736 School Teacher- Private _ Part - Time 20
03731 School Teacher - Public Part - Time 90
03730 School Teacher- Public Full - Time 120
03740 School Teacher Aide 40
03750 Secretary 50
03802 ' Secretary/Treasurer Corp. 16 - 50 Employees 90
03803 Secretary/Treasurer Corp. 51 - 100 Employees 90
03804 Secretary/Treasurer Corp. 101 - 250 Employees 110
03805 Secretary/Treasurer Corp. 251 - 350 Employees 150
03806 Secretary/Treasurer Corp. 351 - 500 Employees 225
03807 Secretary/Treasurer Corp. 500 + Employees 300
03810 Security Guard 40
Code Occupational Title Remarks Value
03820 Service Advisor Auto Dealer 90
4O
03830
01450
03840
03860
Sewing Machine Operator
Sheriff Deputy
Shoemaker/Repairman
Signalman
Local Government 80
60
60
03920 Steamfitter Industrial 100
03930 Steel Worker Industrial1 70
03950 Federal Government 90
03955
01240
00410
03995
03990
StenographedCourt
StenographedCourt
Store Manager, Convenience Store
Store Manager,
Supermarket/Department Store
Student - College, full time ('12 or more
credits)
Students - Secondary School
Surveyor
04020
I04040
04050
04070
01040 Tax Collector
Tax Collector
Taxi Driver Non - owner
02852
03005
03000
Technician
O4O9O
Technician (Federal Aviation
Administration Employees)
Telephone Operator Office
Telephone Operator Public Utility
Telephone Switchman/Installer
Textile Worker
03835
04100
Therapist
04105 I Therapist
04150 !Tooland Die Maker
00570 I Train Brakeman
00070
04180
04190
04210
04220
00740
O4270
iTravel Agency Owner/Manager
Travel Agent
Tree Surgeon Laborer
Truck Driver Local
Truck Driver Over the Road
Typist/Data Entry
Underwriter
Union Business Agent
Union Bus~ness Agent
02230
Local Government.
Federal Government
Local Govlernment
Physical/Speech
Occupational
Industrial
90
80
225
0
0
110
90
O2231
40
70
120
225
50
90
110
5O
100
80
90
80
Industrial
140
8O
40
0 -!5 Employees
6- 15 Employees
40
150
70
175
110
110
02232 Union Bus~ness
02233 Union Business
02234 ~ Union Business
02235 Union Business
02236 I Union BusIness
02237 I Union Business
04290 ! Upholster
Agent
Agent
Agent
Agent
Agent
Agent
16 -. 50 Employees
51 -- 100 Employees
101 - 250 Employees
251 - 350 Employees
351 - 500 Employees
500 + Employees
110
110
120
130
150
150
50
39
Code Occu )ational Title Remarks Value
02660 Utility Lineman/Repairman 100
04300 Utility Meter Reader 80
04310 Veterinarian 150
01940 Vice - President 0 - 5 Employees 120
01941 Vice - President 6 - 15 Employees 150
01942 Vice - President 16 - 50 Employees 225
01943 Vice - President 51 - 100 Employees 325
01944 Vice - President 101 - 250 Employees 375
01945 Vice - President 251 - 350 Employees 450
01946 Vice - President 351 - 500 Employees 500
01947 Vice - President 500 + Employees 650
03360 Warden - Deputy Prison Local Government 110
03365 Warden - Deputy Prison Federal Government 225
02070 Warden - Fish 100
02190 Warden - Game 100
03350 Warden - Prison Local Government 150
03355 Warden - Prison Federal Government 300
04380 Weightmaster 50
04390 Welder Industrial 90
03890 Welfare/Case/Social Worker Federal Government 120
04400 Welfare/Case/Social Worker Local Government 90
04490 Window Trimmer/Display 80
04500 Writer/Commercial 50
04510 Zoning Officer Local Government 80
4O
March 8, 2002
Mr. Gerald McLaughlin
Business Office Manager
Loyalsock School District
1225 Clayton Avenue
Williamsport, PA 17701
Dear Mr. McLaughlin:
This letter is in reply to your March 7, 2002 telephone conversation and request for the
changes in the Assessors Manual. During our conversation you noted that the question of
increased Occupational Assessment Taxes was raised at the last School Board Meeting, and that
several members of the Board noted that the values had been changed. The corrections,
additions, and deletions are the changes that were approved by the County Commissioners for
the 2002 Assessors Manual based on input from local Assessors and County citizens. Similar
changes were made to each new yearly manual since the County completely revised the
Occupational Assessment Categories and Values in 1997. Attached as an Enclosure are the
Corrections, Additions, and Deletions that were approved for the 2002 Assessors Manual.
