BEFORE THE STATE TAX
COMMISSION OF UTAH
_____________________________________
XXXXX
Petitioner, :
v. :
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."
FINDINGS
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
Chairman Commissioner
Joe B.
Pacheco G.
Blaine Davis
Commissioner Commissioner