Appeal of ANR Pipeline Co.
| Decision Date | 21 January 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 69116,69116 |
| Citation | 866 P.2d 1060,254 Kan. 534 |
| Parties | In the Matter of the Appeal of ANR PIPELINE COMPANY; Colorado Interstate Gas Company; Northern Natural Gas Company; Mapco Fractionator, Inc.; Mapco Ammonia Pipeline, Inc.; Mid-America Pipeline Company; and Enron Liquids Pipeline Company From a Decision of the Director of Property Valuation of the State of Kansas. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. In making a determination of federal preemption, a court should examine those concerns emphasized by Congress in enacting the legislation. State law should be preempted only to the extent necessary to protect achievement of the purposes of the federal act in question.
2. An order of the Board of Tax Appeals denying pipeline companies the favorable state tax treatment afforded railroads by federal law and a federal court consent decree thereunder is considered and held not to be violative of: (1) the Uniform and Equal Clause of art. 11, § 1 of the Kansas Constitution; (2) the Equal Protection Clauses of the United States and Kansas Constitutions; or (3) the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution.
Richard D. Greene, Morris, Laing, Evans, Brock & Kennedy, Chartered, Wichita, argued the cause, and Robert W. Coykendall, of the same firm, Karen Pauley, Virginia Amend, and Nancy Morgan, of ANR Pipeline Co. and Colorado Interstate Gas Co., Colorado Springs, CO, E. Chris Kaitson, of Northern Natural Gas Co. and Enron Liquids Pipeline Co., Houston, TX, and Charlene Sinclair, MAPCO Fractionator, Inc., MAPCO Ammonia Pipeline, Inc., and Mid-America Pipeline Co., Tulsa, OK, were with him on the briefs, for appellants.
William E. Waters, of Kansas Dept. of Revenue, Topeka, argued the cause, and Laura E. Johnson, of the same Dept., were with him on the brief, for appellee.
Benjamin J. Neill and Thomas H. Bornholdt, Neill, Bornholdt & Terrill, Overland Park, were on the brief, for amicus curiae KS Ass'n of Counties.
Lisa Ross Wetzler, Asst. Co. Counselor, Johnson County, was on the brief, for amici curiae Bd. of County Comm'rs Johnson County, KS, and County Appraiser of Johnson County, KS.
The appellants herein, with one exception, are open access common carriers that transport fuels in interstate commerce. The one exception, Mapco Fractionator, Inc., provides fractionating services to shippers of natural gas. Each is classified as a public utility for real and personal property tax purposes. Each was unsuccessful in its effort before the Director of Property Valuation (DPV) to have its property assessed on the same bases as is railroad property. Appeals were taken to the Board of Tax Appeals (BOTA), which upheld the decisions of the DPV. The appellants appeal from said BOTA order. The appellants contend the BOTA order is in violation of the uniform and equal requirement of art. 11, § 1 of the Kansas Constitution, the Equal Protection Clauses of the Kansas and United States Constitutions, and the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution.
The appeals were presented to BOTA on stipulated facts. Here, as there, only questions of law are presented for determination. The circumstances giving rise to the controversies herein may be stated as follows. The tax years 1990 and 1991 are involved. At all pertinent times, art. 11, § 1(b) of the Kansas Constitution provided:
subclass at the following percentages of value:
This article was substantially amended in 1992, effective January 1, 1993, but said amendments are not at issue herein.
Under the provisions applicable herein, real and personal property owned by public utilities was to be assessed at 30 percent. The appellants and railroads are public utilities. K.S.A. 79-5a01.
In 1976, Congress enacted the Railroad Revitalization & Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 (Pub.L. 94-210, 90 Stat. 31, 54-5 [codified at 49 U.S.C. § 11503 (1988) ]. The Act, commonly referred to as the 4-R Act, provides, in pertinent part:
"(a) In this section--
(1) 'assessment' means valuation for a property tax levied by a taxing district.
(2) 'assessment jurisdiction' means a geographical area in a State used in determining the assessed value of property for ad valorem taxation.
