88-1356 to 88-1358 - Centrally Assessed

 

BEFORE THE UTAH STATE TAX COMMISSION

_____________________________________

XXXXX

:

Petitioner, : FINDINGS OF FACT

: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

v. : FINAL DECISION

: Appeal Nos. 88-1356

PROPERTY TAX DIVISION OF THE : to 88-1358

STATE TAX COMMISSION OF UTAH, )

Respondent. :

_____________________________________

This matter came before the Utah State Tax Commission pursuant to the Rules of Administrative Procedure and the Administrative Procedures Act on XXXXX. James E. Harward, Hearing Officer, heard the matter for and in behalf of the Tax Commission. XXXXX appeared representing the Respondent. XXXXX were present. During the course of the prehearing conference, the matter was converted to a formal adjudicative proceeding and evidence and arguments taken as it relates to the value of the subject property for the tax year XXXXX. Based upon the recommendation of the Presiding Officer and the evidence and arguments presented at the hearing, the Tax Commission makes its:

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The tax in question is property tax.

2. The subject property is centrally assessed by the Property Tax Division of the Utah State Tax Commission.

3. The lien date in question is XXXXX.

4. The Petitioner's argued that a sale from XXXXX at $$$$$ per acre is indicative.of the market value of the subject property.

5. The XXXXX analysis of the improvements on the property set a market value of $$$$$.

6. The Petitioners argued that access to the subject property is limited and therefore impacts on value.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The Tax Commission is required to oversee the proper and equal distribution of property taxes within the state. (Utah Code Ann. 59-1-210(7)).

DECISION AND ORDER

The Tax Commission is presented with evidence to indicate that there may be a difference in value; however, that evidence is unreliable on the ground that it is not indicative of the market. (i.e. XXXXX sale is a distress sale and should not be used in determining the value of the subject property for

tax purposes on the open market.) In addition, insufficient evidence and unclear evidence was presented which would indicate any other value other than that presented or assessed by the Respondent. Therefore, the Petitioner's have failed to meet their burden of proof. Their request is denied.

DATED this 1 day of May, 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