Colonial Pipeline Company (“Colonial”), Appellant, headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia, is engaged in the underground transport of refined petroleum between Pasadena, Texas, and Linden, New Jersey, and points in between. Part of its transportation and storage system, constructed in 1962, traverses Maryland. In its 1998 Maryland public utility property tax return, for the first time, Colonial challenged the classification as real property, 1 made by the Maryland State Depart *20 ment of Assessments and Taxation (“SDAT”), Appellee, 2 of its operating property, 3 including its pipeline system, breakout tanks, and right-of-way easements. 4 Although conceding that any land and buildings it owned in fee simple were assessed correctly as real property, Appellant argued that the remainder of its operating property located in Maryland should be classified as personalty. Rejecting Appellant’s request for reclassification, SDAT continued to classify Appellant’s operating property as real property for purposes of its Final Notices of Assessment for the 1998 and 1999 property taxes.
On 17 March 1999, Appellant appealed to the Maryland Tax Court claiming that SDAT’s assessments for 1998 and 1999 were “illegal, erroneous and improper” in their apportionment and classification of Appellant’s operating property as operat *21 ing real property. At the conclusion of a two-day evidentiary hearing, the Tax Court rendered an oral opinion affirming SDAT’s classification of Appellant’s pipeline as operating real property, and declined to adjust the 1998 and 1999 final assessments. On 12 June 2000, the conclusions reached in the Tax Court’s oral opinion were effectuated in a short written Order.
Relying on its understanding of the common law of fixtures, the Tax Court concluded in its oral ruling that the pipeline was intended to be a permanent addition to the real property it traversed. In reaching that conclusion, a great deal of emphasis was placed on the fact that the pipeline was buried in the ground. Being buried underground indicated to the administrative tribunal that the pipeline was constructed with the intent of not removing it and, as a result, the pipeline became a permanent part of the real property.
The Tax Court also reasoned that the great amount of time and money expended on installing the pipeline system was a further indication of Colonial’s intent that it be a permanent attachment to the realty. Although concluding that the pipeline system was a fixture and should be taxed as real property, the Tax Court directed that Appellant did not have to pay increases sought by the SDAT in the 1998 and 1999 taxes previously assessed on the property based on information obtained by the SDAT in the course of the administrative appeal process.
Pursuant to Maryland Code (1986, 2001 Repl.Vol), Tax-Property Article (“TPA”), § 14-513, 5 Appellant filed with the Circuit Court for Carroll County a petition for judicial review of the Tax Court’s decision. On 21 May 2001, concluding that *22 the Order of the Tax Court was “based on substantial evidence and there was no erroneous application of the law,” the Circuit Court for Carroll County affirmed the classification of Appellant’s pipeline system as operating real property. As authorized by TPA, § 14-515, 6 Appellant then appealed the judgment of the Circuit Court to the Court of Special Appeals. On 13 December 2001, we issued a writ of certiorari on our own initiative, while the case was pending in the Court of Special Appeals, so that we might consider' the following issues:
1. Whether the pipeline right-of-way easements can be equated to freehold interests in land;
2. Whether the pipeline is personal property under Maryland law;
3. Whether the classification of the pipeline as real property violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution or the Uniformity Clause of Maryland’s Constitution.
We shall address only an expansive version of the second issue, which is dispositive of this appeal.
I.
The operative facts before the Tax Court are not in dispute. Appellant owns and operates an underground pipeline system, which transports petroleum across interstate lines. 7 Appellant described the nature of its business as follows:
The largest product pipeline in the world, the [Colonial] pipeline moves a daily volume of two million barrels of refined petroleum products [ 8 ] (the “product”) from Pasa *23 dena, Texas, to Linden, New Jersey, and is operated from a computerized supervisory control station in Atlanta, Georgia. The elements of the pipeline are the pipes, pumps, motors, meters, breakout tanks and the right-of-way easements. The whole pipeline is one machine; no element can function without the other elements. If a repair to the pipeline requires removal of a length of pipe, the whole line north of that point must be shut down during the course of that repair. Colonial is the sole owner of the pipeline; the landowner does not have any claim to the pipeline, the product shipped through it, or the revenue it earns.