(3) 'rail transportation property' means property, as defined by the Interstate Commerce Commission, owned or used by a rail carrier providing transportation subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission under subchapter I of chapter 105 of this title [49 U.S.C. §§ 10501 et seq.].
(4) 'commercial and industrial property' means property, other than transportation property and land used primarily for agricultural purposes or timber growing, devoted to a commercial or industrial use and subject to a property tax levy.
"(b) The following acts unreasonably burden and discriminate against interstate commerce, and a State, subdivision of a State, or authority acting for a State or subdivision of a State may not do any of them:
(1) assess rail transportation property at a value that has a higher ratio to the true market value of the rail transportation property than the ratio that the assessed (2) levy or collect a tax on an assessment that may not be made under clause (1) of this subsection.
value of other commercial and industrial property in the same assessment jurisdiction has to the true market value of the other commercial and industrial property.
(3) levy or collect an ad valorem property tax on rail transportation property at a tax rate that exceeds the tax rate applicable to commercial and industrial property in the same assessment jurisdiction.
(4) impose another tax that discriminates against a rail carrier providing transportation subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission under subchapter I of chapter 105 of this title [49 U.S.C. §§ 10501 et seq.].
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams Natural Gas Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization
... ... McKenzie, Moffett, Elias & Books by William K. Elias, Oklahoma City, for intervenors ANR Pipeline Co., Colorado Interstate Gas Co., El Paso Natural Gas Co., Transwestern Pipeline Co., Enron Oil & Gas Marketing, Black Marlin Pipeline Co., Explorer ... 1130, 107 L.Ed.2d 1036 (1990). There, a pipeline company sought to have its property assessment equalized with railroads. On appeal from the State Board of Equalization and Assessment the Supreme Court of Nebraska found the decision denied equal protection to the pipeline company ... ...
-
ANR Pipeline Co. v. Lafaver
... ... Noecker and Karen L. Pauley, Colorado Interstate Gas Co., Colorado Springs, Colorado, on brief), for plaintiffs-appellees ... Before ANDERSON, EBEL and KELLY, Circuit Judges ... EBEL, Circuit Judge ... This appeal involves the efforts of two natural gas pipelines, in the face of burgeoning economic competition in the deregulated energy industry, to deal with what they regard as the unequal property tax system in Kansas vis-a-vis the pipelines' traditional competitors, railroad companies, as well as the ... ...
-
In re Tax Appeal of CIG Field Services Co.
... ... In addition, Dismukes conceded that a low-volume producer might not have the same economic opportunities as a large-volume producer ... Glenn Smith, a private consultant retained by the Department of Revenue and a former Chief of Pipeline Safety for the Kansas Corporation Commission, testified that intracounty gas gathering systems generally gather gas from marginal wells. Further, both Smith and Robert Badenoch, Bureau Chief for State Appraised Properties, indicated that intracounty systems generally are not directly connected to a ... ...
-
In re Nat'l Catastrophe Restoration, Inc.
... 48 Kan.App.2d 189 291 P.3d 89 In the Matter of the Appeal of NATIONAL CATASTROPHE RESTORATION, INC. from an Order of the Division of Taxation on Assessment of Retailers' Sales and Use Tax. No. 106,700. Court ... Montana, 453 U.S. 609, 101 S.Ct. 2946, 69 L.Ed.2d 884 (1981). See In re Tax Appeal of ANR Pipeline Co., 254 Kan. 534, 547, 866 P.2d 1060 (1994) (The court indicated that the unit valuation methodology, and apportionment to Kansas according to ... ...
-
CHAPTER 9 RECENT CASES AFFECTING PIPELINES
...93-1653, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 6057 (1st Cir. Mar. 25, 1994). [43] 443 N.W.2d 249 (Neb. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1078 (1990). [44] 866 P.2d 1060 (Kan. 1994), cert. denied sub nom. ANR Pipeline Co. v. Director of Property Valuation, 115 S. Ct. 296 (1994). [45] 114 S. Ct. 843 (1994), rev'......