BFW Co. v. County of Ramsey
| Decision Date | 17 July 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. C2-97-106,C2-97-106 |
| Citation | 566 N.W.2d 702 |
| Parties | BFW COMPANY, Relator, v. COUNTY OF RAMSEY, Respondent. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
Minnesota Statutes section 278.05, subdivision 6(a), requires a taxpayer challenging a property tax assessment to provide the county with all available information, even information the taxpayer deems to be incomplete or not fully accurate.
Larry Neilson, Rooney & Neilson, Ltd., Arden Hills, for Relator.
Susan Gaertner, Ramsey County Atty., Christine J. Kilduff, St. Paul, for Respondent.
Considered and decided by the court en banc without oral argument.
This is a property tax appeal that turns on a question of statutory interpretation--what is the extent of the statutory obligation imposed on a petitioner to provide information to the county within 60 days of the petition?
On April 1, 1996, relator BFW Company filed a Chapter 278 petition challenging the Ramsey County's January 2, 1995 valuation of Crown Plaza Shopping Center in St. Paul. Minnesota Statutes section 278.05, subdivision 6(a) requires such petitioners to provide certain information to the county within 60 days of the petition's filing, unless evidence of that information is unavailable. After BFW failed to timely provide the county with the required information, the county moved for dismissal as provided in the statute. Although BFW admitted that it failed to provide any information within the required 60 days, it argued that a change in the property's management company and accounting method made portions of the required information within its possession inaccurate and, therefore, unavailable. The tax court concluded that the petitioner's contention that the information in its possession was inaccurate did not render the information unavailable and dismissed the petition. Upon writ of certiorari, we affirm the tax court, and hold that the plain meaning of the statute requires a petitioner to provide the county assessor with all information within its possession.
The facts are largely undisputed. The Ramsey County assessor on January 2, 1995 valued Crown Plaza Shopping Center at $3,255,300. The estimated valuation increased by $755,800, or approximately 30 percent, the negotiated market valuation from January 2, 1994. 1 On April 1, 1996, the owner of the property, BFW Company, filed a petition challenging the valuation. 2 In August 1996, counsel for BFW contacted an assistant Ramsey County attorney regarding BFW's receipt of a notice setting the trial date for December 12, 1996. Despite the requirement that all petitioners challenging assessments for income-producing property 3 provide the county with information, "including income and expense figures, verified net rentable areas, and anticipated income and expenses * * * within 60 days after the petition has been filed under this chapter," Minn.Stat. § 278.05, subd. 6(a) (1996), BFW had not yet provided the county with any information. The assistant county attorney informed BFW's counsel that nothing could be done regarding the trial date because the county had yet to assign an appraiser to the petition. She also said that BFW's counsel should contact her if an appraiser had not contacted BFW by October 1, 1996. BFW's counsel again contacted the assistant county attorney on October 8, 1996, at which time she told him that the county had assigned the file to assessor Dan Flaherty. BFW's counsel immediately contacted Flaherty, who said he had yet to receive BFW's current income and expense figures. BFW supplied the current income and expense figures, along with the other required information not previously submitted, to the county in a letter dated October 10, 1996.
On October 21, 1996, the county filed a motion with the tax court seeking to dismiss the petition pursuant to section 278.05, subdivision 6(a). BFW submitted to the tax court affidavits of two officials, one who was the vice president of the firm that had managed Crown Plaza since August 15, 1995, and one who was a partner in BFW Company. According to the affidavits, BFW hired the management firm to manage Crown Plaza beginning on August 15, 1995. Both affidavits also stated that the new management firm employed an accounting system different from that used by the old management firm. The affidavits asserted that because of this change, the two companies were unable to begin tabulating accurate income and expense information until at least August 15, 1996, the date upon which the new firm had completed a one-year cycle of managing the property. Neither of the affidavits offered in support of BFW's position addressed the company's failure to submit the other information required by the statute. In response, the county offered the affidavit of Flaherty, which stated that BFW did not supply current income and expense figures until October 10, 1996, "which was more than 60 days after filing of the petition."
