310 P.3d 533
Mont.2013Background
- This is a Montana Supreme Court case, 2013 MT 273, Gold Creek Cellular v. State Dept. of Revenue, reviewing the DOR’s 2010 regulatory changes.
- Plaintiffs challenge Admin. R. M. 42.22.101(12), 42.22.101(10), and 44.22.109 as invalid.
- Statute 15-6-218, MCA grants tax exemption for intangible personal property, with a broad exemption for goodwill.
- The Department amended definitions to require separability, saleability, earnings, and a separate “intangible value,” and tied goodwill to purchase-price accounting only.
- District Court granted summary judgment for plaintiffs; Department of Revenue appeals.
- Issue relates to whether the Department’s regulations conflict with state law and whether the valuation handbooks WSATA/NCUVS are invalid when applied to the new rules.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do the Department’s definitions of goodwill and intangible personal property conflict with the statute? | Gold Creek challenges the definitions as adding requirements beyond the statute. | DOR argues its definitions are consistent with the statute and entitled to MAPA/Chelsea deference. | Yes, definitions conflict; invalid. |
| Are the Department’s goodwill and intangible-personal-property rules invalid for redefining the statutory list? | The list is non-exhaustive; regulations cannot contradict it. | Definitions align with broader interpretation and statutory purpose. | Yes, invalid for conflicting with the statutory non-exhaustive list. |
| Are the handbooks WSATA/NCUVS valid when used to enforce the new rules? | Handbooks support the new definitions but are not controlling if definitions are invalid. | Handbooks provide relevant framework for valuation. | Handbooks invalid to the extent they enforce the invalid rules. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell v. Dep't of Licensing, 182 Mont. 21 (1979 MT) (regulation adds requirements not contemplated by statute)
- Michels v. Dep’t of Social and Rehabilitation Servs., 187 Mont. 173 (1980 MT) (five-day medical-notice limit invalid where statute provides broad medical coverage)
- Baldwin v. Stuber, 187 Mont. 430 (1980 MT) (valuation of goodwill left to fact-finder; cannot mandate one method)