You further stated that you are considering options to replace the Occupational Tax. I
strongly encourage you to follow the footprints of either the Williamsport School District or that
of the East Lycoming School District to replace the Occupational Assessment Tax for several
reasons. First, I will state as I have stated repeatedly in the past, the Occupational Assessment
Tax is the most unfair taxing scheme ever devised. It is an unfair and extremely difficult tax to
manage or assess based strictly on the premise that it is a tax on Occupational Title alone and not
income. That is why for the last twelve years it has not been collected as a Tax for Lycoming
County Govemment. Within Lycoming County only eight School Districts and seven of the
fifty-two townships/municipalities collect the Occupational Tax. The County is responsible for
setting the Occupational Classification Values, for administering the records, and for heating
appeals. Elected Assessors are responsible for assessing titles to the citizens of their respective
electorate, and the tax is collected by elected Tax Collectors for each electorate. The current law
mandates that the County assess and assign Occupational Titles. Section 602 of the Fourth to
Eight Class County Assessment Law states that it shall be the duty of the Chief Assessor to rate
and value all subjects and objects of local taxation. Section 201 of the Fourth to Eight Class
County Assessment Law defines as proper subjects of taxation "All salaries and emoluments of
office, all offices and posts of profit, professions, trades, and occupations" (72 P.S. 5453.201(b)).
Until that law is changed or eliminated, the Lycoming County Board of Assessment is mandated
by law to set occupational values.
Second, setting values for Occupational Titles is not an exact science. In order to address
the concerns raised by the School Board Members about increased Occupational Taxes as a
result of increased values, it is important to understand what has happened to the Occupational
Tax Value System within Lycoming County in the last five years. During October and
November of 1996, the Board of Lycoming County Commissioners heard over 800 appeals and
complaints pertaining to the old Occupational Tax values. In reviewing the 1996 Assessors
Manual approved by the previous Board of Commissioners, it was evident that the scale of
values assigned to the Occupational Titles was unbalanced, particularly in the values assigried to
the middle-income occupations within the County. For example, a Nurse RN had a value of 500
assigned on a scale of 150 to 750, and this meant that in most school districts these individuals
were paying approximately $500 on an occupation that was in most cases earning less then
$35,000. At the same time, the occupation of Doctor was rated at a value of 750, and this meant
that in most school districts these individuals were paying approximately $750 on occupations
earning over $200,000. Other occupations such as Veterinarian and School Superintendent were
also assessed a value of 750 for occupations that were generally earning less then $80,000. This
meant that the middle income occupations were paying a much higher proportion of their income
(fi.om 1 to 2 percent) while the higher income occupations were paying less than a half (.5)
percent, and many occupations were just incorrectly valued too high.
During the formal appeal process of 1996, the County Commissioners committed to
several citizens that they would change the Occupational Tax values to a more uniform,
equitable scale. They basically agreed to take whatever steps they needed to take to make this a
more equitable tax in Lycoming County. During February and March of 1997, the three
Commissioners, the Chief Assessor, and the Director of Administration developed a new value
scale based on occupational data available in surveys such as the Pennsylvania Department of
Labor & Industry Occupational Wage Survey and the West Branch Manufacture's Association
Salary Survey.
