General Motors Corp. v. Maricopa County
237 Ariz. 337
Ariz. Ct. App.2015Background
- GM operated a 3,200-acre automotive proving ground; 2007 valuation reduced in a prior tax appeal to $89,000,961.
- GM sold the property to DMB Mesa Proving Grounds LLC in December 2006 via sale-leaseback; GM remained as tenant through 2009.
- DMB owned the land in 2008 and could pursue zoning adjustments and redevelopment steps; GM continued operating as a proving ground.
- January 1, 2007 valuation for 2008 tax year set at $187,824,386; taxpayers appealed seeking application of the 2007 valuation under § 42-16002(B).
- Tax court granted summary judgment for taxpayers; county appealed on whether sale-leaseback constituted a change of use and whether delinquent tax payment affected the appeal.
- The court held that a change of use must be a physical, verifiable use on the property, and that timely payment requirements apply only to the challenged taxes under § 42-16210; the rollover provision applied since there was no change of use.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does change of use include a change in ownership intent to redevelop? | GM/DMB: rollover applies; no physical use change occurred. | County: sale-leaseback created a change of use. | Change of use must be physical use on the property; no change here. |
| Whether delinquent payment of 2010 taxes defeats the valuation appeal. | Taxpayers timely paid the challenged 2008 taxes; 2010 delinquency does not bar appeal. | Delinquent payments can defeat jurisdiction. | Timely payment for the challenged year controls; 2010 delinquency did not dismiss the appeal. |
| Whether the 2007 rollover valuation should apply to 2008 under § 42-16002(B). | Rollover should apply absent new construction, structural change, or change of use. | Sale-leaseback could be a change of use. | No change of use; 2008 value rolled over to 2008 as per partial ruling. |
Key Cases Cited
- RCJ Corp. v. Ariz. Dep’t. of Revenue, 168 Ariz. 328 (Ariz. Tax Ct. 1991) (distinguishing refund actions from challenges to valuation/classification)
- Scottsdale Princess P’ship v. Maricopa County, 185 Ariz. 368 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995) (distinguishing valuation/classification actions from other tax actions)
- Sonoran Peaks, LLC v. Maricopa County, 236 Ariz. 399 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015) (clarifies § 42-16210 payment requirements in valuation appeals)
- Circle K Stores, Inc. v. Apache County, 199 Ariz. 402 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001) (owner vs. tenant use for classification purposes)
- Estate of Braden v. State, 228 Ariz. 323 (Ariz. 2011) (statutory term interpreted with context; use tied to physical activity)
- Krausz v. Maricopa County, 200 Ariz. 479 (Ariz. App. 2001) (distinguishes between owner's and tenant's use for classification)