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