Bresnan Communications, LLC v. State
2013 MT 357
| Mont. | 2013Background
- Bresnan, a Delaware LLC operating in Montana, challenged the Department of Revenue's central assessment of its property as class thirteen rather than class eight.
- Bresnan upgraded its network after 2003 to provide Triple Play services (cable, internet, and VoIP) which expanded use beyond traditional cable.
- From 2007 to 2009, Bresnan reported 10% of its assets as voice (class thirteen) and 90% as cable/internet (class eight), with audits ultimately prompting a centralized assessment.
- The Department issued revised assessments for 2007–2009 (and 2010), which Bresnan paid under protest; the district court granted Bresnan summary judgment that the Department lacked authority for retroactive assessments and that Bresnan owned class eight properties.
- The Montana Supreme Court reverses, holds Bresnan fits as a class thirteen telecommunications services provider, remands for a judgment consistent with classification under class thirteen and the Department’s centralized assessment authority under 15-8-601, with discovery arising from the audit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bresnan exclusively owned class eight property. | Bresnan argues its network use is primarily cable (class eight). | Department contends Bresnan’s use and productivity fit class thirteen as a telecommunications services provider. | No, Bresnan qualifies as class thirteen; use/productivity evidence supports centralized assessment. |
| Whether the Department had authority to issue retroactive assessments. | Bresnan asserts retroactive assessments exceed § 15-8-601 bounds after changing assessor judgment. | Department maintains discovery via audit justifies revised centralized assessment. | Yes, authority exists to issue revised assessments when appropriate tax procedures were not followed; remand for proper judgment consistent with class thirteen. |
Key Cases Cited
- Omimex Canada, Ltd. v. State Dep’t of Revenue, 347 Mont. 176 (2008 MT 403) (use of physical attributes vs. use and productivity in classification)
- Yellowstone Pipe Line Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization, 358 P.2d 55 (Mont. 1960) (allocation and unity of ownership concepts in taxation)
- Wheir v. Dye, 73 P.2d 209 (Mont. 1937) (use and productivity as classification metric)
- Powell Cnty. v. Yellowstone, 247 P. at 1097 (Mont. 1926) (two-way vs. one-way transmission affecting classification)
- Evans Products Co. v. Missoula Cnty., 654 P.2d 526 (Mont. 1982) (revised assessments and the role of appraisal/assessment procedures)