Vision Net, Inc. v. State, 447 P.3d 1034

Vision Net, a Montana corporation headquartered in Great Falls, provides statewide internet and telecom services and owns equipment located in 32 Montana counties.
Vision Net owns 7.43 miles of fiber wholly within individual counties but leases "dark fiber" (indefeasible rights of use) from telephone companies to connect its equipment across county lines.
Vision Net operates a 24/7 Network Operations Center in Great Falls that manages traffic, centralized billing, customer service, and network monitoring.
Historically locally assessed, DOR reclassified Vision Net in 2015 as centrally assessed under § 15-23-101(2), placing its property in Class 13, which increased its tax liability by over 300%; leased fiber value was left on telephone companies to avoid double taxation.
Vision Net sued for declaratory judgment arguing central assessment was improper under statute and violated Montana constitutional equal protection/equalization rights; the District Court granted summary judgment to DOR and this appeal followed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Vision Net "operates a single and continuous property" across counties so as to be centrally assessed under § 15-23-101(2)	Vision Net: It does not operate such a property because the intercounty fiber is leased and the telephone companies retain design, construction, repair, and physical control; at most Vision Net "uses" the lines.	DOR: Vision Net's network is functionally integrated across counties, centrally managed and monitored, and Vision Net manages and operates traffic over leased fiber so it meets the statutory "operate" requirement.	Court: Affirmed DOR — Vision Net operates a single and continuous intercounty property and is subject to central assessment.
Whether central assessment violated equal protection/equalization by treating Vision Net differently from entities that also lease fiber	Vision Net: DOR treated Vision Net differently from similarly situated entities (e.g., banks, law firms) that lease fiber but are not centrally assessed.	DOR: The statute requires central assessment based on functional integration, unity of use/management, and industry characteristics; mere leasing of fiber does not make entities similarly situated.	Court: Rejected Vision Net — it failed to show similarly situated comparators; different tax treatment of telecommunications companies is constitutionally permissible.

Bresnan Communications, LLC v. State Department of Revenue, 315 P.3d 921 (Mont. 2013) (single-and-continuous property standard; functional integration, unity of use and management)
Western Union Telegraph Co. v. State Board of Equalization, 7 P.2d 551 (Mont. 1932) (different tax treatment for different business types is permissible; discussion of single-continuous property)
Montana Department of Revenue v. Priceline.com, Inc., 354 P.3d 631 (Mont. 2015) (definition of "operate" can include managing and keeping in operation without personal effort)
PPL Montana, Inc. v. State, 172 P.3d 1241 (Mont. 2007) (equal protection analysis and requirement to show similarly situated classes)