On March 27, 1997, the Commissioners approved the 1998 Tax Assessors Manual with
the new values. The new manual contained a new scale of values fi.om 750 down to 20 with the
middle-income occupations in the 60 to 150 value range. The old scale went from 750 down to
150 and middle-income values were 350 to 500. In addition, many new classifications/titles
were added and many classifications/titles were significantly expanded. I must note that the
values assigned were based on numerous factors other than and including the potential of an
occupation to earn income. Pennsylvania Courts have held "It is apparent that other factors than
income affect the value which may be attributed to an occupation. These may include social
status, historical attributes, type, kind and quality of work required, degree of education and
training demanded and many other such real or fancied social and economic distinctions
(Haberman Appeal, 388 A.2d 1159, 37 Pa Cmwlth.97, 1978, citing Crosson v. Downingtown
Area School District, 270 A.2d 377, 440 Pa 468, 1970).
Since the initial complete revision of the value scale, the Board of Assessment has
continued to fine tune the Tax Assessor Manual with over 100 changes to decrease or increase
2
values based on input from citizens of Lycoming County, and added over 30 new titles. The
changes to the Occupational Tax Assessors Manual combined with the efforts to ensure that
taxpayers are correctly titled and listed (over 15,000 changes as a result of school district
submissions) have reduced the occupational tax burden on the lower and middle-income
occupations. An example of this is that the old value of 500 assigned to a Registered Nurse is
now 80 on the scale of values between 20 and 750.
Under the present valuation structure, occupational assessment tax values are more
equitable and uniform on the scale of 20 to 750 than the old value scale of 150 to 750. This was
affirmed on November 9, 1998 in Case Number 98-00,408 Court of Common Pleas of Lycoming
County wherein Judge J. Michael Williamson, 25th Judicial District of Pennsylvania, opined that
in reviewing and analyzing the testimony presented on behalf of the County, "the Court was
impressed with the effort and integrity of the Commissioners in attempting to create a fair and
equitable occupational tax schedule considering the significant lack of guidance provided by the
legislature or the appellate courts." Judge Williamson further opined that "The Court is satisfied
that the Commissioners and staff made a conscientious and comprehensive effort to secure the
necessary information, including income statistics, to accomplish their legislatively mandated
task. While it is obvious that the primary factor considered by the Commissioners was earning
potential, the Court is satisfied that other factors were considered, especially when those factors
were particularly relevant to certain occupations. This Court is particularly impressed with the
Commissioners decision to initially rank occupations in descending order based upon the factors
set forth. The Court believes that the Commissioners and their staff did an excellent job of
putting together an occupational assessment schedule which reflects a common sense ranking of
occupations and fair, equitable, and uniform valuations applied to those assessments."
In another court case that was decided January 4, 1999, by Judge Stuart Kurtz regarding
Case Numbers 98-2379 and 98-2433, several Centre County Area school districts (Bald Eagle,
Bellefonte, and State College) filed action against the Centre County Board of Assessment and
the three Commissioners. In deciding this case in favor of the School Districts, Judge Kurtz
referred to Judge Williamson's opinion regarding Lycoming County's new occupational value
scale. Judge Kurtz stated "Lycoming County was able to reassess occupations in 1998 and that
effort has already received commendation from our colleague, the Honorable J. Michael
Williamson of the 25th Judicial District, Specially Presiding, who after a review of the
reassessment opined "that the commissioners and their staff did an excellent job of putting
together an occupational assessment schedule which reflects a common sense ranking of
occupations and fair, equitable, and uniform valuations applied to those assessments." In re:
Appeal of Elliot B. Weiss, Lycoming County No. 98-00,408, November 9.
As you are aware, the assessment value standing alone means nothing until the taxing
body sets a millage to be applied to the evaluation. For fiscal year 1999-2000, school district
millages for the Occupational Tax in Lycoming County ranged from the high of 4,275
(Montgomery) to the low of 3,100 (Jersey Shore). Doctors in the Montgomery School District
paid occupation taxes ranging from $427.50 to $3,206.25. In the Jersey Shore School District,
the district that levies the lowest Occupational Tax millage, doctors paid occupational taxes
ranging from $310.00 to $2,325.00. This example of inequity is .just another one of the reasons
why I state that the Occupational Assessment Tax is unfair.
