HDH Partnership v. Hinsdale County Board of Equalization, 2017 COA 134

Lake Fork Hunting and Fishing Club (the Club) owns ~1,400 acres divided into 29 "Ranches"; membership is generally obtained only by holding a deed to a Ranch and follows title, but memberships cannot be separately sold or transferred apart from the deed.
The Club's declaration and bylaws reserve broad control: exclusive hunting/fishing rights, rights to construct and maintain improvements, control of water, rights to pasture livestock, and authority to exclude members not in good standing; members cannot build residences, subdivide, or conduct mining/drilling.
Individual members hold record title to specific Ranch deeds but lack exclusive possession, cannot exclude other members, may be suspended for nonpayment or rule violations, and receive no rents or control over improvements; the Club collects fees for use of the grounds.
Hinsdale County Assessor valued and assessed the individual Ranch parcels to the deed-holding members based on sales of other Ranch deeds; the BOE and BAA affirmed.
Petitioners (several deedholders) argued the Club, not deedholders, is the "true owner" because it holds the significant incidents of ownership and that the deed sales reflected personal-property license value, not land value.
The Court of Appeals reversed the BAA: it held the Club is the true owner for tax purposes and the assessor erred by using deed sales (licenses) as comparable sales for real-property valuation; remand for reassessment to the Club as a unit proportionate to the whole.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Who is the true owner for property-tax assessment?	Deedholders: record title alone should not control; substance over form shows members have mere licenses and Club holds most incidents of ownership.	BOE/BAA: assessor must assess record title holders; deedholders retain sufficient rights to be fee owners.	True owner is the Club — look beyond bare legal title; members hold licenses and lack significant incidents of ownership.
Was the assessor's valuation method correct?	Deedholders: assessor used sales of Ranch deeds that conveyed only personal-property licenses; those are not comparable sales of real property.	BOE/BAA: sales of Ranch deeds reflect market value of the parcels; valuation to deedholders was proper.	Valuation was improper — assessor relied on sales of personal-property licenses, not comparable real-property sales; valuation must conform to statutory appraisal methods.
Are absent club members indispensable or does unit-assessment rule require splitting assessments?	Deedholders: absent members not necessary to resolve these petitions; they seek relief only as to their parcels.	BOE/BAA: all members should be joined; unit-assessment or CCIOA compels individual assessments.	Absent members are not indispensable for deciding these petitions; CCIOA and unit-assessment arguments do not override substance-over-form ownership analysis here.

Frank Lyon Co. v. United States, 435 U.S. 561 (principle that substance over form governs tax consequences)
Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419 (ownership incidents: possess, use, dispose; right to exclude as core owner attribute)
City & County of Denver v. Board of Assessment Appeals, 848 P.2d 355 (Colo. 1993) (market approach and unit-assessment rule in property valuation)
Mesa Verde Co. v. Board of County Commissioners, 495 P.2d 229 (Colo. 1972) (look beyond form to real ownership for tax purposes)
Gunnison County v. Board of Assessment Appeals, 693 P.2d 400 (Colo. App. 1984) (record title not determinative; substance controls)
Bernhardt v. Hemphill, 878 P.2d 107 (Colo. App. 1994) (distinguishing contracts that do or do not convey taxable real-property interests)