Summary 2006 WY 10

Summary of Decision issued January 18, 2006

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it is issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. You will also note when you look at the opinion that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you pinpoint cite to a quote, you should cite to this paragraph number rather than to any page number. If you need assistance in putting together a citation from this, or any future opinion using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library and we will provide any needed assistance.]

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court.

Case Name: Britt v. Fremont County Assessor

Citation: 2006 WY 10

Docket Number: 05-55

Appeal from the District Court of Fremont County, Honorable Norman E. Young, Judge

Representing Appellants (Petitioners): Beverly J. Scott of James and Scott, PC, Riverton, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee (Respondent): James Whiting, Deputy Fremont County Attorney, Lander, Wyoming.

Date of Decision: January 18, 2006

Issues: Whether the decision of the Fremont County Board of Equalization was supported by substantial evidence or in the alternative whether the decision of the Fremont County Board of Equalization was arbitrary and capricious for other reasons. Whether the Fremont County Assessor failed to follow applicable Wyoming Department of Revenue rules and regulations. Whether the assessment violates a constitutional right or privilege.

Holdings: Appellants challenged the ad valorem tax assessment of their cabin located on federal land in Fremont County. The Court reviews administrative action pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c) of the Wyoming Administrative Procedure Act. Findings of ultimate fact are reviewed de novo. The party asserting an improper valuation method bears the burden of proof. The Court affords no deference to the appellate review conducted by the state board or by the district court.
Challenges to the valuation of property for the purpose of ad valorem tax assessment are rooted in Wyo. Constr. Art. 15, § 11 which the Court has interpreted to require only a rational method of appraisal, equally applied to all property, which results in essential fairness. For ad valorem taxes, taxable property is to be valued annually at its fair market value. The Department of Revenue promulgated regulations for four appraisal methodologies: the sales comparison approach, the cost approach, the income or capitalized earnings approach, and the computer assisted mass appraisal (CAMA) automated system approach. The Forest Service land where the cabin is located is exempt form taxation as federal land used primarily for a governmental purpose. However, improvements placed on federal lands for private use do not fall within that exemption. The parties agree that the special use permit is not taxable. Most of the county board’s findings are not pertinent to the Court’s review because they were inaccurate, incomplete, or merely restated the testimony or issues without explaining how these items impacted the county board’s decision. The county board did not make a finding about the fair market value of the cabin or about the value of the special use permit. The county board erroneously concluded that the Assessor’s valuation was improper because it included the value of the permit. Based upon the Court’s review of the evidence presented, the Assessor successfully defended her valuation and Appellants failed to overcome the presumption that her valuation was proper.
The Court reviewed the Assessor’s method of valuation and concluded that the Assessor demonstrated that she considered all necessary factors and exercised professional judgment in accordance with applicable law. The Court also stated that the CAMA method of valuation conformed to the equal and uniform taxation requirements of the Wyoming Constitution.

The decree of the district court was affirmed.

J. Burke delivered the opinion for the court.

Link to the case: http://tinyurl.com/bjsb6 .