Appellant further describes the pipeline itself:
The 36-inch mainline is 2,889 miles in length. A double mainline (one 32 inches and the other 36 inches) enters Maryland from Virginia. The 32-inch line terminates at Dorsey Junction while the 36-inch line continues north as a 30-inch line. Branching out from the mainline are smaller diameter stub lines which serve shipper terminals (such as BWI). There are four active stub lines in Maryland and two on standby status.
Breakout tanks are designed to temporarily hold some of the product as it is being transferred from the large diameter mainlines to the smaller diameter stub lines.... Breakout tankage is also used to take product out of the line in the event of an emergency. Located on Colonial’s land at Dorsey Junction are 25 breakout tanks; two 500-barrel sump tanks and four tanks owned and operated by Kinder Morgan.... The breakout tanks are not attached to their foundations; their weight keeps them in place.
Appellant does not own much of the land across which its pipeline traverses, but rather enjoys numerous agreements with private landowners, other public utilities, railroad companies, and government agencies that permit Colonial limited access to and use of their land. Appellant describes the nature and extent of these agreements as follows:
For 95% of the pipeline, Colonial is the beneficiary of abutting right-of-way easements which permit Colonial to *24 cross over the land of other property owners and which easements grant Colonial limited rights to access the pipeline .... Other agreements allowing the operations of the pipeline include leases and licenses from railroads and utilities and permits from government agencies.
The pipeline crosses the property of 2,065 private landowners and 504 government or public utility landowners in Maryland. Under the majority of the easements from private landowners, Colonial’s rights continue only so long as the pipeline is being used to transport product. Colonial does not have the right to convert the easement to any other use.
Colonial’s easements are not exclusive; the landowners can and do grant easements to other utilities within Colonial’s easement boundaries without Colonial’s consent.
The majority of the easements from private landowners do not require Colonial to remove or relocate the pipeline. Certain permits issued by the Maryland State Highway Administration, the State Roads Commission and the Department of the Army (for river crossings) do, however, require relocation of the pipeline at the expense of Colonial.
While Colonial is the sole owner of the pipeline, the landowner is the sole owner of the land through which the pipeline runs. The landowner can use the surface of the right-of-way in a normal fashion for just about anything (e.g. parking lots, driveways, patios, crops, gardens and fences) except the construction of a building or swimming pool. In other words, the landowner continues to utilize the right-of-way for most uses so long as it does not affect the safety or interfere with the operation of the pipeline.
Permits from the Maryland Department of Natural Resources and Baltimore Gas and Electric provide that Colonial’s rights may be terminated at any time. Railroads grant licenses to Colonial to cross their right-of-way that allow the railroads to require complete removal or relocation of the pipeline at the railroad’s request.
*25 The pipeline can operate for its intended use for an indefinite amount of time if it is adequately maintained. The pipeline was designed so that it may be “dug up” for removal, inspection, or repair. Each section of pipe is 40 feet in length and the pipeline is buried below the plow-line, usually 36 inches below the ground.! 9 ] In Maryland, there are approxi *26 mately 200 “digs,” that is, excavations to relocate, verify the depth and location of, or examine the pipeline, in a given year. Over the past ten years, Appellant has removed 14,000 feet of pipe in Maryland. Removal is relatively easily accomplished without substantial damage to the real property upon which it is located. The surface of the easement is returned to its original state after any removal. When repairs are necessary, the pipeline is not usually replaced. Rather, old pipeline will be cleaned, coated, and hydrostatically tested for reuse in the system.
In accordance with TPA, § l-101(aa-l), Appellant is classified as a public utility 10 for the purposes of Maryland property tax assessments. 11 As such, pursuant to TPA, § 8-109, all of its operating property within the State of Maryland must be appraised and assessed by SDAT. 12 As Appellee’s expert witness, Laura Kittel, the Utility Valuation Supervisor for SDAT, testified before the Tax Court, the unit method of valuation is the established method used by the SDAT to *27 assess the operating property of public utility accounts. This method assesses the value of a public utility’s operating property, in whatever jurisdictions it may be located, as one functioning unit. 13 Once the total value of the unit has been determined, a proportionate amount of the total value is allocated to the parts of the unit located in the State of Maryland. Because real and personal property are taxed at different rates, the property of a public utility also must be assigned to one or the other category before the appropriate amount of property tax can be assessed to the utility company. All of Appellant’s operating property in Maryland has been classified by SDAT as real property for property tax purposes since 1962. 14
*28 II.
