In re Protest of Presnell, Tracy A. & Darla J.-Rev. Trust, 070218 KSTAX, 2018-113-PR
| Judge | JAMES D. COOPER, BOARD MEMBER, DEVIN SPRECKER, BOARD MEMBER JOELENE R. ALLEN, SECRETARY |
| Court | Tax Court of Kansas |
| Docket Number | 2018-113-PR |
| Parties | IN THE MATTER OF THE PROTEST OF PRESNELL, TRACY A. & DARLA J. - REV. TRUST FOR THE YEAR 2015 IN MCPHERSON COUNTY, KANSAS |
| Date | 02 July 2018 |
Parcel ID Number: 059-089-29-0-00-00-006.02-0
SUMMARY DECISION
RONALD C. MASON, CHAIR
Now the above-captioned matter comes on for consideration and decision by the Board of Tax Appeals of the State of Kansas. The Board conducted a hearing in this matter on June 25, 2018. The Taxpayer, Tracy A. and Darla J. Presnell -Rev. Trust appeared by Tracy A. Presnell. McPherson County appeared by Kim Romero. The tax year in issue is 2015.
After considering all of the evidence and arguments presented, the Board finds and concludes as follows:
The Board has jurisdiction of the subject matter and the parties, as a tax protest has been properly and timely filed pursuant to K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 79-2005.
In McPherson County, where the subject property is located, approximately 26.6 miles of railroad right-of-way has been railbanked pursuant to the National Trails System Act, codified in 16 U.S.C. § 1241 et seq. In regard this railbanked property, Central Kansas Conservancy (CKC) filed a Statement of Willingness to Assume Financial Responsibility and was issued a Notice of Interim Trail use from the Surface Transportation Board (STB). In 1997, a line donation contract was entered into by CKC and the Union Pacific railroad and a Donative Quitclaim Deed was filed, making CKC the trail operator of the railbanked property in McPherson County. The County testified that, in compliance with a letter from the Division of Property Valuation (PVD), McPherson County has not valued the railbanked property. The Taxpayer asserts that the railbanked property should be valued and taxed and that the trail operator should be assessed the taxes. The Taxpayer argues that, because the railbanked properties are not valued and assessed ad valorem taxes, the mill levy must be increased and all of the other taxpayers in the county must pay higher taxes.
The Board rules that the evidentiary burden is on the Taxpayer. After thorough review of this matter, the Board finds that the Taxpayer has failed to present any evidence or arguments that would persuade this Board to grant the requested relief. The Board concludes the Taxpayer did not meet the evidentiary burden and the request should be denied.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, for the reasons stated...
To continue reading
Request your trial