BEFORE THE UTAH STATE TAX
COMMISSION
_____________________________________
XXXXX
Petitioner, : FINDINGS OF FACT,
: CONCLUSIONS
OF LAW
v. : AND FINAL DECISION
PROPERTY TAX
DIVISION OF THE : Appeal No. 87-0878
UTAH STATE TAX COMMISSION, :
Respondent. :
_____________________________________
STATEMENT OF CASE
This
matter came before the Utah State Tax Commission pursuant to the Utah Rules of
Administrative Procedure and the Administrative Procedures Act for informal
adjudicative proceedings on the XXXXX before Joseph G. Linford, Presiding
Officer. The Petitioner did not appear
at the hearing. Respondent was represented
by XXXXX, Assistant Attorney General, and by XXXXX, both from the Property Tax
Division of the Utah State Tax Commission.
The day prior to the hearing, the Presiding Officer received from
Petitioner in the mail a "written affidavit" in lieu of Petitioner's
appearance at the hearing. No notice of
this action was given to Respondent from the Petitioner and no copies of the
documents submitted with the "affidavit" were ever submitted to
Respondent. Respondent objected to the
admission of these documents on the grounds that this action took Respondent by
surprise, that Respondent did not have copies of the documents submitted and
that Respondent cannot cross-examine written documents but can only
cross-examine live witnesses and that the submission of these documents
deprives Respondent of that opportunity.
Based upon these reasons, the documents so received on the day before
the hearing were not admitted into evidence and were not considered by the
Presiding Officer or the Tax Commission although these documents remain in the
Tax Commission's file. After reviewing
the evidence and the arguments of the parties and the recommendation of the
Presiding Officer, the Tax Commission hereby makes its:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1.
The tax in question is property tax.
2.
The period in question is XXXXX.
3.
Respondent has repeatedly over a long period of time attempted to obtain from
Petitioner the information necessary to make any adjustments in the valuation
of the subject property, but these efforts have been to no avail. Petitioner
has submitted some information, yet Petitioner has consistently failed to
supply all of the information requested and required by Respondent.
4.
Respondent has, therefore, based its estimated valuation on the best
information available to Respondent.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1.
The Tax Commission is required to oversee the just administration of property
taxes to ensure that property is valued for taxation purposes according to fair
market value. Utah Code Ann. 59-1-210(7) (1987 Rep.).
2.
Utah Code Ann.59-2-307(2) (1987 Rep.) provides that when any person refuses after
demand to submit information requested by the assessor, the assessor shall make
an estimate of the value of the property based on facts and circumstances known
to the assessor and that a value so fixed by the assessor may not be reduced by
the County Board of Equalization or by the Utah State Tax Commission.
DECISION AND ORDER
Based
on the foregoing, it is the decision and order of the Utah State Tax Commission
that the request of Petitioner is denied and the valuation arrived at by the
Property Tax Division of the Utah State Tax Commission is sustained.
DATED
this 1 day of December, 1989.
BY ORDER OF THE UTAH STATE TAX COMMISSION.
R. H. Hansen Roger
O. Tew
Chairman Commissioner
Joe B.
Pacheco G.
Blaine Davis
Commissioner Commissioner