The new system developed by the Board of Assessment is admittedly not perfect, but it is
far better than the structure it replaced. For example, the prior schedule of occupations was
grossly unfair to the average worker and many professionals in Lycoming County. Under the old
system, truck drivers paid 50% of the dollar amount of occupational taxes paid by a specialty
physician. That did not seem fair to me. Under the prior schedule, family practice doctors paid
the same occupational tax as heart surgeons. That did not seem. fair to me. Under the prior
schedule, substitute teachers paid the same as full time teachers. That did not seem fair to me.
Under the prior value scale, an owner of a mom and pop business paid the same occupational
taxes as the president of a multi-million dollar corporation. That did not seem fair to me. Under
the old schedule, an attorney just admitted to the bar paid the same occupational tax as an
attorney who had a 25-year established practice. That did not seem fair to me. These are but a
few of the hundreds of examples of inequities in the prior value system. I truly believe that the
Lycoming County Board of.Assessment has developed a more fhir, equitable and uniform
Occupational Title Value Scale when compared to the old values assessed in 1997. The two
aforementioned Court Decisions concur with these comments. The Lycoming County Board of
Assessment believes that they have established a classification and value system that is as fair
and uniform as they can make it, and that by approving yearly corrections, additions, and
deletions to the Classifications and Values they are meeting the requirement of their mandated
legal responsibility.
Although the new value scale is a much fairer and equitable scale, and two courts
have reaffirmed this opinion, the County Commissioners and I still believe the Occupational
Assessment Tax to be unfair, and unfixable. In addition to being based on an occupational title
and very subjective factors such as social status, type, kind and quality of work, degree of
education and training demanded, and many other fancied social and economic distinctions, there
are no penalties for not being correctly listed, for not being listed at all, or for deliberately
misleading the assessor to get a lower value. That is why the County Commissioners have been
working with the State Legislators since 1996 to eliminate the Occupational Assessment Tax.
Many citizens have suggested that we simply "do away with this ridiculous system and base the
tax on the taxable income". The current law does not permit the Occupational Tax to be based
on income, and the Occupational Assessment Tax is not a tax that the Lycoming County
Government can eliminate. This is a tax that is collected by your School District, and only
you can eliminate it, or replace it with an Earned Income Tax under the Tax Reform of Act
50 or 24. If enacted, in its place would be an earned income tax of up to 1.5% for the School
District and a .5% earned income tax for the municipality. So, a physician, or anyone else
earning $200,000 annually would pay roughly $3000 as an earned income tax to the school
district and another $1000 to the municipality in place of the present Occupational Assessment
Tax. Compare that with the current Occupational Assessment Tax that produces a tax of
$1,282.50 for a Family Practice Doctor (value 300) in the Montgomery School District that at
4,275 mils levies the highest millage.
In conclusion, I again state that I totally agree with you that the Occupational Assessment
Tax is an unfair tax, and I remind you that not one dollar of the Occupational Assessment Tax
Revenue comes to Lycoming County Government. I also believe that this Board of Assessment
has fulfilled its legal and moral responsibility to make the current scale of Occupational
Assessment values as uniform and fair as possible. Therefore, I encourage and hope that you do
take action to eliminate this unfair tax by enacting the new tax reform of Act 50 or Act 24.
If I can be of any further assistance or answer any other questions pertaining to the
Occupational Tax please call me at (570) 327-2314.