A.
We review here the decision of the Maryland Tax Court, an administrative body.
15
Supervisor of Assessments v. Keeler,
There is no dispute concerning the operative facts of this case. As noted supra, this appeal raises solely a question of law regarding the status of Appellant’s pipeline system as *29 operating real property or operating personal property for property tax purposes. Because we determine that Appellant’s petroleum pipeline system is a trade fixture, and thus should be classified as operating personal property, we shall reverse the judgment of the Circuit Court and direct that court to reverse the decision of the Tax Court.
B.
The thrust of Appellant’s theory of the case is that the pipeline, pumps, meters, breakout tanks, and right-of-way easements are all part of one interrelated petroleum transportation system that should be classified as personal property for tax purposes. Appellant believes that no one element can function independent of the other elements, and therefore the tax status should be determined based on the transportation system as a whole, and not based on its component parts.
16
Appellant presents five arguments in support of its contentions. First, Appellant argues that the right-of-way easements in which the pipeline is located are personal property because they are easements in gross.
17
Next, Appellant contends that the classification of “underground facilities” as personal property, and the definition of “operating personal property” in the Maryland Code require that the pipeline system be treated as personal property under Maryland law.
*30
Md.Code (1998, 2001 Supp.), Public Utility Companies Art., § 12 — 101(j)
18
and TPA, § l-101(u)(5).
19
Alternatively, Appellant asserts that the common law of fixtures also dictates that its pipeline system is personal property.
See Dudley & Carpenter v. Hurst,
*31
From its vantage point, Appellee contends that Appellant’s pipeline, breakout tanks, and right-of-way agreements should not be viewed as one transportation system, but rather as separate parts that should be assessed individually as real property. To support its contention, Appellee focuses its analysis on the three major components of Appellant’s pipeline system: the right-of-way easements, the pipeline, and the breakout tanks. First, Appellee argues that the right-of-way easements are real property under Md.Code TPA, § 1-101(cc).
21
Next, relying on this Court’s decision in
Comptroller of the Treasury v. Steuart Invs. Co.,
C.
As noted
supra,
the three elements of the Colonial pipeline system; the pipeline, breakout tanks, and right-of-way easements, comprise a single system that transports refined petroleum between Texas and New Jersey, and points
*32
in between. As also stated earlier, no part of that system functions independently from the other parts. If repairs need to be made on any part of the pipeline, the system must be shut down until the repairs are complete. SDAT views the entire 5,000 mile transportation system between Texas and New Jersey as a single pipeline system for purposes of its valuation under the unitary system of valuation. Appellee’s classification argument, however, that each component of the system needs to be independently evaluated and classified is unconvincing. Thus, our evaluation of Appellant’s challenge to SDAT’s classification of the pipeline system as real property will proceed by considering the pipeline system as a whole rather than as an analysis of its component parts. Other courts have treated similar systems as a unit for real or personal property classification purposes.
See Waterford Energy, Inc., v. Okla. Tax Comm’n,
D.
At common law, fixtures were treated as part of the realty.
22
A fixture was an item that was so connected to the land that it could not be removed without substantial injury to itself or the land. Richard R. Powell, Powell on Real
*33
Property, § 57-23 (1969). Chattels that are attached to real property in such a manner that they have lost their separate existence are deemed thereafter to be real property themselves.
Dudley,
The common law test for identifying fixtures considers the following factors:
First, annexation to the realty either actual or constructive. Second, adaptation to the use of that part of the realty with which it is connected. Thirdly, the intention of the party making the annexation, to make the article a permanent accession to the freehold, this intention being inferred from the nature of the article annexed, the situation of the party making the annexation, the mode of annexation, and the purpose for which it was annexed.
