97-061
Response
October 16, 1997
REQUEST
LETTER
September
17, 1997
Re: Advisory Opinion - Primary Residential
Exemption
Dear
Honorable Commissioners:
There
are questions that need clarifications concerning the application of the
primary residential exemptions as allowed at UCA 59-2-103(2).
Is
the exemption applied in any case where the residence as unoccupied as of-the
lien date of January first? Specifically, would the exemption apply to any
uncompleted residence still unoccupied as of January 1st, but moved into later
in the tax year?
Also
in the case where a residence was occupied on January 1st but vacated during
the tax year, would the exemption be disallowed?
I
believe this is an area that needs clarification in that there are variations of
the above scenarios
being
used by assessors throughout the state.
I can be reached at #####, should you require further information.
Respectfully
yours,
NAME
October
16, 1997
NAME
ADDRESS
CITY
STATE ZIP
Dear
NAME,
We have received your request for
property tax guidance pertaining to the primary residential exemption. We offer the following:
Property that is eligible for the
primary residential exemption on the lien date is entitled to the exemption,
even if the property is temporarily unoccupied. For example, assume that a home was sold prior to the lien and
the seller moved out prior to the lien date.
Assume also that the new owner does not move in until after January
1st. So long as the property use meets
the criteria for the primary residential exemption, the fact that it was
temporarily unoccupied on January 1st is irrelevant. This situation may also arise with rental property that serves as
the primary residence of the tenants.
The fact that the property may be temporarily vacant on the lien date
should not defeat the exemption.
Another example of a primary
residential property that may be unoccupied on the lien date is a home under
construction. It is our position that
when property is committed to a qualifying use, that property is eligible for
the exemption if (1) the dwelling is
under construction on the lien date, (2) the assessor has evidence that the
house is being constructed for use as a qualifying residential dwelling, and
(3) the property is actually put to use as a primary residential property upon
completion during the tax year. If all
of those conditions are met, the exemption relates back to the lien date. This is true even if the owner is living in
another primary residence during construction.
The primary exemption is based on the intended use of the two
residences, not the occupants.
The only distinctions that we have
drawn with regard to a property owner who owns two homes in Utah are as
follows:
(1) If the property owner is a Utah resident, but
neither of the homes is rented or leased for use as a primary residence of
another party. In that case, we assume
that the owner is using one home as a primary residence and the other as a
secondary residence.
(2) If the property owner is not a
Utah resident, but owns residential property in Utah, we assume that the owner
is using the Utah property as secondary property unless the owner shows that it
is being used as a primary residence.
(See Dennis v. Summit County, 933 P.2d 387 (Utah 1997), copy
enclosed.)
Please let us know if we can be of
further assistance.
For
the Commission,
Joe
B. Pacheco,
Commissioner
^^