Respectfully,
Andrew C. Follmer
Director of Administration
Enclosure
2002 ASSESSORS MANUAL
CLASSIFICATIONS AND VALUES
CORRECTIONS, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS
CODE
CLASSIFICTION
VALUES
2001 2002
COMMENTS
00100
00190
01930
01931
01932
00270
00320
00915
01292
00830
01431
01432
01910
01911
01912
01913
01914
01915
01916
01947
00701
01880
01881
02290
02330
03780
03265
01890
01891
01892
01893
01894
Airport Director 140 175
Artists/Sculptors 100 50
Assistant Manager 1-5 Employees 60 70
Assistant Manager 6-15 Employees 6(} 80
Assistant Manager 16-50 Employees 60 90
Auto Mechanic/Body Technician 50 70
Aviation Pilot 120 175
Clerk General/Customer Service 50
County Commissioner 120 150
Daycare Worker 50 40
Department Manager 1-5 Employees 90 80
Department Manager 16-50 Employees 90 100
Executive Vice-President 1-5 Empl 90
Executive Vice-President 6-15 Emp 120
Executive Vice-President 16-50 Emp 150
Executive Vice-President 51-100 Emp 225
Executive Vice-President 101-250 Emp 225
Executive Vice-President 251-350 Emp 375
Executive Vice-President 351-500 Emp 500
Executive Vice-President 500+ Emp 600
Food Service Worker Institutional 40
General Manager 1-5 Employees 80
General Manager 1-15 Employees 90 90
Health Officer Federal Government 110 130
Health Officer Local Government 70 100
Medical Secretary 50 60
Patrol Officer Borough/Township 110
President/Owner/Plant Manager 1-5 Emp 90 150
President/Owner/Plant Manager 6-15 Emp 150 200
President/Owner/Plant Mgr 16-50 Emp 225 275
President/Owner/Plant Mgr 51-100 Emp 325 350
President/Owner/Plant Mgr 101-250 Emp 425 450
Changed to 01940
Changed to 01941
Changed to 01942
Changed to 01943
Changed to 01944
Changed to 01945
Changed to 01946
Changed to 01047
Addition
Changed to 01881
Add 1-5 Emp
Addition
6
VALUES
CODE CLASSIFICTION 2001 2002
COMMENTS
01897 President/Owner/Plant Mgr 500+ Emp 700 750
01165 Safety Officer 120
03750 Secretary 60 50
03830 Sewing Machine Operator 30 40
01940 Vice-President 1-5 Employees 90 120
01941 Vice-President 6-15 Employees 120 150
01942 Vice-President 16-50 Employees 150 225
01943 Vice-President 51-100 Employees 175 325
01944 Vice-President 101-250 Employees 200 375
01945 Vice-President 251-350 Employees 375 450
01946 Vice-President 351-500 Employees 425 500
01947 Vice-President 500+ Employees 500 650
Addition
Occupations Added to the list that cannot be considered as Part 'rime for Value (Can not make
assessment value one-half (1/2) of the value of that Occupation).
00190 Artist/S culptor 50
00705 Cook 30
01265 Cottage/Casual Business Owner 40
01500 Dishwasher 30
01550 Domestic/Hotel Worker/Maid 30
01294 Jury Commissioner 20
01970 Laborer/Farm 30
02610 Laborer/Landscaper 30
01955 Laborer/Non-skilled 30
02640 Library Worker 30
02960 Nurse Aide/Orderly 30
01950 Physician Assistant/Intern/Resident MD 100
03110 Pet Breeder 30
03120 Pet Groomer 30
00230 Pet Sitter 20
04190 Tree Surgeon Laborer 40
04575 Sales Telemarketer 40
John L. Sweezy, Petitioner
Cumberland County Board of
Assessment and Appeals,
Respondent
~n the Court o~ Common Pleas
Cumberland ¢oun~y~ ~ennsylvania
Appeal from Board Order of
August 31, 2001
No. 2001 - 5601 Civil Term
ORDER
AND NOW, this ~day of ~ ,'-'' 2003, upon consideration
of the appended Motion for Rule to Show Cause and Proposed Amend-
ment, and upon application of John L. Sweezy, attorney, Petitioner,
a rule is hereby granted upon Respondent Board to show cause why
the Amendment should not be allowed and the amended material added
to the record of the case. ~/~~~ ~~
Je
1
John L. Sweezy, Petitioner
v.
Cumberland County Board of
Assessment and Appeals,
Respondent
In the Court of Common Pleas of
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania
Appeal from Board Order of
August 31, 2001
NO. 2001 - 5601 Civil Term
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I am this day serving upon the
person indicated below by first class mail postage prepaid
the Court's Order of May 7, 2003 granting a rule upon Res-
pondent Board to show cause why the proposed Amendment to
Petitioner's Petition for Review should not be allowed and
the amended material added to the record of the case.
