344 Conn. 150
Conn.2022Background
- Wind Colebrook South, LLC owned and operated multi-part wind turbines (tower, nacelle, hub, rotor) sited on concrete foundations; turbines include an enclosed base compartment and generate electricity for an electric company.
- Dispute: whether the turbines are taxable as real property under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 12-64(a) or as tangible personal property under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 12-41(c) (which expressly lists ‘‘machinery used in mills and factories’’ and certain utility transmission equipment and ‘‘other fixtures’’).
- Parties agreed the turbines are machines; plaintiff argued they are personal property/utility fixtures or otherwise not buildings/structures; defendant argued they are real property under § 12-64(a).
- Trial court found the turbines had an approximate useful life of ~20 years, with planned decommissioning and reserves for removal; turbines are large, bolted to foundations, and contain an interior base area used for access and storage.
- Justice Ecker concurred in the majority judgment that the turbines are real property but wrote separately: he would reach that result by holding the turbines are ‘‘machinery’’ and therefore taxable as real property under § 12-64(a) unless they fall within the narrow § 12-41(c) mills/factories exception; he also found they were not fixtures under the fixture test (intent, annexation, adaptation).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether wind turbines are taxable as real property under § 12-64(a) or as personal property under § 12-41(c) | Turbines are machines belonging to an electric company and fit within § 12-41(c)’s utility-related items or otherwise should be treated as personal property | Turbines are machinery and § 12-64(a) expressly taxes machinery as real property unless within the § 12-41(c) mills/factories exception | Concurrence: turbines are machinery and therefore real property under § 12-64(a) because they do not fall within the § 12-41(c) ‘‘machinery used in mills and factories’’ exception |
| Whether turbines are ‘‘other fixtures’’ of electric companies under § 12-41(c) | The turbines are fixtures (utility equipment) and thus fall within the statute’s enumeration ("and other fixtures") | The enumerated utility items (cables, poles, conduits) are transmission equipment, not generation machinery; ejusdem generis limits "other fixtures" to like items | Held: turbines do not fall within the utility "other fixtures" phrase — those terms denote transmission/transport equipment, not generation machinery |
| Whether the turbines are fixtures (i.e., converted from personalty to realty) under Connecticut fixture law | The turbines were affixed and thus became fixtures/realty | The turbines were not intended to be permanent; removal was planned (20-year life), so not fixtures | Held: turbines are not fixtures under Connecticut law because annexer’s objectively manifested intent and planned decommissioning show no permanent accession to the freehold |
| Whether turbines are ‘‘buildings’’ or ‘‘structures’’ under § 12-64(a) | Not a building or typical structure; should not be assimilated to enumerated buildings or structures that the statute targets | Even if not machinery, the assembly could be a ‘‘structure’’ or building-like and thus taxable as realty; but specific term (machinery) controls | Concurrence: turbines are not buildings in ordinary sense; "structure" is ambiguous, but specific statutory term machinery governs and classifies the integrated turbine assembly as machinery taxed as real property |
Key Cases Cited
- Capen v. Peckham, 35 Conn. 88 (Conn. 1868) (fixture test and distinction between personalty and realty)
- Eastern Connecticut Cable Television, Inc. v. Montville, 180 Conn. 409 (Conn. 1980) (use of ejusdem generis to construe "all other buildings")
- ATC Partnership v. Windham, 268 Conn. 463 (Conn. 2004) (fixture classification and appellate standard of review for factual findings)
- Waterbury Petroleum Products, Inc. v. Canaan Oil & Fuel Co., 193 Conn. 208 (Conn. 1984) (objective manifest intent of annexer controls fixture analysis)
- In re Tax Appeal of Kaheawa Wind Power, LLC v. Maui, 347 P.3d 632 (Haw. App. 2014) (comparable analysis of wind turbines as fixtures/personalty under Hawaii law; used for persuasive comparison)
- United Illuminating Co. v. Groppo, 220 Conn. 749 (Conn. 1992) (electricity generation is not "manufacturing" for related statutory exemptions)