No. 86-469 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

1987 

HI-LINE RADIO FELLOWSHIP, 

Plaintiff and Appellant, 

-vsDEPARTMENT OF REVENUE OF THE 

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Defendant and Respondent. 

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Twelfth Judicial District, 

In and for the County of Hill, 

The Honorable Chan Ettien, Judge presiding. 

COUNSEL OF RECORD: 

For Appellant: 

Douglas B. Kelley, Helena, Montana 

For Respondent : 

Larry G. Schuster, Dept. of Revenue, ~elena, 

Montana 

Submitted on Briefs: Jan. 22, 1987 

Decided: May 27, 1987 

Filed: MAY 2'77987 

Clerk 
Mr. Chief Justice J. A. Turnage delivered the Opinion of the 

Court. 

Hi-Line Radio Fellowship appeals an order of the Twelfth 

Judicial District Court, Hill County, affirming the State Tax 

Appeal Board's denial of tax exemption status for appellant. 

We remand to the State Tax Appeal Board (STAB) with instructions to rehear this matter for further development of the 

record, and a determination of whether the property is exempt 

under the educational or public charity exemptions. 

Appellant Hi-Line Radio Fellowship (Hi-Line) is a 

non-profit corporation which operates a radio broadcasting 

business in Havre, Montana. Respondent is the Department of 

Revenue of the State of Montana (DOR). The present dispute 

concerns whether Hi-Line's radio broadcasting equipment 

should be exempt from state taxation. 

On January 30, 1984, Hi-Line filed an application with 

DOR requesting property tax exemption on the basis that 

Hi-Line's property and equipment was used for religious 

purposes. Section 15-6-201(1)(b), MCA. DOR denied Hi-Line's 

tax exemption application on April 2, 1984. On February 28, 

1985, Hi-Line submitted an additional application for property tax exemption, claiming the property was used for educational purposes. Section 15-6-201 (1) (c) , MCA. DOR denied 

the application on March 26, 1985. On April 18, 1985, 

Hi-Line appealed the DOR decision to STAR. 

On August 5, 1985, Hi-Line was notified that the STAB 

hearing was set for August 27, 1985, in Havre. By letter 

dated August 20, 1985, counsel for Hi-Line requested a continuance due to conflict on the hearing date. STAR denied 

the request for continuance, and the hearing was held as 

scheduled. 

On October 31, 1985, STAB entered findings of fact, 

conclusions of law, and order which denied Hi-Line's 
application for tax exemption. STAB concluded the subject 

property was not used exclusively for educational purposes as 

required by S; 15-6-201 (1) (c) , MCA. Hi-Line appealed STAB's 

decision to District Court. Section 15-2-303, MCA. Following briefing and oral argument by the parties, the District 

Court entered its order dated July 16, 1986, affirming STAB's 

decision. 

Hi-Line filed a motion for reconsideration and a motion 

for specific findings of fact and conclusions of law. By 

order dated August 14, 1986, the District Court denied both 

motions. Hi-Line appeals and raises the following issues: 

1) Whether STAB erred in refusing to continue the 

August 27, 1985, hearing? 

2) Whether the District Court erred in failing to make 

specific findings of fact and conclusions of law? 

3) Whether Hi-Line is entitled to a property tax 

exemption? 

Hi-Line contends STAB abused its discretion by refusing 

Hi-Line's request for a continuance. STAB sent Hi-Line 

notice on August 5, 1985, that Hi-Line's appeal hearing would 

be held in Havre on August 27, 1985. On August 20, 1985, 

counsel for Hi-Line requested a continuance due to a scheduling conflict. STAB denied the request. 

The hearing was held as scheduled. Hi-Line was not 

represented by an attorney. Hi-Line asserts it was prejudiced by not having an attorney present and that STAB offered 

no reasonable explanation for denying a continuance. STAB 

contends it gave proper notice. Section 15-2-301 (1) , MCA. 

STAB also contends that tax appeal hearings are informal and 

an attorney is not necessary because the rules of evidence 

and discovery are not binding. 

There is no statutory provision specifically authorizing 

grants of continuance by STAB. Due to STAB's appellate 
powers, however, we find STAB has the inherent authority to 

grant a continuance upon good cause shown and in furtherance 

of justice. 

A careful review of the record reveals that Hi-Line was 

woefully unprepared to present its case. As a result, this 

Court is asked to review STAB's interpretation of S 15-6-201, 

MCA, based on a record that is incomplete and inadequate. 

