IN RE TAX APPLICATION OF CENTRAL KANSAS ENT ASSOCIATES, PA, No. 89
Decision Date | 30 May 2003 |
Docket Number | No. 89, No. 030, No. 031 |
Parties | IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF CENTRAL KANSAS E.N.T. ASSOCIATES, P.A., FOR EXEMPTION OF AD VALOREM TAXATION IN SALINE COUNTY, KANSAS. |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Jason L. Reed and Kenneth W. Wasserman, of Norton, Wasserman, Jones & Kelly, of Salina, were on the brief for appellant.
No appearance by appellee.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Central Kansas E.N.T. Associates, P.A. (E.N.T.) appealed the Kansas Board of Tax Appeals' (BOTA) order denying its motion for reconsideration on the question of whether its aircraft are exempt from taxation under the K.S.A. 79-201k. BOTA concluded that both aircraft were rented for personal use and, therefore, not regularly used exclusively to earn income under the terms of the statute. We transferred this case from the Court of Appeals pursuant to K.S.A. 20-3018(c).
E.N.T. owns a 1980 Piper Saratoga and a 1986 Piper Malibu, both of which are used in its business of providing health care for Kansas patients. E.N.T. applied for exemptions from ad valorem tax for both of its airplanes. The applications for exemption were handled separately before BOTA and were consolidated for purposes of this appeal. E.N.T. claimed that its airplanes were exempt from property and ad valorem taxes based upon K.S.A. 79-201k, which provides an exemption for "all aircraft actually and regularly used exclusively to earn income for the owner in the conduct of the owner's business or industry."
Dr. David A. Hendrick, explained E.N.T.'s use of the 1980 Piper Saratoga:
Dr. Jerrold E. Cossette explained E.N.T.'s use of the 1986 Piper Malibu:
BOTA requested additional information from E.N.T. regarding the number of times both planes were rented out for personal use. In 2001, the 1980 Piper Saratoga was flown 72 times, of which 12 were rented out for personal use. The remaining 60 flights were for business purposes. The 1986 Piper Malibu was flown 26 times in 2001, of which 5 were rented out for personal use. On average, the 1986 Piper Malibu is rented for personal use three or four times a year.
BOTA found that 16.7% of the Saratoga flights in 2001 were rented out for personal use:
BOTA made substantially the same findings for the Malibu but noted that the Malibu was rented out for $150 per hour and 19.2% of the flights in 2001 were rented out for personal use. E.N.T. does not dispute these factual findings on appeal.
BOTA's tax exemption analysis as to the 1980 Piper Saratoga and the 1986 Piper Malibu was identical. BOTA noted that under the exemption statute, E.N.T. must use the aircraft "exclusively to earn income for the owner." BOTA cited T-Bone Feeders, Inc. v. Martin, 236 Kan. 641, 646, 693 P.2d 1187 (1985), for the proposition that the phrase "used exclusively" must be "only, solely, and purely for the purposes stated, and without participation in any other use." BOTA concluded E.N.T. had failed to make this showing:
The Act for Judicial Review and Civil Enforcement of Agency Actions, K.S.A. 77-601 et seq., controls this court's review of an order from BOTA. K.S.A. 74-2426(c). Pursuant to K.S.A. 77-621(a), the burden of proving the invalidity of BOTA's action lies with E.N.T. K.S.A. 77-621(c) further specifies that this court may grant relief from a BOTA order only in the following cases:
See In re Tax Appeal of Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co., 272 Kan. 1211, 1222-24, 39 P.3d 21 (2002). This appeal requires that we interpret the provisions of K.S.A. 79-201k(b). The interpretation of a statute is a question of law, and our scope of review is unlimited. Babe Houser Motor Co. v. Tetreault, 270 Kan. 502, 506, 14 P.3d 1149 (2000).
The rules relating to the interpretation of tax exemptions are familiar and well settled in Kansas:
Tri-County Public Airport Auth. v. Board of Morris County Comm'rs, 245 Kan. 301, 304-05, 777 P.2d 843 (1989).
The burden of establishing an exemption from taxation is on the party claiming the exemption. Board of Wyandotte County Comm'rs v. Kansas Ave. Properties, 246 Kan. 161, 166, 786 P.2d 1141 (1990).
E.N.T. argues its aircraft are exempt from property and ad valorem taxes pursuant to K.S.A. 79-201k, which provides as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Fleet for Relief From a Tax Grievance in Shawnee Cnty.
...on the day after the County mailed the initial correction orders, this court released In re Tax Application of Central Kansas E.N.T. Associates, P.A., 275 Kan. 893, 69 P.3d 595 (2003), which addressed the same business aircraft exemption under K.S.A. 79–201k(b) First in a case not involving......
-
In re Application of Drilling
... ... FOR EXEMPTION FROM AD VALOREM TAXATION IN MONTGOMERY COUNTY, KANSAS No. 2006-156-TXTax Court of KansasJuly 15, 2009 ... See In re Application ... of Central Kansas E.N.T. Associates, P.A., 275 Kan. 893, ... 897, 69 P.3d 595 ... ...
-
In re Application of Drilling
... ... FOR EXEMPTION FROM AD VALOREM TAXATION IN MONTGOMERY COUNTY, KANSAS No. 2009-156-TXTax Court of KansasSeptember 11, 2013 ... See In re Application ... of Central Kansas E.N.T. Associates, P.A., 275 Kan. 893, ... 897, 69 P.3d 595 ... ...
-
In re Application of Power Flame, Inc.
... ... FOR EXEMPTION FROM AD VALOREM TAXATION IN LABETTE COUNTY, KANSAS No. 2009-553-TXTax Court of KansasSeptember 11, 2009 ... See In re Application of Central Kansas E.N.T ... Associates, P.A., 275 Kan. 893, 897, 69 P.3d 595 ... ...