Qwest Corp. v. Colorado Division of Property Taxation, 304 P.3d 217

Qwest is a public utility whose property is centrally assessed by the Colorado Division of Property Taxation (DPT) for state valuation and then apportioned to counties.
DPT refused to extend the intangible property exemption and the cost cap valuation method to Qwest’s centrally assessed property.
Qwest alleged that central assessment disadvantaged it relative to cable companies, which are locally assessed and eligible for those exemptions/methods.
Qwest filed a protest with DPT, then sued in Denver district court after a unfavorable valuation.
The trial court and the court of appeals upheld DPT’s interpretation; Qwest petitioned for certiorari challenging central vs local assessment and equal protection/uniform taxation issues.
The Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide statutory interpretations and constitutional challenges to DPT’s method.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the intangible property exemption and cost cap apply to Qwest as a public utility.	Qwest as public utility seeks exemption/method.	Exemption/cost cap do not apply to public utilities.	Exemption and cost cap do not apply to Qwest.
Whether DPT's central assessment for Qwest violates equal protection.	Differing tax treatment compared to cable competition lacks rational basis.	Central vs local assessment is rational and policy-based.	No equal protection violation; rational basis supports disparity.
Whether the assessment scheme violates the Uniform Taxation Clause.	Disparate treatment violates uniform taxation for similar property.	Clause permits disparate treatment across different taxing territories.	Uniform Taxation Clause not violated; scheme permissible.

Welby Gardens v. Adams Cnty. Bd. of Equalization, 71 P.3d 992 (Colo. 2003) (avoid superfluous provisions; interpret harmoniously)
United States Transmission Sys., Inc. v. Bd. of Assessment Appeals, 715 P.2d 1249 (Colo. 1986) (public utility valuation factors control over general exemptions)
Climax Molybdenum Co. v. Walter, 812 P.2d 1168 (Colo. 1991) (avoid rendering provisions superfluous; harmonize statutory scheme)
Nordlinger v. Hahn, 505 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1992) (equal protection requires rational basis; broad latitude in tax classifications)
Regency Servs. Corp. v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs, 819 P.2d 1056 (Colo. 1991) (central vs local assessment involves non-fundamental rights; rational basis review)
Fitzgerald v. Racing Ass'n of Central Iowa, 538 U.S. 103 (U.S. 2003) (differential tax treatment can be rational for policy reasons)
Armour v. City of Indianapolis, 132 S. Ct. 2078 (U.S. 2012) (legislatures have broad latitude in creating tax classifications)
Gates Rubber Co. v. S. Suburban Metro. Recreation & Park Dist., 183 Col. 222, 516 P.2d 436 (Colo. 1973) (taxation as a legislative prerogative)
Jensen v. City & Cnty. of Denver, 806 P.2d 381 (Colo. 1991) (uniformity limits within territorial limits; real property taxation)
United Parcel Serv., Inc. v. Huddleston, 981 P.2d 223 (Colo. App. 1999) (territorial allocation for cross-district property valuation)