BEFORE THE UTAH STATE TAX COMMISSION
Petitioner, : FINDINGS OF FACT,
: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
v. : AND FINAL DECISION
PROPERTY TAX DIVISION OF THE : Appeal No. 87-0878
UTAH STATE TAX COMMISSION, :
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
Joe B. Pacheco G. Blaine Davis