Utah Railway Co. v. UTAH STATE TAX COM'N

Decision Date09 June 2000
Docket NumberNo. 970528.,970528.
PartiesUTAH RAILWAY COMPANY, Petitioner, v. UTAH STATE TAX COMMISSION, Respondent. Utah Association of Counties, Intervenor.
CourtUtah Supreme Court

Robert A. Peterson, John H. Bogart, Salt Lake City, for petitioner.

Jan Graham, Att'y Gen., Brian L. Tarbet, Michelle Bush, John C. McCarrey, Asst. Att'ys Gen., Salt Lake City, for respondent.

Bill Thomas Peters, Salt Lake City, for intervenor.

DURRANT, Justice:

¶ 1 Utah Railway Company petitions for review of a decision of the State Tax Commission upholding an appraised valuation of Utah Railway's taxable property. Utah Railway initially challenged the valuation of its property by the Property Tax Division of the Commission, and the Commission granted a formal hearing. Before the Commission, the Division abandoned its initial valuation and argued for a higher valuation. The Commission rejected both Utah Railway's and the Division's requests for differing valuations and adopted the original appraised value.

BACKGROUND

¶ 2 Utah Railway was incorporated in 1912. It operates entirely within the state of Utah. Its business is hauling coal from mines in Carbon and Emery counties to terminal facilities in Provo, Utah. Utah Railway's assets primarily consist of leased locomotives, portions of wholly owned track, terminal facilities that are owned jointly with Union Pacific Railroad, and a right-of-way over track owned by Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad.

¶ 3 In 1994, the Property Tax Division of the State Tax Commission valued Utah Railway's property at $32,895,900, and the tax due was calculated according to that valuation. Utah Railway filed a formal protest, with the Commission, arguing its property was worth approximately $17 million. Utah Railway contested several aspects of the Division's valuation, but primarily asserted that the Division had employed methodologies that improperly included intangible assets, which are not subject to taxation under governing constitutional and statutory standards.

¶ 4 A formal hearing was scheduled. Prior to the hearing, both parties were directed to submit their appraisals of the value of Utah Railway's property. The Division did not submit its original appraisal into evidence, but instead submitted and defended a new appraisal. The new appraisal valued Utah Railway's property at approximately $37 million. Utah Railway submitted an appraisal of $20.5 million.1 Utah Railway's appraiser did not attempt to segregate intangible from tangible values,2 but Utah Railway nevertheless argued that the Commission had a constitutional and statutory duty to do so.

¶ 5 The Commission rendered its final decision based on the testimony and evidence presented at the hearing. It determined that the fundamental factual dispute between the parties concerned economic forecasts for the continuing viability of Utah Railway's business. The Commission refused to adopt either of the appraisals presented to it. The Commission rejected Utah Railway's appraisal because it found that the information Utah Railway had supplied did not accurately reflect Utah Railway's own beliefs about future coal transportation prospects, and could not, therefore, support Utah Railway's arguments for a lower valuation. The Commission also rejected the Division's request for a higher valuation because it determined that the Division had not adequately sustained its burden of proof.3 In its findings of fact, conclusions of law, and final decision, the Commission adopted the original valuation of $32,895,900. In so doing, the Commission did not address Utah Railway's constitutional and statutory arguments concerning separation and removal of intangibles for purposes of establishing taxable value, nor did it explain any basis for refusing to address the issue.

DISCUSSION

¶ 6 On Utah Railway's petition for review, we "grant the commission deference concerning its written findings of fact, applying a substantial evidence standard on review, and . . . [we] grant the commission no deference concerning its conclusions of law, applying a correction of error standard." Utah Code Ann. § 59-1-610(1) (1996); see also Salt Lake City Southern R.R. Co. v. Tax Comm'n, 1999 UT 90, ¶ 7, 987 P.2d 594, 596

. Moreover, we conduct our review in light of the burdens the taxpayer carries before the Commission, where the protesting taxpayer is required "not only to show substantial error or impropriety in the assessment, but also to provide a sound evidentiary basis upon which the Commission could adopt a lower valuation." Utah Power & Light Co. v. Tax Comm'n, 590 P.2d 332, 335 (Utah 1979).

¶ 7 Utah Railway presents three fundamental arguments: (1) the Commission's adoption of the original property valuation was not supported by substantial evidence because the Division did not submit the original appraisal supporting that valuation into evidence; (2) the appraisal was not based on reasonable, reliable indicators of value; and (3) the Division and the Commission violated the constitutional and statutory proscription against taxing intangibles by failing to employ valuation methodologies designed to exclude those intangibles.

