06-F Tax Proposal - McCreary - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

No. 3-91-482-CV, Paul W. Kimmell AKA Paul W. Kimmell DC v. Burnet County Appraisal District, 835 S.W.2d 108 (Tex.App.-Austin 1992, no writ) Dr. Kimmell was a tax protestor who denied the jurisdictional authority of the State of Texas. After multiple dilatory motions at the trial court, Dr. Kimmell suffered an adverse judgment for delinquent taxes. He then appealed to the Third Court of Appeals. Prior to the time the Third Court of Appeals issued a decision, Dr. Kimmell sent papers to the court and to the litigants purporting to be orders of removal from the "Common Law Court for the Republic of Texas" withdrawing the case from the jurisdiction of the Third Court of Appeals. The documents even bore file-marked stamps from the alleged clerk of this "Common Law Court for the Republic of Texas". The Third Court of Appeals held that there is no such thing as the "Common Law Court for the Republic of Texas", dismissed Dr. Kimmell's case for abandonment of the appeal, and sanctioned him for frivolous appeal. No. 11-91-236-CV, Otis T. Hawkins v. Van Zandt County Appraisal District et al, 834 S.W.2d 619 (Tex.App.-Eastland 1992, writ den'd) Hawkins operates a commercial nursery in Van Zandt County. On his property he has a number of greenhouses which are constructed of inetal pipe sleeves driven into the ground in parallel rows. Into the sleeves are inserted tubular arches called bows. Plastic is then stretched over the parallel rows of bows to create a Quonset hut style greenhouse. Mr. Hawkins, supported by the Texas Association of Nurserymen, claimed that these greenhouses, which he referred to as "covers", were in reality only implements of husbandry and should be exempted from taxation under Tex. Prop. Tax Code § 11.161. The trial court and court of appeals ruled in favor of the appraisal district holding the greenhouses to be improvements to realty and thus taxable. The Supreme Court denied Mr. Hawkins' application for writ of error. No. 3-90-200-CV, J. M. Huber Corporation, Calcium Carbonate Division v. Burnet County Appraisal District, 808 S.W.2d 613 (Tex.App.-Austin 1991, writ den'd) J. M. Huber Corporation failed to render, for a number of years, a substantial rock crushing plant in Burnet County in spite of repeated requests of the appraisal district to make a rendition. Huber made substantial improvements to the plant. Finally, the appraisal district assembled sufficient data to arrive at what it considered to be a realistic appraisal of the plant. That appraisal was substantially higher than it had been in previous years. A representative of Huber then contacted the chief appraiser. The chief appraiser told Huber that, even though it was past time for filing renditions for that year, the appraisal district would consider a rendition if Huber promptly sent it to the appraisal district. The next day, by express delivery, a document arrived from Huber addressed to the chief appraiser. The document was essentially a letter from Huber indicating what it thought the value of the rock crushing plant should be. The chief appraiser filed the document as a rendition when she received it in May of the year in question. Huber made no further contact with the appraisal district until after it received its tax bill. Finally, several months into the next year, Huber asked the appraisal district when it would have its McCreary, Veselka, Bragg & Allen 40