*34
Dudley,
The common law annexation, adaptation, and intention factors as set forth in
Dudley
continue to control resolution of questions arising under the law of fixtures in Maryland.
See Schofer v. Hoffman,
The trade fixtures exception to the common law rule of fixtures dates back almost as far as the common law rule itself.
Van Ness v. Pacard,
The policy justification for the trade fixtures exception is to encourage trade and manufacturing.
Van Ness,
There are a number of other jurisdictions that have addressed the particular question now before us: namely, whether, in a taxing situation, a pipeline system consisting of easements, pipelines, and break-out tanks, is a fixture to be treated as realty, or a trade fixture to be treated as personalty.
For example, in
Lingleville,
the Court of Appeals of Texas considered an appeal from a trial court’s judgment that a gas transmission pipeline 390 miles in length was personal property, and that the taxing units had failed to bring suit within the four year limitation period for such actions, and were therefore barred from bringing their claim.
Waterford
involved a challenge to a sales tax imposed on the sale of petitioner’s rights in a gas-gathering pipeline that
*37
consisted of easements and other machinery.
The Court of Appeals of Texas in
Dorchester
applied Oklahoma law and
Waterford.
These cases support the proposition that the determinative element of the fixtures test at common law is the intent of the party installing the fixture. As summarized by the Court of Appeals of Texas in the
Lingleville
case; “[t]he third criterion dealing with intention is preeminent, whereas the first and second criteria constitute evidence of intention.”
Lingleville,
*38
“A trade fixture is not a fixture.”
K & A Servicing,
The first prong of the common law fixtures analysis, annexation to the realty, requires that the pipeline be affixed to the soil such that removal would result in serious injury to the property. Appellant’s pipeline can be removed from the property through which it runs and, in fact, segments of its span across Maryland have been removed twenty-one times over the last twenty years. While it is true that the initial excavation to remove the pipeline causes a degree of damage to the landowner’s property, this damage is only temporary. Once the pipeline has been removed, the surface of the property in question is returned to its original topography. After the pipeline is removed, it can be, and as the record shows actually is at times, used to replace faulty pipeline. This reuse of the pipeline demonstrates that the damage done to the pipeline upon removal is minimal. Accordingly, Appellant’s pipeline system can be removed without substantial damage occurring to either the realty or the pipeline itself.
The pipeline system also fails to meet the second prong of the fixtures test because it is not adapted to the use of the realty into which it is installed. The pipeline runs under various roads, fields, rivers, and cities, without adapting to these uses of the land. Appellant points out that the right-of-way easement agreements themselves indicate that the pipeline system will be buried so as not to interfere with the landowner’s intended use of the land. According to the specimen agreements in the record, the landowner can use the surface of the land in any manner, except for the construction *39 of a building or the installation of a swimming pool. As in Waterford, Colonial is not the landowner and therefore the pipeline is not accessory to the landowner’s enjoyment of the land. The pipeline exists to benefit Colonial’s business interests exclusively.
The first two elements of the fixtures test merely inform the analysis as one approaches the heart of the inquiry: whether Colonial intended the pipeline to be a permanent annexation to the land intended to benefit that land. As stated in
Van Ness,
Colonial’s intent clearly indicates that the pipeline system is a trade fixture. Similar to the facts of
Lingleville,
the Colonial pipeline system was “adapted for the transmission of gas [here, petroleum],” and is therefore accessory to Appellant’s business.
*40 JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR CARROLL COUNTY REVERSED; CASE REMANDED TO THAT COURT WITH DIRECTIONS TO REVERSE THE DECISION OF THE MARYLAND TAX COURT AND REMAND THE CASE TO THE TAX COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION; AP-PELLEE TO PAY THE COSTS IN THIS COURT AND IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR CARROLL COUNTY.
Notes
. Appellant initially claimed only that its pipeline and breakout tanks should be reclassified as personal property for property tax purposes. Early in the administrative appeal process regarding the 1998 assessment, Appellant broadened its reclassification claim to include its right-of-way easements. When the Maryland State Department of Assessments and Taxation (“SDAT”) finally rejected its request for reclassifi *20 cation, Appellant expanded the temporal scope of its challenge prior to the proceedings in the Tax Court to include SDAT’s assessments of its pipeline system, breakout tanks, and right-of-way easements for both 1998 and 1999.
