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