BEFORE THE STATE TAX COMMISSION OF UTAH
v. : INFORMAL DECISION
PROPERTY TAX DIVISION OF THE : Appeal No. 88 1228
UTAH STATE TAX COMMISSION, : XXXXX
STATEMENT OF CASE
This matter came before the Utah State Tax Commission XXXXX in an informal hearing. James E. Harward, Hearing Officer, heard the matter for and in behalf of the Utah State Tax Commission. XXXXX, President and XXXXX, Vice-President, XXXXX, represented Petitioner. XXXXX, Natural Resource Manager, and XXXXX, Assessor, Property Tax Division of the Utah State Tax Commission, represented Respondent.
The subject property consists of XXXXX acres of a XXXXX acre parcel located near XXXXX, Utah. In XXXXX, Respondent discovered a XXXXX on the subject property and requested that the county drop that part of the parcel from their rolls. A "roll-back tax", as provided for in Utah Code Ann. § 59-2-506, was assessed the property; however, the XXXXX was erroneously estimated to be XXXXX acres in size. When Petitioner learned of the "roll-back" assessment on XXXXX acres, they notified the Respondent of the error. Respondent corrected the error and notified the county that XXXXX -- rather than XXXXX -- acres should be dropped from the county rolls.
In XXXXX, during a computer conversion, the parcel was again valued as XXXXX acres. Petitioner again contacted the Commission and steps were taken to correct the error. A Memorandum of Understanding was signed by representative of both Petitioner and Respondent indicating that both agreed with the reduction of the valuation from $$$$$ to $$$$$.
Petitioner's representative indicated that at the time of the signing, she believed the agreed upon valuation was for the entire XXXXX acres. Petitioner asserts that the $$$$$ per acre valuation for the XXXXX acres is too high and presented evidence that sales of similar parcels indicated the value of the land to be worth not more than $$$$$ per acre. Petitioner pointed out that the "roll-back tax" assessed the previous year was based on a land valuation of $$$$$ per acre, and asserts that, because of the negative impact of the nearby XXXXX, the land should not be valued at more than $$$$$.
Respondent presented detailed evidence of several market sales to support the Respondent's valuation and explained that the $$$$$ "roll-back" valuation represented a XXXXX value and that changes have been made to update the factor.
Petitioner submitted only minimal evidence regarding the actual value of the property as of XXXXX. The evidence submitted was not persuasive enough to overcome the conflicting and substantial evidence presented by the Respondent. Pursuant to Utah Admin. R. 861-07A-1(6), the Petitioning party has the burden of proof to establish that the petition should be granted. Because the Petitioner had the burden of proof to establish that the valuation as established by the Respondent was in error, and failed to meet that burden, that valuation must be affirmed.
DECISION AND ORDER
Based on the foregoing, it is the decision and order of the Commission that the valuation of the Respondent be affirmed.
DATED this 29 day of September, 1988.
BY ORDER OF THE STATE TAX COMMISSION OF UTAH.
R. H. Hansen Roger O. Tew
Joe B. Pacheco G. Blaine Davis