First Nat. Bank of Boston v. County Bd. of Equalization of Salt Lake County, No. 890278

CourtSupreme Court of Utah
Writing for the CourtHALL; HOWE
Citation799 P.2d 1163
PartiesFIRST NATIONAL BANK OF BOSTON, Petitioner, v. COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION OF SALT LAKE COUNTY, State of Utah; Utah State Tax Commission, Respondents.
Decision Date16 October 1990
Docket NumberNo. 890278

Page 1163

799 P.2d 1163
FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF BOSTON, Petitioner,
v.
COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION OF SALT LAKE COUNTY, State of
Utah; Utah State Tax Commission, Respondents.
No. 890278.
Supreme Court of Utah.
Oct. 16, 1990.

Page 1164

J. Frederic Voros, Jr., Salt Lake City, for petitioner.

Bill Thomas Peters, Salt Lake City, for County Bd. of Equalization.

R. Paul Van Dam, Brian L. Tarbet, Salt Lake City, for Tax Com'n.

HALL, Chief Justice:

This case is a review of an order of the Utah State Tax Commission ("Tax Commission") setting the assessment on property owned by First National Bank of Boston ("First National") and from a denial of First National's request for reconsideration. First National challenges the accuracy of the Tax Commission's finding that the expense ratio on the property is 25 percent.

The property at issue in this case is an office building located in Salt Lake City, Utah, and subject to assessment by Salt Lake County pursuant to Utah Code Ann. § 59-2-301 (1987). Salt Lake County assessed the property at $5,176,440 for the year 1987. First National appealed the assessment to the Salt Lake County Board of Equalization ("Board of Equalization"), which adjusted the value of the property to $4,580,850 based on evidence presented at the hearing.

First National appealed the decision of the Board of Equalization to the Tax Commission. At a formal hearing before the Tax Commission, First National asserted that the fair market value of the property was approximately $3.7 million. Salt Lake County contended that the property's fair market value was $4.7 million. On April 28, 1989, the Tax Commission entered its findings of fact and conclusions of law, determining that the fair market value of the property was $4,200,000.

The Tax Commission calculated the fair market assessment value of the property by using the income approach to value method. Elements of the income approach to value included the following formula and data presented at the formal hearing:

1. $14 per square foot less an adjustment for free rent, or $11.67 per square foot;

2. capitalization rate of 10.9 percent;

3. an expense ratio of 25 percent; 1

4. a stabilized vacancy rate of 10 percent; and

5. the area size of the building, which is 58,252 square feet.

Although the expense ratio is disputed, the formula for the calculation of the assessment is not in dispute: 58,252 total sq. ft. X 11.67 effective rent - 10% vacancy rate - $170,095 expenses (25% expense ratio) (disputed figure) / 10.9% capitalization rate = $4,200,000 taxable amount. The Tax Commission arrived at a final taxable

Page 1165

amount of $4,200,000 by using the 25 percent expense ratio. 2 First National calculated the taxable amount to be $3,690,429 by using a 31 percent expense ratio. 3

The only issue for review is the accuracy of the Tax Commissions findings of fact, specifically, whether the Tax Commission erred in calculating the expense ratio portion of the formula at 25 percent. The other elements of the formula are not in dispute.

The Administrative Procedures Act 4 governs our review of the Tax Commission's assessment. Section 63-46b-16(4) states:

(4) The appellate court shall grant relief only if, on the basis of the agency's record, it determines that a person seeking judicial review has been substantially prejudiced by any of the following:

...;

(g) the agency action is based upon a determination of fact, made or implied by the agency, that is not supported by substantial evidence when viewed in light of the whole record before the court

....

