Appeal of Great Lakes Container Corp., 84-182

• Decision Date: 22 February 1985
• Docket Number: No. 84-182,84-182
• Citation: 489 A.2d 134,126 N.H. 167
• Parties: Appeal of GREAT LAKES CONTAINER CORPORATION (New Hampshire Board of Tax and Land Appeals).
• Court: New Hampshire Supreme Court

Page 134

489 A.2d 134

126 N.H. 167

Appeal of GREAT LAKES CONTAINER CORPORATION (New Hampshire Board of Tax and Land Appeals).

No. 84-182.

Supreme Court of New Hampshire.

Feb. 22, 1985.

Wadleigh, Starr, Peters, Dunn & Chiesa, Manchester (Jeffrey H. Karlin, Manchester, on brief and orally), for Great Lakes Container Corp.

Engel & Morse P.A., Exeter (Mark S. Gearreald, Exeter, on brief and orally), for Town of Kingston.

BROCK, Justice.

Pursuant to RSA 76:16, Great Lakes Container Corporation (GLCC) sought an abatement of property taxes assessed on land and buildings it owns in Kingston, for the 1982 tax year. The Board of Selectmen of Kingston denied the abatement, and GLCC appealed to the New Hampshire Board of Tax and Land Appeals (the board), under RSA 76:16-a (Supp.1983).

The board upheld the denial of abatement, ruling that GLCC had failed to carry its burden of proving that the town's assessment of its property was unfair, improper, or disproportionately high. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

Since around 1955, the land in question has been occupied by a barrel reconditioning plant. GLCC purchased the plant in 1976, and operated it from that year until 1980, when it was closed due to a lawsuit filed in the United States District Court by the federal, State, and local governments. The suit alleged, and it is conceded here, that the property is severely contaminated with hazardous waste materials. It was further alleged that most, if not all, of the waste was deposited in the soil as a result of the reconditioning plant's operations.

GLCC was named as a defendant in the suit, but it alleges that most of the contamination can be traced to GLCC's predecessor in title, International Minerals and Chemical Corporation (IMC). GLCC denied any liability under either federal or State law, arguing that IMC and other defendants in the suit (owners of neighboring land) should be held liable both for the costs of cleaning up the site and for any damage to other persons or property resulting from the contamination.

The suit was pending throughout the tax year in question, and is evidently still pending. GLCC, noting correctly that the value of property for assessment purposes is its sale value, Trustees etc. Academy v. Exeter, 92 N.H. 473, 481, 33 A.2d 665, 671 (1943), argued before the board that the existence of the lawsuit and the contaminants on the property rendered it unsaleable and thus untaxable. In support of this assertion, GLCC submitted an appraiser's report which concluded that traditional methods of appraising fair market value were inapplicable to the property, due to its then unusable condition and the pending federal litigation. The appraiser accordingly found the property to have a fair market value of zero.

GLCC conceded that the site would be cleaned up as a result of the federal litigation, and that this "probably" meant that the land would have sale value in the future. (In fact, such a cleanup is currently taking place, pursuant to a court order.) GLCC also conceded that this was a factor in its decision to seek an abatement rather than to forfeit the land to the town. GLCC argued, nevertheless, that the land had no sale value during the 1982 tax year (which ran from April 1, 1982 to March 31, 1983) because any buyer "would be...