. Although the parties’ caption the case in this Court listing the Comptroller of the Treasury as Appellee, we shall refer to SDAT as Appellee throughout the opinion because the SDAT was listed as the governmental party in this matter throughout the proceedings below.
. Maryland Code (1986, 1994 Repl.Vol.), Tax Property-Article, § 1-101(uj defines "operating property,’’ as it did at the times relevant to Appellant’s challenge, as:
(1) "Operating property” means any property used to operate a railroad or public utility.
(2) "Operating property” includes operating real property and operating personal property.
(3) "Operating real property” includes any real property used to operate a railroad or public utility.
(4) "Operating land” means any land used to operate a railroad or public utility.
(5) "Operating personal property” includes any property, other than real property, used to operate a railroad or public utility.”
. For purposes of this Opinion, a reference to the terms "pipeline” or "pipeline system” refers to the entire petroleum transportation system and its attachments, including the pipes in and above the ground, the pumps and pumping stations, the breakout tanks, and the right-of-way agreements. The components are not treated separately by us for the reasons explained infra.
. The most current version of the Tax-Property Article of the Maryland Code will be cited throughout this opinion because its provisions at the time this claim arose remain substantively the same at present. Any material differences in the Article between then and now will be noted. Thus, Maryland Code (1986, 2001 Repl.Vol.), Tax-Property Article will be referred to as "TPA.” TPA, § 14-513 provides that: "[a]ny party to a Maryland Tax Court proceeding may appeal a final decision of the Maryland Tax Court to the circuit court for the county in which the property is located.”
. TPA, § 14-515 provides that: "[a]ny party to a proceeding in the circuit court under § 14-513 of this subtitle may appeal a final decision of the circuit court to the Court of Special Appeals.”
. According to Appellant’s 1997 annual report, the pipeline runs be- - tween Texas and New Jersey, and in doing so, traverses Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, Delaware and Pennsylvania.
. Colonial’s tariff (charge) is 2.25 cents per gallon of petroleum transported.
. Transportation of Hazardous Liquids by Pipeline, 49 C.F.R. § 195.248 (1998), which applies to Colonial's business, provides:
(a) Unless specifically exempted in this subpart, all pipe must be buried so that it is below the level of cultivation. Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, the pipe must be installed so that the cover between the top of the pipe and the ground level road bed, river bottom, or sea bottom, as applicable, complies with the following table:
Cover inches Cover inches (millimeters) for (millimeters) for Location Normal Excavation rock excavation *
Industrial, commercial, and resi- 36(914) 30(762) dential areas
Crossings of inland bodies of wa- 48 (1219) 18 (457) ter with a width of at least 100 ft. (30 mm) from high water mark to high water mark
Drainage ditches at public roads 36 (914) 36 (914) and railroads
Deepwater port safety zone 48 (1219) 24 (610)
Gulf of Mexico and its inlets and 36 (914) 18 (457) other offshore areas under water less than 12 ft. (3.7 m) deep as measured from the mean low tide
Any other areas 30(762) 18 (457)
* Rock excavation is any excavation that requires blasting or removal by equivalent means.
(b) Except for the Gulf of Mexico and its inlets, less cover than the minimum required by paragraph (a) of this section and Section 195.210 may be used if—
(l)It is impracticable to comply with the minimum cover requirements; and
©Additional protection is provided that is equivalent to the minimum required cover
. TPA, § l-101(aa-l)(l) & (2) define a public utility company as:
(1) "Public utility" means a company classified by the Department as a public utility under § 8-109 of this article.
(2) "Public utility” includes:
(i) an electric company; '>
(ii) a gas company;
(iii) a pipeline company;
(iv) a sewage disposal company;
(v) a steam heating company;
(vi) a telephone company; and
(vii) a water company.
. TPA, § l-101(aa) provides that: "Property tax” means the property tax imposed by: (l)the State; (2) a county; or (3) a municipal corporation.