Stephen D. Tiley, Esquire
~rey & Tiley
5 South Hanover Street
Carlisle, Pa. 17013
J~ohn~L~.''s~torney
Petitioner
Dated: May 15, 2003
JOHN L. SWEEZY, PETITIONER :
V. :
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD :
OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, :
RESPONDENT :
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
APPEAL FROM BOARD ORDER OF
AUGUST 31, 2001
NO. 2001-5601 CIVIL TERM
ANSWE~R
(Re: Amendment of Petition)
AND NOW, comes Cumberland County Board of Assessment Appeals, by its attorney,
Stephen D. Tiley, Esquire, Assistant Cumberland County Solicitor, and files this ANSWER to
Petitioner's Motion For Issuance Of Rule Upon Board To Shown Cause Why Amendment Of
Petition For Review Should Not Be Allowed Pursuant To RCP 1033, of which the following is a
statement:
1. Admitted in part. Denied in part. It is admitted that Pa. R.C.P. 1033 provides, inter
alia., as quoted by Petitioner. It is denied that this action is governed by the Rules of Civil
Procedure as this action is a statutory appeal. (Appeal of the Borough of Churchill 525 Pa. 80,575
A.2d 550 (1990)) Pursuant to said case the Rules of Civil Procedure would only be applicable if
they had been adopted by a Rule of the Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas. There being
no such local rule, the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure do not govern this action.
Nevertheless, it is admitted that the Pennsylvania RUles of Civil Procedure may be used as guidance
by the Court in rendering its decision as to whether or not to grant leave to amend, as requested by
Petitioner.
2. Denied. The materials sought to be included by amendment describe neither a
"transaction" nor "occurrence" related to the occupation assessment of the Petitioner (which is
the subject of this appeal), nor to the occupation assessment of other Cumberland County residents
(which the Petitioner may desire to include in his appeal but has not done so), nor to the
constitutionality of the occupation assessment tax or Cumberland County's implementation thereof.
Rather, the requested material is at best evidence which Petitioner rnay wish to attempt to have
admitted at some future Hearing. Respondent believes, and theref6re avers, that the evidence which
Petitioner attempts to add as a portion of his Petition, is in any event irrelevant to the subject matter
of the Petition.
3. Admitted. By way of further Answer, Petitioner's Motion for Discovery was
assigned to the Honorable Edward Guido. It is unclear to Respondent that the "case" was so
assigned.
WHEREFORE, Respondent prays Your Honorable Court for an Order denying
Petitioners request to amend his Petition.
Dated:
Respectfully submitted,
BY-~7~~7' 7 ~
Stepl~n D./Filey, Esquire -
Attorney for Cumb~Mand County
Board of Assessment Appeals
and Cumberland County
5 South Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 2430-5838
Supreme Court I.D.#32318
JOHN L. SWEEZY, PETITIONER
Ve
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD
OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS,
RESPONDENT
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
APPEAL FROM iBOARD ORDER OF
AUGUST 31, 2001
NO. 2001-5601 CIVIL TERM
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICI~
I hereby certify that I am this date serving a tree and correct copy of the within
Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment upon the Petitioner by sending the same by first-
class mail postage paid addressed as follow:
John L. Sweezy, Esquire
Petitioner
P.O. Box 224
Harrisburg, Pa 17108
John L. Sweezy
Petitioner
125 Victoria Drive
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
Dated:
:ephen D. Tiley, Esquire
Frey & Tiley
Attorney for Cumb. County
Board of Assessment Appeals
5 S. Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
717-243-5838
JOHN L. SWEEZY, PETITIONER :
V. :
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD :
OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, :
RESPONDENT :
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
APPEAL FROM BOARD ORDER OF
AUGUST 31, 2001
NO. 2001-5601 CIVIL TERM
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE_
I hereby certify that I am this date serving a true and correct copy of the within Answer Re:
Amendment of Petition upon the Petitioner by sending the same by first-class mail postage paid
addressed as follow:
John L. Sweezy, Esquire
Petitioner
P.O. Box 224
Harrisburg, Pa 17108
John L. Sweezy
Petitioner
125 Victoria Drive
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
Stephen lJ. Tiley, Esquire
Frey & Tiley
Attorney for Cumb. County
Board of Assessment Appeals
5 S. Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
717-243-5838
JOHN L. SWEEZY, PETITIONER :
V. :
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD :
OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, :
RESPONDENT :
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
APPEAL FROM BOARD ORDER OF
AUGUST 31, 2001.
