BEFORE THE UTAH STATE TAX COMMISSION
COMPANY A )
Petitioner, ) ORDER IN RESPONSE TO
: PETITIONERS PETITION
v. ) FOR RECONSIDERATION
PROPERTY TAX DIVISION OF THE ) Appeal Nos. 91-0984
STATE TAX COMMISSION, : 92-1348
) 93-0991 Respondent, : 94-1117 ) Tax Type: Centrally Assessed
STATEMENT OF CASE
This matter came before the Utah State Tax Commission upon a Petition for Reconsideration by Petitioner, dated April 30, 1997. The Commission issued its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on March 18, 1997 at which time Petitioner was given twenty days to file a Petition for Reconsideration. That order contained a request that the Division recalculate certain figures in its appraisal based on the rationale included in the decision. Upon receipt of that documentation, the Commission issued an Order dated April 15, 1997, adopting the corrected figures. Again the parties were given a twenty day period to file a Petition for Reconsideration. It is from that order that the Petitioner has timely filed its Motion.
Utah Administrative Rule R861-1-5A(P) provides that a Petition for Reconsideration "will allege as grounds for reconsideration either a mistake in law or fact, or the discovery of new evidence." Under this rule, the Tax Commission may exercise its discretion in granting or denying a Petition for Reconsideration.
DECISION AND ORDER
The Commission has determined that any Motion for Reconsideration regarding the rationale underlying the Commission's decision should have been brought before the Commission within the twenty day period of reconsideration which ran from the date of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. The period for reconsideration from the subsequent Order should be confined to the sole issue of that Order, i.e., to technical corrections that were requested of the Division.
Even if Petitioner's grounds for review were to be considered timely, the Commission points out that Petitioner chose the unitary appraisal method as its means of determining value and plainly conceded, upon inquiry from the Commission, that there was no taxing of intangibles involved in this case. Therefore, the Commission finds the decision in WilTel Inc. v. Beaver County, et al., Appeal Nos. 95-0789 and 95-0824, to be inapplicable to the instant appeal. (The Commission points out that portions of the Commission's decision included in Petitioner's Motion are misquoted.)
Based upon the foregoing, the Commission hereby upholds its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in this appeal. It is so ordered.
DATED this 19 day of MAY, 1997.
BY ORDER OF THE UTAH STATE TAX COMMISSION.
W. Val Oveson Richard B. McKeown
Joe B. Pacheco Alice Shearer