. TPA, § 8-109(a) provides that:
(a) Valuation of public utility operating property.-The Department shall annually value the operating unit of public utility on the basis of the value of the operating property of the public utility, by considering:
(1) the earning capacity of the operating unit; and
(2) all other factors relevant to a determination of value of the operating unit.
. Appellant raises no challenge to SDAT's use of the unitary method of valuation to assess the value of Appellant’s property for tax purposes. As such, it is unnecessary for the Court to address each component of Appellant's pipeline system because classification of the pipeline itself is representative of the classification of the other aspects of the entire pipeline system. See infra at pages 31-32.
. Appellant points out that Maryland does not classify as real property other public utilities’ operating property alleged to be similar in character or function to Appellant’s operating property. For example, Colonial argues that:
Maryland still treats the easements of the telecommunications industry and the electric industry as real property, under a longstanding practice, SDAT classifies the poles, lines and towers of cellular telephone and media cable companies as personal property. The Maryland Telecommunications Tax Return Act of 1997 reclassified telephone cable, line, poles, and towers as operating personal property. In 1999, the lines, poles, and towers of electric companies were statutorily reclassified as personal property.
Appellee rejoins that the Legislature’s reason for the reclassification of the elements of the telecommunications and electric network systems is explained as:
The General Assembly passed Chapters 629 (Senate Bill 746) and 630 (House Bill 512), Laws of Maryland 1997 to reclassify the elements of the telecommunication network system from real to personal property because of the anticipated increase in competition in the telecommunications industry. Then in Chapters 5 and 6 of the Laws of Maryland 1999, the General Assembly reclassified elements of the electric distribution network from real to personal property because of increased competition caused by the deregulation of the electric industry.... In contrast, ... Colonial’s competition was the same as it had been for a long time.
. As we have noted previously, the Maryland Tax Court is not a constitutional court, but is actually a statewide administrative agency.
See Shipp
v.
Bevard,
. Appellee’s valuation methodology, it could be argued, impliedly incorporates this belief. The basis for SDAT's consideration of the entire pipeline system as a unit for its valuation methodology could be viewed as consistent with Appellant's argument. See supra at pages 26-27. As noled infra, however, Appellee expressly eschews such a view in favor of analysis of each individual component for classification purposes.
.
See
Black’s Law Dictionary 415 (7th ed.2000) defines an “easement in gross’’ as ”[a]n easement benefitting a particular person and not a particular piece of land.”
See also Callaway v. Forest Park Highlands Co.,
. Maryland Code (1998, 2001 Supp.), Public Utility Company Article, § 12 — 101(j) defines, for purposes of regulating excavation or demolition occurring near underground facilities are:
(j) Underground facility.-(1) "Underground facility” means personal property that is to be buried or submerged for:
(i) use in connection with the storage or conveyance of water, sewage, oil, gas, or other substances; or
(ii) transmission or conveyance of electronic, telephonic, or telegraphic communications or electricity.
(2) “Underground facility” includes pipes, sewers, conduits, cables, valves, lines, wires, manholes, attachments, and those portions of poles below ground.
(3) "Underground facility” does not include a stormwater drain.
. TPA, § l-101(u)(5) provides that: "Operating personal property” includes "any property, other than real property, used to operate a railroad or public utility.”
. Maryland Constitution, Declaration of Rights, Article 15 states in pertinent part:
[t]he General Assembly shall, by uniform rules, provide for the separate assessment, classification and sub-classification of land, improvements on land and personal property, as it may deem proper; and all taxes thereafter provided to be levied by the State for the support of the general State Government, and by the Counties and by the City of Baltimore for their respective purposes, shall be uniform within each class or sub-class of land, improvements on land and
*31 personal property which the respective taxing powers may have directed to be subjected to the tax levy; yet fines, duties or taxes may properly and justly be imposed, or laid with a political view for the good government and benefit of the community.
. TPA, § 1-101 (cc) defines real property as follows: “(1) ‘Real Property'-means any land or improvements to land. (2) ‘Real Property' includes: (i) a leasehold or other limited interest in real property; and (ii) an easement.” (Emphasis added).
. The English common law of fixtures derived from the Latin maxim "quicquid plantatur solo, solo cedit " meaning "whatever is annexed to the land becomes land.”