I. THE DIVISION'S FAILURE TO SUBMIT ITS ORIGINAL APPRAISAL

¶ 8 Before this court, Utah Railway relies heavily on the first argument. It asserts the Commission may not adopt a property valuation unless available documentation supporting the valuation is placed in the record. We agree. In Utah Power & Light Co., we held that "the Commission must have a sound evidentiary basis for its decision." Id. In this case, the Division chose to effectively abandon its original appraisal and failed to even introduce that appraisal into evidence. As a consequence, the Commission had no evidence before it upon which to base its ultimate decision to adopt the original valuation.

¶ 9 The Commission correctly notes that Utah Railway had the burden of demonstrating substantial error and providing an evidentiary basis for the Commission to adopt a lower valuation. See id. at 334-35. Based on this premise, the Commission argues that the original valuation is entitled to a "presumption of correctness." We agree that such a presumption is necessarily implied by our holding in Utah Power & Light Co. That presumption does not arise, however, unless and until available evidence supporting the original property valuation is submitted to the Commission.

¶ 10 In this case, because the Division is in the best position to present the evidence supporting its valuation, and because we think it unfair to impose upon the taxpayer an obligation to ensure that the record includes a property valuation the taxpayer contests, we hold that the Division is the entity obligated to do so. Cf. Ban berry Dev. Corp. v. South Jordan City, 631 P.2d 899, 903-04 (Utah 1981)

(in context of impact fees, agency with most accessibility to relevant information has burden of disclosure). Where a taxpayer challenges the valuation of property before the Commission, the entity defending against the challenge must present the available evidence supporting the original valuation. Once that is done, the taxpayer, or any other entity seeking an adjustment of the original valuation, must meet its twofold burden of demonstrating "substantial error or impropriety in the [original] assessment," and providing "a sound evidentiary basis upon which the Commission could adopt a lower valuation." Utah Power & Light Co.,

590 P.2d at 335.

II. THE RELIABILITY OF THE DIVISION'S VALUATION METHODOLOGIES

¶ 11 Utah Railway's second argument is rendered moot by our decision on the first issue. Utah Railway attacks the accuracy and reliability of the methodologies ostensibly employed to arrive at valuation of its property. However, Utah Railway has already explicitly argued the Commission did not rely on any documentary evidence of the valuation it affirmed. Indeed, the appraisal supporting that valuation was never placed in the record and neither party attempted to comprehensively attack or defend it. Because the Commission did not rely on any valuation...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • State v. HCIC
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Utah
    • July 30, 2002
    ...mechanism, DWR can assail the assessments by challenging the mechanism upon which the assessments are based.3See, e.g., Utah Ry. Co. v. State Tax Comm'n, 2000 UT 49, ¶¶ 11-12, 5 P.3d 652; Salt Lake City Corp. v. Prop. Tax Div. of State Tax Comm'n, 1999 UT 41, ¶¶ 14 & 22, 979 P.2d 346; Walke......
  • T–mobile U.S. Inc. v. Utah State Tax Comm'n
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Utah
    • June 3, 2011
    ...impropriety in the [original] assessment, and providing a sound evidentiary basis upon which the Commission could adopt a lower valuation.” 2000 UT 49, ¶ 10, 5 P.3d 652 (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted). This reliance is misplaced. In Utah Railway Co., the burden w......
  • Fraughton v. Utah State Tax Comm'n
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Utah
    • January 10, 2019
    ...the assessment, but also to provide a sound evidentiary basis upon which the Commission could adopt a lower valuation." Utah Ry. Co. v. Utah State Tax Comm'n , 2000 UT 49, ¶ 6, 5 P.3d 652 (cleaned up). Thus, Fraughton, as the protesting taxpayer, has a two-pronged burden. He must (1) show t......
  • Patience LLC v. Salt Lake Cnty. Bd. of Equal.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Utah
    • January 14, 2021
    ...the assessment, but also to provide a sound evidentiary basis upon which the Commission could adopt a lower valuation." Utah Ry. Co. v. Utah State Tax Comm'n , 2000 UT 49, ¶ 6, 5 P.3d 652 (cleaned up). ¶18 Second, Patience contends that the Commission erred by not adjusting the valuation of......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT