97-058
Response
September 26, 1997
August
25, 1997
Utah
State Tax Commission
Attention:
Commissioners
210
North 1950 West
Salt
Lake City, UT 84134
Re:
Advisory Opinion
Now that we are involved with
equalization within our counties, there are questions for which we seek your
advice.
The Property Tax Administration
Standards of Practice number 16 addresses, in part, denying an appeal. If an
appeal is "denied" does this mean that no appeal was
made? Do we understand then that it is
only the decision of the county to deny the acceptance of the appeal that is
appealable to the commission rather than any question of value?
If a county has denied an appeal and
if the commission then agrees with the county's position, is the taxpayer
barred from appeal of value to the commissioners?
We would like your response to the
above questions as soon as possible. I can be reached at ##### should you
require further information.
Respectfully
yours.
NAME
September
26, 1997
NAME
ADDRESS
CITY
STATE ZIP
Advisory
Opinion - Denial of appeal by County Board of Equalization.
Dear
NAME,
We have received your request for
guidance pertaining to denials by county boards of equalization to hear
appeals. We offer the following:
Under Utah Code Section 59-2-1004, a
taxpayer who is dissatisfied with the valuation or the equalization of the
taxpayer's real property may file an appeal with the county board of
equalization within 30 days after the day on which the county auditor mails the
notice under Utah Code Subsection 59-2-919(4).
The time limitation mentioned in 59-2-1004 constitutes the only
limitation placed on the taxpayer’s right to appeal. Therefore, unless the taxpayer fails to timely file the appeal,
the petitioner is entitled to have his appeal considered by the board.
The phrase “deny the appeal” as used
in the Property Tax Standards of Practice Manual, is confusing because the
phrase is sometimes used interchangeably with more precise legal
terminology. I can best clarify our
appeals procedure by using more appropriate terminology and and by using examples to illustrate the form
that an appeal will take at the commission level.
When the county board of
equalization rules against a petitioner, that ruling will take one of the
following forms:
(1) Dismissal for lack of jurisdiction or
timeliness. If a petitioner’s appeal presents
an issue over which the county board has no jurisdiction, the board must
dismiss the case. If the petitioner
fails to meet statutory deadlines for filing the appeal, the board may also
dismiss the case.
Dismissals in this category do not
operate as an adjudication on the merits of the case.
Therefore,
on appeal, the only matter before the commission, acting as the state board of
equalization, is the basis for the dismissal.
The merits of the case (market value) will not be addressed. If the commission finds that the dismissal
was inappropriate or if good cause exists to reinstate the appeal, the matter
will be remanded to the county board for further proceedings. On remand, the county board must consider
the merits of the case and issue its final determination of market value. The petitioner may appeal the county board’s
determination to the commission, and the commission will hold a hearing for the
purpose of establishing the property’s market value.
(2)
Dismissal for any other reason.
Except as described in (1) above, a
dismissal operates as an adjudication on the merits of the case. That is, the petitioner properly perfected
his rights to an appeal, but failed to present evidence to support an adjustment
in the taxpayer’s favor. On appeal, the
commission may reverse, affirm, or otherwise dispose of the board’s order. Because the dismissal is a dismissal on the
merits, the commission may take evidence and rule on the issue of market value,
or it may remand the case to the county board if such action is in the interest
of justice.
I hope that this discussion is
sufficient to clarify our appeals procedure.
If you have other questions, please let us know.
For
the Commission,
Joe
B. Pacheco,
Commissioner
^^