NO. 2001-5601 CIVIL TERM
RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
AND NOW, comes the Respondent, Cumberland County Board of Assessment Appeals,
by its attorney, Stephen D. Tiley, Esquire, Assistant Cumberland County Solicitor, and files this
Motion for Summary Judgment, of which the following is a statement:
1. As the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure are not technically applicable to the
within proceeding because it is an occupation tax assessment appeal (Appeal of the Borough of
Churchill 525 Pa. 80,575 A.2d 550 (1990)), Respondent, Cumberland County Board of
Assessment Appeals, files this Motion for Summary Judgment based upon the Court's inherent
power to regulate its own practice and to make rules, of practice for the proper disposition of cases
before it. Nevertheless, it is respectfully suggested that the pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure
may be used as guidance by the Court in rendering its decision as to whether or not to grant leave to
amend, as requested by Petitioner.
2. Respondent believes, and therefore avers, that if the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil
Procedure applicable to Motions for Summary Judgment (Pa. R.C..P. 1035 et seq.) were applicable
to the within proceeding that the Respondent would be entitled to Summary Judgment in this case
based upon those Rules and standards.
case.
There is no genuine issue of any material fact necessary to a determination of this
4. Petitioner having admitted that his initial assessment is "Attorney 700" the burden
of proof shifts to Petitioner (Deitch Company v. Boa:rdofProper¢ ,~sessment, 417 Pa. 213,209
A.2d 397 (1965)), and Petitioner has failed to produce evidence of any facts essential to the cause
of action which, in a jury trial, would require that the issues to be submitted to a jury, or otherwise
supporting Petitioner's claim that the occupation assessment of the Petitioner is wrong, or that the
occupation assessment of other Cumberland County residents is wrong, or to the constitutionality
of the occupation assessment law or Cumberland County's implementation thereof.
5. Petitioner has not averred any facts, nor provided any evidence or offers of proof,
which would entitle Petitioner to any relief under his various theories.
6. To the contrary, as a matter of law, Petitioner is not entitled to relief under any of the
theories advanced by him.
7. The Opinion and Order of the Honorable Kevin A. Hess, dated March 13, 2003,
entered in this case and denying Petitioner's Motion for Summary Judgment, is determinative of
the issues and resjudicata as to the within Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment.
8. Honorable Edward E. Guido resolved a Discovery. issue in this case by Order of
Court dated June 13, 2002. Oral argument on Petitioner's Motion for Summary Judgment was
heard by the Honorable Kevin A. Hess and the Edgar B. Bayley, with Order and Opinion entered
by the Honorable Kevin A. Hess on March 13, 2003. Thereafter, the Honorable Edgar B. Bayley
entered an Order dated May 7, 2003, granting a Rule upon Respondent to show cause why
Petitioner should net be granted leave to amend his Petition.
WHEREFORE, Respondent prays Your Honorable Court for:
(a) A Rule upon the Petitioner to Show Cause why Respondent's Motion for
Summary Judgment should not be granted, returnable within 30 days after service (analogous to Pa
R.C.P. 1035.3(a)); and
Petitioner.
(b)
An Order granting Summary Judgment in 'favor of Respondent and against
Dated:
Respectfully submitted,
Steph~n D.ff~ley, Esquire
Attorney for Cumberland County
Board of Assessment Appeals
and Cumberland County
5 South Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 2430-5838
Supreme Court I.D.#32318