Mesquite Power, LLC v. Ariz. Dep't of Revenue
| Decision Date | 24 August 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. 1 CA-TX 20-0009,1 CA-TX 20-0009 |
| Citation | 497 P.3d 1023,252 Ariz. 74 |
| Parties | MESQUITE POWER, LLC, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Defendant/Appellee. |
| Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
Mooney, Wright, Moore & Wilhoit, PLLC, Mesa, By Paul J. Mooney (argued), Jim L. Wright, Bart S. Wilhoit, Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant
Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix, By Lisa Neuville (argued), Jerry A. Fries, Counsel for Defendant/Appellee
1
¶1 Mesquite Power, LLC ("Mesquite") appeals from the tax court's dismissal of its complaint against the Arizona Department of Revenue ("Department"). We hold that under A.R.S. § 42-14152(A), the Department's obligation to provide a taxpayer with the form on which the taxpayer must report information on the property's value was not a condition precedent excusing Mesquite's failure to submit that report timely. We hold, therefore, that under § 42-14152(D), by failing to submit a timely report, Mesquite forfeited its right to appeal the valuation and may not obtain the same relief through a claim for special action or declaratory relief. Thus, we affirm the tax court's judgment.
¶2 Mesquite operates an electric generation facility subject to an annual property tax. Although the facility was built long ago, Mesquite bought it in 2018. The Department assesses the value of an electrical generating plant based mainly on an annual report the plant owner submits using a Department-created form. By statute, the Department must send each plant owner a blank copy of that form by February 1 of each year. A.R.S. § 42-14152(A). Under A.R.S. § 42-14152(A), each plant owner must file its annual property tax report ("Report") by April 1 using that form. See Siete Solar, LLC v. ADOR , 246 Ariz. 146, 148, ¶ 3, 435 P.3d 1052, 1054 (App. 2019). If a taxpayer fails to file the report by May 20, it "forfeits its right to appeal" the valuation. A.R.S. § 42-14152(D).
¶3 When the Department did not receive Mesquite's Report for the tax year 2020 by April 1, 2019, the Department estimated Mesquite's 2020 value per A.R.S. § 42-14152(C)(1) by setting it at $206,714,000—105 percent of the previous year's full cash value. The Department also assessed a penalty against Mesquite for failing to file its Report on time. A.R.S. § 42-14152(C)(2). On June 7, 2019, the Department sent notice to Mesquite of the estimated preliminary 2020 valuation. A.R.S. § 42-14152(C)(1).
¶4 Mesquite then filed its 2020 Report on July 8, 2019. Mesquite also submitted more information about its valuation and requested a meeting with the Department to persuade it to adopt a lower amount. The Department declined Mesquite's request to meet and did not reduce the valuation.
¶5 Mesquite challenged the valuation in the tax court by raising six claims for relief. In Count 1, Mesquite generally disputed the Department's valuation. In Counts 2 through 4, Mesquite alleged that the Department disregarded all available information when it determined the full cash value in compliance with A.R.S. § 42-14003. In Count 3, Mesquite also asserted that the Department ignored the information submitted in Mesquite's untimely filed report. In Count 4, Mesquite claimed that the Department incorrectly estimated the full cash value by relying on an estimate of the full cash value from the 2019 tax year because that value was under appeal. Along with challenging the valuation and the basis for it, Mesquite sought to circumvent the statute's appeal-forfeiture provision by asking the court to enter a declaratory judgment or grant special action relief2 compelling the Department to reconsider its valuation.
¶6 The Department moved to dismiss Mesquite's complaint under Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6), arguing that Mesquite forfeited its right to challenge the valuation by failing to file its Report by the May 20 statutory deadline. The Department attached to its motion an email receipt confirming it timely provided Mesquite with the required reporting form. The receipt listed the files attached to the email, one of them labeled "TY10 DOR Form 8250." Mesquite argued in response to the Department's motion that the attached image lacked any explanation, foundation, or "verification as to its authenticity." With its reply, the Department attached an employee affidavit. The employee asserted that he sent the tax form to Mesquite by secure email on January 18, 2019, at 2:49 p.m. The Department also submitted a receipt from its email system showing that Mesquite received the message on that date.
