94-1200

Centrally Assessed

Signed 5/1/95

BEFORE THE UTAH STATE TAX COMMISSION

____________________________________

XXXXX, )

:

Petitioner, ) FINDINGS OF FACT,

: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW,

v. ) AND FINAL DECISION

:

PROPERTY TAX DIVISION OF THE ) Appeal No. 94-1200

UTAH STATE TAX COMMISSION, :

)

:

Respondent. ) Tax Type: Cent. Assessed

_____________________________________

STATEMENT OF CASE

This matter came before the Utah State Tax Commission for a formal hearing on XXXXX. Alice Shearer, Commissioner, heard the matter for and on behalf of the Commission. Present and representing Petitioner was XXXXX. Present and representing Respondent was XXXXX of the Attorney General's Office. Also present was XXXXX from the Property Tax Division.

Based upon the evidence and testimony presented at the hearing, the Tax Commission hereby makes its:

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The tax in question is property tax.

2. The year in question is XXXXX.

3. The subject property is a XXXXX comprising of XXXXX XXXXX located approximately XXXXX from the XXXXX.

4. The property does not have any XXXXX.

5. The property has XXXXX.

APPLICABLE LAW

The Tax Commission is required to oversee the just administration of property taxes to ensure that property is valued

for tax purposes according to fair market value. (Utah Code Ann. '59-1-210(7).)

Petitioner has the burden of proof to establish that the market value of the subject property is other than that as determined by Respondent.

ANALYSIS

Petitioner submits that the property should be valued at $$$$$ per acre rather than $$$$$ per acre. The Petitioner's position is based on the argument that there has been no change in the market since XXXXX when the Utah State Tax Commission determined that the value of the property was $$$$$ per acre. According to Petitioner the XXXXX should not be valued greater than $$$$$ per acre. However, the comparables submitted by Respondent of sales of comparable property establish a range of value of $$$$$ to $$$$$ per acre. To this value, an adjustment of XXXXX has been applied for obsolescence due to the XXXXX of the property. Petitioner has not attempted to sell the property but claims that the market is not competitive, since the XXXXX is the usual purchaser.

In weighing the evidence, it must be noted that not only does Respondent's appraisal support the value assigned by Property Tax Division, but, additionally, the comparables submitted by Petitioner further support the value assigned by Respondent.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Petitioner has not met the burden of persuasion to establish that the market value of the subject property is other than that as determined by the appraisal submitted by Respondent.

DECISION AND ORDER

Based upon the foregoing, the Tax Commission finds that the market value of the subject property as of XXXXX, is $$$$$. It is so ordered.

DATED this 1st day of May, 1995.

BY ORDER OF THE UTAH STATE TAX COMMISSION.

W. Val Oveson Roger O. Tew

Chairman Commissioner

Joe B. Pacheco Alice Shearer

Commissioner Commissioner

NOTICE: You have twenty (20) days after the date of a final order to file a Request for Reconsideration with the Commission. If you do not file a Request for Reconsideration with the Commission, you have thirty (30) days after the date of a final order to file a.) a Petition for Judicial Review in the Supreme Court, or b.) a Petition for Judicial Review by trial de novo in district court. (Utah Administrative Rule R861-1-5A(P) and Utah Code Ann. ''59-1-601(1), 63-46b-13(1), 63-46-14(3)(a).)

^^