2013 COA 46
Colo. Ct. App.2013Background
- Bachelor Gulch Operating Company appeals a BAA decision denying abatement/refund for 2007 taxes.
- Colorado law does not permit a new valuation analysis when a property is subdivided during a tax year.
- ARL instructs apportioning the original value among parcels created by subdivision for that tax year.
- As of Jan 1, 2007, the hotel was one unit with an assessed value ~$47 million; two plats subdivided into 51 child parcels.
- Fifty child parcels were residential condominiums; one was the remaining hotel parcel.
- Assessor allocated ~$36 million of the original value to the hotel child parcel, affecting 2007 taxes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does ARL govern subdivision valuations mid-year? | Bachelor Gulch argues for a statutory valuation approach as omitted property. | Eagle County contends ARL governs and no mid-year revaluation is allowed. | ARL governs; not a statutory revaluation. |
| Does § 39-5-125(1) apply to this subdivision? | Bachelor Gulch asserts omitted-property correction applies to value of hotel child parcel. | Board contends § 39-5-125(1) does not cover this situation. | § 39-5-125(1) does not apply. |
| Is ARL interpretation persuasive and bound by deference? | Bachelor Gulch challenges ARL interpretation as applicable. | Board argues ARL interpretation is correct and binding on assessors. | ARL procedures are persuasive and deference applies. |
| Did the BAA properly apply ARL to allocate value? | Bachelor Gulch presented evidence contradicting the allocation. | BAA found allocation consistent with ARL and supported by evidence. | BAA correctly applied ARL and upheld the allocation. |
Key Cases Cited
- S.T. Spano Greenhouses, Inc. v. Jefferson Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs, 155 P.3d 422 (Colo. App. 2006) (BAA-deference to agency findings; weigh evidence de novo on legal questions)
- Huddleston v. Grand Cnty. Bd. of Equalization, 918 P.2d 15 (Colo. 1996) (administrative interpretations entitled to deference when expertise applies)
- El Paso Cnty. Bd. of Equalization v. Craddock, 850 P.2d 702 (Colo. 1993) (persuasive administrative interpretation where technical expertise is needed)
- Boulder Cnty. Bd. of Comm'rs v. Boulder Country Club, 97 P.3d 119 (Colo. App. 2003) (describes statutory scheme and valuation approaches)
- Jet Black, LLC v. Routt Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs, 165 P.3d 744 (Colo. App. 2006) (omitted property; retroactive assessments vs undervaluation distinction)