¶7 The tax court dismissed the complaint with prejudice. It held that Mesquite forfeited its right to appeal the valuation under A.R.S. § 42-14152(D) by failing to file the Report timely. It held that an appeal disputing the Department's valuation was the taxpayer's "exclusive remedy," so Mesquite could not seek alternative relief through declaratory judgment or special action. Mesquite appealed, and we have jurisdiction under A.R.S. § 12-2101(A)(1).
¶8 Mesquite argues it did not forfeit its right to appeal because the Department failed to comply with its statutory obligation to send a form by February 1. See A.R.S. § 42-14152(A) () It contends the Department's performance of its duty to send the form timely is a condition precedent to a taxpayer's duty to file a report.
¶9 "Everyone is presumed to know the law." Conway v. State Consol. Pub. Co., 57 Ariz. 162, 171, 112 P.2d 218 (1941) ; Kincannon v. Irwin , 64 Ariz. 307, 309–10, 169 P.2d 861 (1946) (). Arizona Revised Statutes § 42-14152(A) requires the Department to send the reporting forms to property owners by February 1 and requires the property owners to file their reports with the Department by April 1. But nothing in the statute conditions a property owner's obligation to comply with A.R.S. § 42-14152(A) on the Department's obligation to send the form. See id.
¶10 Mesquite argues that such a condition exists because the Department, not the property owners, generates these forms, implying that the Department's compliance is a necessary condition precedent. But taxpayers may download these forms from the Department's website, Mesquite has used the forms to file its valuation reports in prior years, and Mesquite did not argue that it could not obtain the form by other means.3 Thus, regardless of the Department's compliance with A.R.S. § 42-14152(A), Mesquite must file its report timely.
¶11 Even assuming, arguendo , that the Department's compliance with A.R.S. § 42-14152(A) was a condition precedent to Mesquite's obligation to file the Report, the Department did comply in this case.
¶12 The exhibits the Department filed in support of its motion to dismiss and reply memorandum converted the motion to one for summary judgment, which we review de novo . See Ariz. R. Civ. P. 12(d) ; Siete Solar, 246 Ariz. at 149, ¶ 9, 435 P.3d at 1055. On summary judgment, we review the facts and any reasonable inferences from the facts in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. Andrews v. Blake , 205 Ariz. 236, 240, ¶ 12, 69 P.3d 7, 11 (2003). "The court shall grant summary judgment if the moving party shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Ariz. R. Civ. P. 56(a). "When the party moving for summary judgment makes a prima facie showing that no genuine issue of material fact exists, the burden shifts to the opposing party to produce sufficient competent evidence to show that an issue exists." Kelly v. NationsBanc Mortg. Corp. , 199 Ariz. 284, 287, ¶ 14, 17 P.3d 790, 793 (App. 2000). A "genuine" issue of fact is one that a reasonable court could decide "in favor of the party adverse to summary judgment on the available evidentiary record." Martin v. Schroeder , 209 Ariz. 531, 534, ¶ 12, 105 P.3d 577, 580 (App. 2005).
¶13 To show that it sent the forms, the Department presented a receipt for emails with attached forms sent to two email addresses supplied by Mesquite and a supporting affidavit from a Department employee. In the affidavit, the employee asserted that he sent the emails, and the receipt generated by the system confirmed at least one of those emails was received. The employee also stated that he sent hard copies of the form via regular mail on the same day to the street address provided by Mesquite.4 Thus, on summary judgment, if the Department's obligation to provide the form is a condition precedent, this evidence shifted the burden onto Mesquite to show that the Department did not send the form.
¶14 In response to the Department's motion, Mesquite did not provide evidence the Department failed to send or email the form. Instead, Mesquite merely asserted it did not receive the form. But at oral argument before the tax court, Mesquite acknowledged it received the Department's email with its attachments but that it got routed to Mesquite's "junk" folder. And Mesquite offered no evidence that the email from the Department that went to its junk folder lacked the form, was directed to the wrong recipient, or arrived on a different date than shown in the Department's receipt. In sum, although Mesquite maintains that the facts are in dispute, it offered no facts disputing the Department's evidence.
¶15 At oral argument before ...
To continue reading
Request your trial