Section 63-46b-16(4)(g) requires an appellate court to review the "whole record" to determine whether the agency's action is "supported by substantial evidence." "Substantial evidence" is that quantum and quality of relevant evidence that is adequate to convince a reasonable mind to support a conclusion. 5 An appellate court applying the "substantial evidence test" must consider both the evidence that supports the Tax Commission's factual findings and the evidence that detracts from the findings. 6 Nevertheless, the party challenging the findings--in this case, the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
46 practice notes
  • AGC v. Board of Oil, Gas and Mining, No. 20000389.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Utah
    • December 21, 2001
    ...had "fail[ed] to cite any specific facts to support their contention." (Quoting First Nat'l Bank of Boston v. County Bd. of Equalization, 799 P.2d 1163, 1165 (Utah 1990).) The court noted further, "[T]he administrative record appears to support the rule by substantial evidence. Proper rulem......
  • Elks Lodges No. 719 (Ogden) and No. 2021 (Moab) v. Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, Nos. 940105
    • United States
    • Utah Supreme Court
    • October 23, 1995
    ...evidence that is adequate to convince a reasonable mind to support a conclusion." First Nat'l Bank v. County Bd. of Equalization, 799 P.2d 1163, 1165 (Utah Challenging an agency's findings of fact, then, imposes a marshaling burden on the petitioner. A party seeking to overturn a commission......
  • Harmon City, Inc. v. Draper City, No. 981628-CA.
    • United States
    • Utah Court of Appeals
    • February 10, 2000
    ...denying a zoning variance. See id. at 1103; see also First Nat'l Bank of Boston v. County Bd. of Equalization of Salt Lake County, 799 P.2d 1163, 1164 (Utah 1990) (reviewing administrative evaluation for property tax purposes); Chambers v. Smithfield City, 714 P.2d 1133, 1134 (Utah 1986) (r......
  • Patterson v. Utah County Bd. of Adjustment, No. 940014-CA
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Utah
    • March 29, 1995
    ...both favorable and contrary to the Board's decision. See First Nat'l Bank of Boston v. County Board of Equalization of Salt Lake County, 799 P.2d 1163, 1165 (Utah 1990); Grace Drilling Co. v. Board of Review, 776 P.2d 63, 68 (Utah App.1989). Nevertheless, our review, like the district court......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
46 cases
  • AGC v. Board of Oil, Gas and Mining, No. 20000389.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Utah
    • December 21, 2001
    ...had "fail[ed] to cite any specific facts to support their contention." (Quoting First Nat'l Bank of Boston v. County Bd. of Equalization, 799 P.2d 1163, 1165 (Utah 1990).) The court noted further, "[T]he administrative record appears to support the rule by substantial evidence. Proper rulem......
  • Elks Lodges No. 719 (Ogden) and No. 2021 (Moab) v. Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, Nos. 940105
    • United States
    • Utah Supreme Court
    • October 23, 1995
    ...evidence that is adequate to convince a reasonable mind to support a conclusion." First Nat'l Bank v. County Bd. of Equalization, 799 P.2d 1163, 1165 (Utah Challenging an agency's findings of fact, then, imposes a marshaling burden on the petitioner. A party seeking to overturn a commission......
  • Harmon City, Inc. v. Draper City, No. 981628-CA.
    • United States
    • Utah Court of Appeals
    • February 10, 2000
    ...denying a zoning variance. See id. at 1103; see also First Nat'l Bank of Boston v. County Bd. of Equalization of Salt Lake County, 799 P.2d 1163, 1164 (Utah 1990) (reviewing administrative evaluation for property tax purposes); Chambers v. Smithfield City, 714 P.2d 1133, 1134 (Utah 1986) (r......
  • Patterson v. Utah County Bd. of Adjustment, No. 940014-CA
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Utah
    • March 29, 1995
    ...both favorable and contrary to the Board's decision. See First Nat'l Bank of Boston v. County Board of Equalization of Salt Lake County, 799 P.2d 1163, 1165 (Utah 1990); Grace Drilling Co. v. Board of Review, 776 P.2d 63, 68 (Utah App.1989). Nevertheless, our review, like the district court......
  • 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