97-002
Response's December 16, 996 and January 10, 1996
Request
November
15, 1997
Dear
Assessor,
Under
Utah Code sections 59-2-1002(c) and 59-2-1008, which provide for correction of
mistakes in assessments, I am writing regarding property number XXXXX. (A copy
of the tax notice is attached.)
This
property is the COMPANY A. It is a low income housing project being built to
help poor families. Until this year all tax notices on this property were sent
to our office at 301 West 5400 South, Suite 101, Murray, Utah 84107. For some
reason this year several of the parcels were combined into ##### and sent to a different address in Murray,
and was not forwarded to our office until two days ago.
My
primary concern is that the buildings are listed as non-primary on the tax
notice. In fact first three buildings (40 units) were completed in December
19YY and were being occupied by tenants. I believe these units qualify as
primary residential. I have checked with Salt Lake County and was told that is
their policy that as long as a building is designed for residential living, it
is valued as primary even if it is not complete or occupied. I ask that you
review our request and grant primary status on parcel ##### since 40 units were
complete before the lien date and that some were occupied in January of 19YY.
I
look forward to supplying any information you may require.
Sincerely,
XXXXX
NAME
ADDRESS
CITY STATE, ZIP
Dear Mr. XXXXX:
In response to your letter dated November 15,
1996, I had occasion to discuss your request with not only the Salt Lake County
Assessor but several other assessors and members of the Utah State Tax
Commission.
XXXXX, Salt Lake County Assessor's Office,
verified that indeed that was the policy of Salt Lake County. The majority of
assessors I asked stated that it was their county's policy to place the primary
exemption after completion of the improvement. The same response was made by
those members of the Property Tax Division and that I should continue to follow
our county's policy.
I agree that there is some disagreement among
counties on this issue but I find no reason to diverge from policy established
even before I took office.
I have enclosed an Affidavit of Primary
Residence for you to sign and I will see that your project will be put on the
1997 assessment roll with a primary residence exemption and at the completed or
full market value.
Sincerely,
XXXXX
Summit
County Assessor
Mr.
XXXXX, Chairman
Utah
State Tax Commission
210
North 1950 West
Salt
Lake City, Utah 84116
Dear
Chairman XXXXX,
I am writing to request an advisory
opinion regarding the proper tax rate for residential properties under
construction as of the lien date. This question arose in XXXXX County where in
late 19YY our company was constructing a 94 unit affordable housing apartment
project. On the lien date of January 1, 19YY, three of the seven buildings were
complete with some units occupied. The remaining four buildings were 30-50%
complete.
Nevertheless, XXXXX County has taken
the position that the units should be taxed at a commercial rate until
physically occupied by a tenant. Salt Lake County takes a different position
and taxes units at a residential rate if the units are intended to be residential
units when construction is complete. I have enclosed copies of my
correspondence with XXXXX County on this issue.
Apparently, there is no uniform
policy in the State of Utah on how to deal with this question. I request that
the Utah State Tax Commission issue an advisory opinion to resolve the conflict
among counties and provide a uniform policy for all counties.
I would be happy to provide any
additional information you need.
Sincerely,
XXXXX
XXXXX
County
XXXXX,
County Assessor
NAME
ADDRESS
CITY, STATE, ZIP
Advisory Opinion - Application of residential
property exemption to multiple unit
dwellings during construction
Dear Mr. XXXXX,
We
have received your request for information regarding the partial exemption
available to primary residential properties.
In discussing this matter with your staff, we learned that you are in
the process of bringing this issue before the county Board of Equalization. If you are dissatisfied with the Board’s
decision, you may appeal that decision to the Tax Commission. Because this matter may come before us on
appeal, we must decline to issue an advisory opinion at this time.
We
understand that there may be a question as to the timeliness of your appeal to
the County Board of Equalization. If
you missed the deadline for filing an appeal, that issue is a hurdle that you
must cross in addressing your appeal to the Board of Equalization. If the Board denies your appeal on the basis
of timeliness, you may petition the Tax Commission to hear your appeal of that
denial. In either case, you will have
the burden of showing that the county’s notice was in some way deficient and
that the deficiency unreasonably interfered with your rights to appeal. We mention this because, as we understand
it, you still have not filed the appeal. If you have not already done so, we
urge you to pursue your appeal rights immediately.
XXXXX
of our Property Tax Division has been informed of this situation. If you have general policy questions about
the residential exemption, feel free to discuss them with XXXXX. He can be reached at #####. Of course, any Tax Commission ruling on your
petition in particular or an interpretation of this exemption in general will
have to come from the Commission itself.
For
the Commission,
XXXXX,
Commissioner