IBM Credit Corp. v. Board of Tax Review of City of Hartford

• Decision Date: 16 November 1993
• Docket Number: No. 14672,14672
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: IBM CREDIT CORPORATION v. BOARD OF TAX REVIEW OF the CITY OF HARTFORD.

Page 294

633 A.2d 294

227 Conn. 826

IBM CREDIT CORPORATION v. BOARD OF TAX REVIEW OF the CITY OF HARTFORD.

No. 14672.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Argued Sept. 22, 1993.

Decided Nov. 16, 1993.

Michele C. Lukban, with whom was Edwin A. Lassman, Hartford, for appellant (plaintiff).

Michael C. Collins, Asst. Corp. Counsel, for appellee (defendant).

Before PETERS, C.J., and NORCOTT, KATZ, PALMER and FOTI, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether a plaintiff taxpayer is precluded from challenging a municipal assessment valuing its property entirely on the basis of uncontradicted figures supplied to the assessor by the taxpayer. We conclude that in this instance, the taxpayer is so precluded, and we therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The facts are not in dispute. The plaintiff, IBM Credit Corporation (IBM), leases computer equipment throughout the United States, including the city of Hartford. Hartford requires lessors, such as IBM, to pay personal property tax on all personal property located in Hartford.

Pursuant to General Statutes § 12-43, ¹ nonresident owners of personal property are required to file inventories of their personal property with the assessor's office of the town in which the property is located. Accordingly, IBM filed an inventory of personal property it owned in 1989 and 1990 with the Hartford assessor's office, using a form provided by the Hartford assessor. That form contains a standard depreciation schedule for personal property that IBM used when listing its property. Relying exclusively on the information provided by IBM, the Hartford assessor determined the value of IBM's personal property located in Hartford for the 1989 and 1990 tax years to be that which had been specified by IBM in its filing.

Subsequently, IBM appealed the assessments of its personal property to the Hartford board of tax review (board of tax review) pursuant to General Statutes § 12-111. ² IBM claimed that the assessments of twocomputer systems (hereafter, the "83B" and "84Q") in 1989 and 1990 were excessive. The board of tax review denied IBM's appeal with respect to the valuation of the 83B and 84Q. ³ IBM appealed the decision of the board of tax review to the Superior Court pursuant to General Statutes § 12-117a. ⁴

Following an evidentiary hearing, the Superior Court dismissed IBM's appeal and rendered judgment for the board of tax review. IBM appealed from the judgment of the trial court. ⁵

IBM claims that the assessor's form (specifically the printed depreciation schedule therein) did not accurately reflect the depreciation of the 83B and 84Q. The trial court did not reach the merits of that claim. The trial court noted that IBM had not been prevented from presenting additional evidence of the fair market value of the 83B and 84Q to the assessor simply because the assessor's office had provided a standard form for that purpose. IBM was not prevented from providing a rider or other addendum to the assessor's form to contest or otherwise suggest an alternative depreciation schedule for the 83B and 84Q.

It is well settled that it is the responsibility of the taxpayer to provide the assessor with sufficient facts to value personal property for tax purposes. Northeast Datacom, Inc. v. Wallingford, 212 Conn. 639, 649, 563 A.2d 688 (1989); Cooley Chevrolet Co. v. West Haven, 146 Conn. 165, 169, 148 A.2d 327 (1959); Pitt v. Stamford, 117 Conn. 388, 393, 167 A. 919 (1933). "If [the taxpayer] fails to do so, the assessors are only required to act upon the best information they can obtain ... and the taxpayer cannot justly complain if the assessors, acting in good faith, make an error in judgment in listing and valuing [its] property." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Northeast Datacom, Inc. v. Wallingford, supra.

The trial court reasonably concluded that the action of the board of tax review upholding the disputed assessments was appropriate. We have no grounds for overturning that conclusion.

The judgment is affirmed.

1 General Statutes § 12-43 provides in relevant part: "PROPERTY OF NON-RESIDENTS. All owners of real estate, or of tangible personal property located in any town for three months or more during the assessment year immediately preceding any assessment day, who are nonresidents of such town, shall file lists of such real estate and...