Signed 9/1/89








          Petitioner,             )    FINDINGS OF FACT

                                  )    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

v.                                )    FINAL DECISION

PROPERTY TAX DIVISION OF THE      )    Appeal No. 88-1360


          Respondent.             )



                             STATEMENT OF CASE

          This matter came before the Utah State Tax Commission pursuant to the Rules of Administrative Procedure in the Administrative Procedures Act for formal adjudicative proceedings on the XXXXX.  Joseph G. Linford, Presiding Officer, was the Hearing Officer at the hearing.  The Petitioner was represented by XXXXX, President of the Petitioner corporation.  The Respondent was represented by XXXXX, Assistant Attorney General for the State of Utah, and by XXXXX, both from the Property Tax Division of the Utah State Tax Commission.

          Based upon the recommendation of the Presiding Officer and upon the facts and evidence in the file and presented at the hearing, the Tax Commission makes its:

                             FINDINGS OF FACT

          1.  The tax in question is property tax.

          2.  The period in question is the tax year XXXXX.

          3.  Petitioner has no argument and does not dispute the accuracy of the assessment in this case using the approach stipulated in R884‑lOP‑1 (1987), which is the rule that outlines the procedure for assessing property tax on underground rights in lands containing deposits of XXXXX.

          4.  The Petitioner's basis for this appeal is that the procedure as outlined in R884‑lOP‑1 (1987) generally results in taxable values which are greatly overstated and which cause severe economic hardship to come upon Petitioner in paying the taxes based upon those taxable values.

                            CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

          1.  The Rule in question in this case is R884‑lOP‑l (1987), which provides that the "taxable value of the underground XXXXX rights shall be 400 percent of the proceeds from the sale of XXXXX production from each such property [lands containing deposits of XXXXX] during the calendar year prior to the date of assessment".

          2.  This Rule was in effect during the time period in question in this case.

          3.  There is no question raised in this appeal as to the applicability of the above named rule nor as to the way in which it was applied by the Respondent.  As a matter of law, therefore, the Commission must decide according to the Rule as it is written and must affirm cases, such as this one, wherein the rule has been correctly applied.

          4.  As was indicated in the hearing, the Rule as recently modified gives more flexibility in the determination of property tax valuations in cases such as this, which is the result the Petitioner sought in this case.  This modification to the Rule, however, was not in effect during the tax year in question here, and thus has no applicability to this case, though it will be applicable in future years.

                            DECISION AND ORDER

          The Tax Commission hereby finds that due to the fact that the Rule was correctly applied in this case, and that there is no dispute as to the validity of the Rule nor as to the validity of how it was applied by the Respondent, the Petitioner's request as to the XXXXX tax year is hereby denied.  It is so ordered.


          DATED this 1 day of September, 1989.


R. H. Hansen                          Roger O. Tew

Chairman                              Commissioner


Joe B. Pacheco                        G. Blaine Davis

Commissioner                          Commissioner


NOTICE: You have ten (10) days after the date of the final order to file a request for reconsideration or thirty (30) days after the date of final order to file in Supreme Court a petition for judicial review.  Utah Code Ann. '' 63‑46b‑13(1),. 63‑46b‑14(2)(a).