Hi-Line requested a continuance fourteen days after it received notice of the August 27, 1985, hearing. STAB presented no evidence, other than its compliance with minimum notice 

requirements, to support its denial of Hi-Line's August 20, 

1985, motion for continuance. We hold STAB did not act in 

the "furtherance of justice" when it denied Hi-Line's good 

faith motion for a continuance. Accordingly, we will not 

review this matter without further development of the record. 

We remand to STAB and order STAB to hold a full hearing. 

The second issue is whether the District Court erred in 

failing to make specific findings of fact and conclusions of 

law. The District Court order affirming STAB's order stated 

the following: "The Court finds the order of denial is 

sustained by good and sufficient evidence, and concludes the 

order of denial should be affirmed . . . " Hi-Line filed a 

motion for specific findings of fact and conclusions of law 

pursuant to Rule 52 (a), M.R.Civ.P. which was denied by the 

District Court. 

Rule 52 (a) , M.R.Civ.P. reads in part: 

In all actions tried upon the facts 

without a jury or with an advisory jury, 

the court shall find the facts specially 

and state separately its conclusions of 

law thereon. . . This issue requires discussion of SS 15-2-303, 2-4-703 

and 2-4-704, MCA. 
Judicial review of contested cases decided by the State 

Tax Appeal Board are in part governed by $ 15-2-303, MCA, 

which provides: 

(4) Notwithstanding the provisions of 

2-4-704 (I), the court may, for good 

cause shown, permit additional evidence 

to be introduced. 

Section 2-4-703, MCA, relating to judicial review of 

contested cases under the "Montana Administrative Procedure 

Act," provides: 

- If, before the ---- date set for hearinq, 

application ---- is made to the court - for 

leave - to present additional evidence . . . the court may order that the 

additional evidence be taken before the 

agency upon conditions determined by the 

court. The agency may modify its findings and decision by reason of the 

additional evidence and shall file that 

evidence and any modifications, new 

findings, or decisions with the reviewing court. [Emphasis supplied.] 

Section 2-4-704, MCA, establishes the standard of judicial review of contested MAPA cases: 

(1) The review shall be conducted by 

the court without a jury and shall be 

confined to the record. In cases of 

alleged irregularities in procedure 

before the agency not shown in the 

record, proof thereof may be taken in 

the court. The court, upon request, 

shall hear oral argument and receive 

written briefs. 

(2) The court may not substitute its 

judgment for that of the agency as to 

the weight of the evidence on questions 

of fact. The court may affirm the 

decision of the agency or remand the 

case for further proceedings. The court 

may reverse or modify the decision if 

substantial rights of the appellant have 

been prejudiced . . . 
In judicial review of contested cases, the court, as 

authorized by § 15-2-303 (4) , MCA, may, on its own initiative 

based on the record upon which judicial review is requested 

or upon motion of a party, find good cause and permit additional evidence to be introduced. If the court grants such 

permission, the court must then make and file as part of the 

record findings of fact and conclusions of law. Rule 52(a), 

M.R.Civ.P. 

Judicial review of contested MAPA cases, other than 

those under 5 15-2-303, which arise under Title 7, Part 7, of 

the Montana Administrative Procedure Act, as to receipt of 

additional evidence, are controlled by § 2-4-703, MCA. 

Section 2-4-703 requires application prior to the date set 

for hearing for leave of court to present additional 

evidence. 

The standard of review that applies to MAPA contested 

cases, S 2-4-704 (I), MCA, requires that the review shall be 

confined to the record. When the court has, under § 2-4-703, 

MCA, allowed additional evidence to be presented, it will be 

presented to the agency and not to the court. 

However, when additional evidence is presented during 

review of a STAB decision, such evidence may be introduced 

before the court. Findings of fact and conclusions of law are 

then required to be made by the court. Rule 52(a), 

M.R.Civ.P. 

In this case, the District Court did not permit or 

receive additional evidence. The court's decision was based 

upon the STAB record, written and oral arguments. Therefore, 

Rule 52(a) does not apply in this case and written findings 

and conclusions by the court are not required. 

The final issue is whether STAB properly denied 

Hi-Line's request for property tax exemption based on 

§ 15-6-301, MCA. We are remanding this case for further 
*papuemaa 

Marnax syyq *anssy 

s,auy~-rg uoyqom 203 e ia3uenurqu03 1A~6urpxo33e aM TTJM qou 

quau~do~anap 30 ayq pxo~ax anp o s,gy~,s TesnSax o quexb