85-0057 - Centrally Assessed

 

BEFORE THE UTAH STATE TAX COMMISSION

_____________________________________

XXXXX.                                                                                 )           AMENDED

                                                                                    :           DECISION FROM

            Appellant,                                                         )           INFORMAL HEARING

                                                                                    :

v.                                                                                 )

PROPERTY TAX DIVISION,                                    :

UTAH STATE TAX COMMISSION.                        )           Appeal No. 85-0057

                                                                                    :

            Respondent.                                                     :

_____________________________________

            This is an appeal to the Utah State Tax Commission from the assessment by the Property Tax Division of the Utah State Tax Commission (Respondent) on the XXXXX owned by XXXXX, (Appellant).

            The Informal Hearing was held on XXXXX in the offices of the Utah State Tax Commission.  R. Hal Hansen, Commissioner, heard the matter as and for the Commission.  XXXXX appeared on behalf of and representing the Appellant.  XXXXX and XXXXX appeared on behalf of and representing the Respondent.

            Based on the evidence and the written documentation, the Commission makes the following determinations:

            1.  The tax year in question is XXXXX.

            2.  The XXXXX property consists of equipment and improvements located in XXXXX and XXXXX counties.

            3.  Respondent assessed the equipment and improvements as follows:

                        (1)  XXXXX County School Dist. Code A - Outside    $$$$$

                        (2)  XXXXX County School Dist. Code A & B - Outside        $$$$$

                        (3)  XXXXX School Dist. Code L, P & X - Outside    $$$$$

                        Total Assessed Valuation                $$$$$

            4.  To arrive at the assessed valuation, Respondent allowed a 25 percent obsolescence factor on improvements and a 35 percent obsolescence factor on equipment.  These obsolescence rates were determined in the decision for the XXXXX assessment of the XXXXX properties and have been applied to the XXXXX and XXXXX assessments since the coal market conditions have not significantly changed since XXXXX.  To further support the obsolescence rates, Respondent has visited the mining property each of the past two years to examine the equipment.

            The XXXXX value is lower than the uncontested XXXXX value due to Respondent's use of two new personal property schedules adjusted specifically for mining equipment.  These schedules reflect the depressed coal market.  Respondent made further modification to allow for local condition.

            5.  Respondent noted that Utah Code Ann. Section 59-5-52 sets XXXXX as the lien date.  Respondent asserts that changes in improvements or equipment subsequent to the lien date will be taken into consideration in the XXXXX assessment so no new changes should be made in the XXXXX assessment.

            6.  Appellant testified that the mine had only operated for a short time.  The XXXXX was formally closed in XXXXX.

            7.  Appellant had tried to sell the XXXXX but to no avail.  To improve marketability, Appellant spent $$$$$ in an attempt to get a permanent mining permit, but the attempt was unsuccessful.

            8.  Appellant attempted to sell the improvements and equipment on a piecemeal basis but had little success.  Appellant submitted a list showing that "phone call" offers averaged 22 percent of historical value.  Appellant also submitted letters offering to buy selected items of equipment but these offers were not compared to historical cost.

            9.  Appellant did not submit an appraisal or any other documentation to establish value.

            10.  The equipment had only been used eight months.  The mine could be a useable operation if there was a better market for coal.

DECISION

THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY DECIDED

            1.  That Appellant failed to carry the burden of proof to show that the XXXXX property was overvalued.

            2.  That the assessed value of the XXXXX mine property shall remain $$$$$ for the tax year XXXXX.

            DATED this 13 day of August, 1985

BY ORDER OF THE UTAH STATE TAX COMMISSION

ABSENT

Mark K. Buchi                                                             Gary C. Cornia

Chairman                                                                      Commissioner

R. H. Hansen                                                                Roger O. Tew

Commissioner   Commissioner