BEFORE THE UTAH STATE TAX
COMMISSION
_____________________________________
XXXXX
:
Petitioners, :
:
v. : ORDER
:
COUNTY BOARD
OF EQUALIZATION OF ) Appeal Nos. 88-1292
SALT LAKE COUNTY, : and 89-0175
STATE OF UTAH, :
PROPERTY TAX
DIVISION OF THE :
STATE TAX
COMMISSION OF UTAH, )
:
Respondents. :
_____________________________________
STATEMENT OF CASE
This
matter came before the Utah State Tax Commission for prehearing conference on
XXXXX, before Joseph G. Linford, Presiding Officer. Petitioners were
represented by XXXXX, Attorney At Law.
Respondent, Salt Lake County Board of Equalization, was represented by
XXXXX, Special Deputy Salt Lake County Attorney, and by XXXXX, Appeals
Specialist for the Salt Lake County Assessor's Office. Respondent, Property Tax Division of the
State Tax Commission, was represented by XXXXX, XXXXX and XXXXX.
At
the prehearing conference, Petitioner raised the issue of jurisdiction, citing
a 1943 Third District Court case which declared the subject property exempt
from taxation under certain conditions.
Petitioner alleged that this decision renders the Tax Commission without
jurisdiction to decide this case.
Petitioner and Respondent were ordered by the Presiding Officer to
submit briefs addressing this issue before the hearing on the merits in this
matter begins. Such briefs have been
submitted.
The
court decision cited by Petitioner is East Jordan Irrigation Company v.
State Tax Commission of Utah et.al., Case Number 64236 (Utah Third District
Court 1943). Page three of that
decision states:
The defendants and
each of them...are hereby forever enjoined from levying or imposing or
attempting to levy or impose any taxes upon the land hereinbefore described so
long as they shall be owned and used exclusively for the purpose of protecting
the canal and irrigation system of the plaintiff....
Petitioner
asserts that this language precludes the Tax Commission from considering the
taxability of the subject property so long as the ownership of the subject
property and its use are the same as they were when the court decree was issued
in 1943. Petitioner asserts that if
ownership and use are still the same, then the doctrines of res judicata and
collateral estoppel would apply to prevent the Tax Commission from deciding
this matter.
Respondent,
County Board of Equalization, argues that the law has changed since the 1943
decision was issued. Respondent cites
the Utah State Constitution, Article XIII, Section 2, which lists certain types
of properties that are exempt from taxation.
Respondent
argues that the subject property does not fall within any of those
exemptions. Additionally, Respondent
argues that pursuant to Utah Code Ann. §59-2-303 all property in the state is
required to be assessed annually to its owner, and issues of use, ownership and
entitlement to exemption arise anew every year. Therefore a court decision rendered in 1943 cannot grant an
exemption in perpetuity since a property's exempt status is in issue for each
tax year.
Petitioner
argues in response that legislative action occurring subsequent to the 1943
court ruling cannot alter the provisions of that ruling under the
constitutional prohibition against the enactment of ex post facto laws.
The
Tax Commission does have authority and jurisdiction to decide this matter. There are factual questions concerning the
ownership and use of the subject property.
If either ownership or use is different than in 1943, then that court
decree, by its own terms, would no longer apply. The Tax Commission must make this factual determination in order
to decide at least the applicability and affect of the 1943 decision.
The
Tax Commission also has authority to determine if there has been a change in
the applicable provisions of the Constitution of the State of Utah and state
statutes since 1943. Since the question
of the taxability of the subject property is at issue for every tax year, the
prohibition against ex post facto laws does not apply in this case, especially
since there are no punishments or penalties at issue to which the ex post facto
prohibition would apply.
ORDER
Based
upon the foregoing, it is the order of the Utah State Tax Commission that the
Commission does have jurisdiction to hear and decide this case, and the case
shall proceed to formal hearing at the date and time set in the prehearing
conference. Additional briefs on the
merits of the case, if the parties desire to submit any, shall also be submitted
in accordance tieh the schedule established at the prehearing conference. It is so ordered.
DATED
this 4 day of December, 1989.
Joseph G. Linford
Presiding Officer