The tax court concluded that the inaccuracy of the available income and expense information did not constitute "unavailability" within the meaning of section 278.05, subdivision 6(a). BFW Co. v. County of Ramsey, No. C9-96-3330, 1996 WL 675486, at * 1 (Minn.Tax Nov.19, 1996). The court also dismissed BFW's argument that a petition should be dismissed only when the failure to timely provide the information prejudiced the county. Id. BFW now appeals.
The main issue before us is whether "income and expense figures" deemed by the petitioner to be unreliable or not fully accurate are "unavailable" within the meaning of section 278.05, subdivision 6(a), and further, whether the asserted unavailability of one type of information also excuses the obligation to supply the other types of information required by the statute.
Minnesota law limits our review of tax court cases to those in which the appellant argues that the tax court was without jurisdiction, that the tax court's decision was not justified by the evidence or in conformity with the law, or that the tax court committed an error of law. Minn.Stat. § 271.10, subd. 1 (1996); Homart Dev. Co. v. County of Hennepin, 538 N.W.2d 907, 910 (Minn.1995). When the parties do not dispute the relevant facts, we review on a de novo basis legal issues, such as the matter of statutory interpretation in this case. See Homart, 538 N.W.2d at 910.
Minnesota law provides a mechanism for a property owner to contest a county's assessment of real estate. Minn.Stat. § 278.01 (1996). That statutory mechanism requires such petitioners to provide certain information to the county assessor within 60 days of the petition's filing date and mandates the dismissal of the petition if the information is not provided, unless it is unavailable. Minn.Stat. § 278.05, subd. 6(a).
Information, including income and expense figures, verified net rentable areas, and anticipated income and expenses, for income-producing property must be provided to the county assessor within 60 days after the petition has been filed under this chapter. Failure to provide the information required in this paragraph shall result in the dismissal of the petition, unless the failure to provide it was due to the unavailability of the evidence at that time.
Id. It is undisputed that BFW failed to provide any information within 60 days of filing its petition. 4 The question before us, therefore, is whether the failure "was due to the unavailability of the evidence at that time."
BFW argues that, because of the change in accounting methods, the only "income and expense figures" available to it were unreliable and inaccurate, and therefore, were not "available evidence." For support BFW relies upon the definition of "available" contained in Black's Law Dictionary, which states that available means: Black's Law Dictionary 135 (6th ed.1990). BFW offers no argument for its failure to supply the other types of information required by the statute, "verified net rentable areas" and "anticipated income and expenses," which apparently were available.
The county argues that the statute does not explicitly require the submission of the best or perfect evidence. Se...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kmart Corp. v. County of Stearns
...estate of the subject property." The tax court held that "[t]he plain language of the statute and the Minnesota Supreme Court's holding in BFW requires real estate expense information to be produced." Kmart Corp. v. County of Stearns, Nos. CX-00-404, CX-01-1465, C2-02-1387, 2005 WL 94810 at......
-
Amoco Corp. v. Commissioner of Revenue, No. C1-02-680
...and case law; we review such questions de novo. Am. Nat. Gen. Ins. Co. v. Solum, 641 N.W.2d 891, 895 (Minn. 2002); BFW Co. v. County of Ramsey, 566 N.W.2d 702, 704 (Minn.1997). Taxation of interstate business activity is governed primarily by Minn. Stat. § 290.17, subd. 3 (2002). Income der......
-
Ford Motor Co. v. County of Ramsey
...does not require the disclosure of information that bears exclusively upon income to the business enterprise conducted on a property. BFW, 566 N.W.2d at 705; Kmart, 2005 94810, at *2. Even if the Subject Property had been income-producing, the Rule would not require Ford to disclose the inc......
-
78th St. Ownerco, LLC v. Cnty. of Hennepin, No. A11–0128.
...tax court's rulings of law on a de novo basis. Kmart Corp. v. Cnty. of Stearns, 710 N.W.2d 761, 765 (Minn.2006); BFW Co. v. Cnty. of Ramsey, 566 N.W.2d 702, 704 (Minn.1997). Constitutional challenges to a statute also receive de novo review. ILHC of Eagan, LLC v. Cnty. of Dakota, 693 N.W.2d......