Puget Sound Energy, Inc. v. State
255 P.3d 171
Mont.2011Background
- Department issued final ad valorem (2005–2007) assessments for Puget; Puget petitioned STAB for review of those assessments.
- STAB held an eight-day hearing and determined the Department’s assessment undervalued Puget; STAB adopted higher values than the Department.
- STAB identified flaws in Cameron’s Department appraisal and relied on Eyre’s appraisal as more credible.
- STAB added value for Puget’s BPA transmission contract under § 15-24-1203, MCA, which shifted value and increased the overall assessment.
- Puget argued STAB lacked authority to exceed the Department’s original assessment and to adopt an independent market-value determination.
- District Court held STAB could not raise Puget’s value above the Department’s original assessment; remanded for further consideration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether STAB may set Puget’s market value above the Department’s original assessment | Puget argues STAB cannot exceed the Department’s original value | Department argues STAB has independent fact-finding authority under MAPA | Yes; STAB may assess 100% market value even if it exceeds the Department's original assessment |
Key Cases Cited
- PacifiCorp v. State, 360 Mont. 259 (2011 MT 93) (deference to STAB; correctness review of administrative decisions)
- Department of Revenue v. Burlington Northern Inc., 169 Mont. 202 (1976) (STAB as knowledgeable tax tribunal; direct appeals and record-based review)
- W.R. Grace & Co. v. Dept. of Revenue, 173 Mont. 339 (1977) (direct appeal; trial de novo characterization of STAB proceedings)
- Montana Department of Revenue v. Barron, 245 Mont. 100 (1990) (Barron analyzed STAB’s authority under CTAB appeal context; not controlling for direct appeals)
- DeVoe v. Department of Revenue, 263 Mont. 100 (1993) (noting notice issue in attorney-fee context; distinguishable from due-process notice here)