BEFORE THE STATE TAX COMMISSION OF UTAH
PROPERTY TAX DIVISION OF THE :
Utah State Tax Commission : INFORMAL DECISION
: Appeal Nos. 87-0111
Respondent. : to 87-0112
STATEMENT OF CASE
This is an appeal to the Utah State Tax Commission from the XXXXX assessment of the subject property by the Property Tax Division of the Utah State Tax Commission (Respondent). An informal hearing was held on XXXXX in the offices of the Utah State Tax Commission. David J. Angerhofer, Hearing Officer, heard the matter for the Tax Commission. XXXXX represented the Petitioner. XXXXX represented the Respondent. Petitioner's initial appeal to the state, dated XXXXX, challenged the valuation of the subject property and objected to the assessment of the subject property by Respondent since Utah Code Ann. 59-5-3 (XXXXX) did not cover sand and gravel operations. At the hearing Petitioner stated that he no longer challenged the valuation but continued to assert that the subject property should not be assessed by Respondent. Petitioner stated that if the same person owns the surface of land and the minerals underlying the land, then the statute does not apply and the property should be assessed by the county. Petitioner also stated that in XXXXX the mining reclamation act was amended to the effect that sand, gravel, and aggregate are excluded from the mining reclamation act. The extraction of sand and gravel is not a mining activity. Respondent noted that 59-5-3 has been recodified to59-2-201. Respondent further cited59-2-102(8) which includes sand, rock, and gravel in the definition of "non-metalliferous minerals."
Respondent properly assessed the subject property. Although40-8-4(8)(b) excludes the extraction of sand, gravel, and rock aggregate from the definition of "mining operation," this section does not control for ad valorem taxation purposes. The definition of non-metalliferous minerals in59-2-102(8) of the Property Tax Act takes precedence over the definition in the Mining Reclamation Act for the purpose of determining the taxability of the subject property. Respondent is required to assess such property as is set forth in59-2-201 whether the surface of the land is owned by one person and the underlying minerals are owned by another, or whether one person owns both the surface of the land and the underlying minerals. The only distinction is that Respondent must separately assess the surface of the land and the underlying minerals if they are owned by separate persons.
DECISION AND ORDER
Based on the foregoing, it is the decision and order of the Utah State Tax Commission that Respondent properly assessed the subject property for the tax year XXXXX. Petitioner's appeal is hereby denied.
DATED this 26 day of August, 1988.
BY ORDER OF THE STATE TAX COMMISSION OF UTAH.
R. H. Hansen Roger O. Tew
Joe B. Pacheco G. Blaine Davis