317 Conn. 863
Conn.2015Background
- Owners placed portable T‑hangars (metal, roofed, enclosed structures used to store private aircraft) on municipal airport land in Bridgeport under leases/subleases; some hangars had trailer hitches, all were removable but affixed by spikes and used for private storage.
- Stratford assessed the hangars as real property on its grand list (2009); owners had previously been assessed as personal property (2007–08).
- Stratford sued for a declaratory judgment that the hangars are taxable as real property under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 12‑64(a) and are not exempt under § 12‑74; trial court ruled for Stratford and the hangar owners appealed.
- Trial court found hangars were ‘‘buildings’’/‘‘sheds’’ (roofed, enclosed, suitable for storage, ‘‘virtually permanent’’ despite portability) and that the city of Bridgeport did not exercise sufficient control to treat the hangars as owned by the municipality.
- Trial court held §§ 12‑64(b)/(c) and § 12‑74 inapplicable to exempt the hangars, and § 12‑19a (grant in lieu of taxes) did not affect the taxation of the hangars.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are the hangars taxable as real property under § 12‑64(a)? | Stratford: hangars are "buildings/sheds" within § 12‑64(a) and taxable. | Owners: hangars are portable/temporary personal property, not "buildings"; statute ambiguous. | Held: taxable as "buildings"/"sheds"; prior definitions apply (enclosed, roofed, suitable for storage). |
| Do § 12‑64(b) or (c) exempt the hangars? | Stratford: those subsections apply to state‑owned property, not these municipally leased hangars. | Owners: relied on inapplicability arguments (lesser). | Held: §§ 12‑64(b)/(c) inapplicable because land is city‑owned, airport not state‑owned/operated. |
| Does § 12‑74 (exemption for municipally owned airport land) extend to privately owned hangars on that land? | Stratford: Russell governs; lessee‑owned buildings on exempt land are taxable to the building owner absent substantial lessor control. | Owners: hangars should share land's tax‑exempt status because of the leases and municipal requirements (portable design, access control). | Held: § 12‑74 does not exempt hangars; Russell controls and owners failed to show the substantial supervision/control required by University of Hartford. |
| Does § 12‑19a prevent taxation (avoid "double dipping")? | Stratford: § 12‑19a concerns grants in lieu of taxes and does not change property classification or tax liability. | Owners: taxing hangars while municipality receives a grant in lieu would be double recovery. | Held: § 12‑19a does not affect classification/taxability of hangars; no record evidence of improper double recovery. |
Key Cases Cited
- Eastern Connecticut Cable Television, Inc. v. Town of Montville, 180 Conn. 409 (interpreting "building" in § 12‑64(a) as enclosed, roofed, suitable for occupancy/storage)
- Russell v. New Haven, 51 Conn. 259 (lessee‑erected building on another's land taxable to holder of title to the building despite land exemption)
- University of Hartford v. Hartford, 2 Conn. App. 152 (lessee assessment improper where lessor exercised substantial supervision and control)
- Old Farms Associates v. Commissioner of Revenue Services, 279 Conn. 465 (citing Russell on taxation of buildings owned by lessees)
- Scholastic Book Clubs, Inc. v. Commissioner of Revenue Services, 304 Conn. 204 (rules on construing tax statutes and ambiguity in favor of taxpayer)