1 IN TH E COURT OF APPEALS O F THE ST ATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 O pin ionN um

be r: ___ ____ ____ ___ 3 Fi lin g D at e: O ct obe r 30, 201 7 4 N O. A -1 -C A -3 5126 5 CA BLE O NE, INC ., a De law are 6 corporation, 7 Plaintiff-Appellee, 8 v. 9 NEW MEX ICO T AX ATION 10 AN D REVE NU E D EP AR TME NT, 11 a gov ernm ental agency of t he 12 State of N ew Mexico, and 13 D EM ES IAP A D IL LA , in h er of fi ci al 14 capacity as the Secr etary of t he 15 Ne w Mexico Taxation and 16 Re venue De partm ent, 17 D ef

en dants -Appe llants

. 18 AP PE AL FR OM T HE D ISTRICT C OUR T OF SA NTAFE CO UN TY 19 F ra nc is J . M at he w , D ist ri ctJu dg e 20 Sutin, T hay er & Brow ne, A PC 21 Justi n R. S aw y er 22 Tim othyR. Van Valen 23 Albuquerque, N M1 Cah il l Go rd on & Rei nd el , LLP

2 Cherie R . K iser 3 Se anP

. T onol li 4 W ashingt on, D .C. 5 for Appellee 6 He ctor H . B alderas, Attorney Ge neral 7 San ta Fe, NM 8 N ewMe xic o T ax at ion& Re ve nue D ep ar tm en t 9 Le gal Service s Bureau 10 Diana A . Martwic k, Spec ial Assistant Attorney Ge neral 11 Santa Fe , N M 12 fo r Appe llants1 OPIN ION

2 HAN ISEE, Judge. 3 { 1} W e ha ve be fo re us a m atte r of

f ir st i m pr es sio n—whe the r a co m pany w hose 4 tangi ble pr ope rty

loc at ed in New Mex ic o is use d to pr ovi de c ab le te le vis ion 5 pr ogr am

m ing , int er

ne t, a nd i nte rc onne ct ed

V oic e ove r In te rn et

P ro toco l (V oI P) to 6 cu sto m er s c om es w ith in the de fi nit ionof “ co m m uni cations sy ste m , ” the re by 7 subj ec tin g it

to re cl as sif

ic at iona nd v al ua tio n by the New Me xic o T ax at iona nd 8 Re ve nue D ep ar

tm en t ( the D ep ar

tm en t)

. W e hol d C ab le O ne ’ s tangi ble pr ope rty f al ls 9 square ly

w ith in the P ro pe rty

T ax Co de ’ s (the Co de ), N MS A 1978 , §§ 7 -3 5- 1 to - 38- 1 0 9 3 ( 1 9 7 3 , a s a me n d e dt h r o u g h 2 0 1 6 ) , d e f i n i t i o n o f “c o mmu n i c a t i o n s s ys t e m” 11 pur suant t o S ec tio n 7- 36- 30( B) (1 ) an d th at the D ep ar tm en t p r o p e r l y r e c l a s s if ie d it a nd 12 subj ec te d it to val ua tio n also pur suant to Se ct ion 7- 36- 30. T he dis tr ic t c ourt havin g 13 co nc lu de d o th erwi se , we rev ers e. 14 BACKGRO UND 15 { 2} Ca

ble O ne ope rate s tw o c ab le sy ste m s in N e w M e x i co : on e in S an dova l C ounty 16 (the Rio Rancho sy stem ) and one in Chavez County (the Roswe ll sy stem ). Ea ch 17 sy stem

is capable of providi ng Cable One’ s custom ers with cable television service 18 (i

. e. , vid eo pr ogr am

m ing ), int er

ne t a cc es s, a nd i n t e r c o nn e c t e d V o I P

. W h e nCa ble O ne 19 be gan it s op er at ion s inN ewMe xic o inthe e ar ly 198 0s, it s pr im ar

y pu rp ose w as to15 “ C e n t r a l a s s e s s m e n t ” g e n e r a l l y r e f e r s t o a s s e s s m e n tb y

as t a t e t a x at ion 1 1 6 au tho ri t y r a t h e r t h a n l o c a l a s s e s s o r s a n d d e n o t e s t h e u s e o f a s p e c i a l m e t h o d of 17 va lua tio n in te nde d to a ddr es s th e ch al le nge of uni fo rm ly

va lui ng c er

ta in ty pe s of 18 bu si ne ss es an d p ro pe rty. See Com cast Corp. v. De p’t of Rev

. , 337 P

. 3d 7 68, 772 -7 3 19 (O r. 201 4) ( en banc ) (e xpl ai nin g th at c en tr al a sse ssm en t “ ha d it s or igi ns i n un it 20 va lua tio n, a n a sse ssm en t m ethod tha t . .

. w as de vis ed to addre ss the dif fi cu lt ta sk o f 21 va lui ng a

bus ine ss . . . w he n the pr ope rty of the busi ne ss is loc at ed in m or e than on e 22 ta xin g di str ic t[ , ] ” an d “ de ve lop ed to r em edy the pe rc ei ve d pr obl em s w ithuni t 23 va lua tio ns p er fo rm ed by loc al a sse sso rs ”) ; see als o § 7- 36- 2( B) , ( C) ( re se rv ing to the

2 1 pr ovi de c ab le te le vis ionservi ce. Be tw ee n 20 02 and 2 011, Ca ble O ne r ep ur

pose d a 2 num be r of it s c hanne ls i n bo th t he Ri o R an ch o and R osw el l sy ste m s inor de r to 3 p ro v i d e h i g h -s p ee dd at a ( i n t er n et ) a n di n t er co n n ec t ed Vo IP s er v i ce s . C ab l e O n e ’s 4 tangi ble pr ope rty w ith in N ew Me xic o inc lud es a “ he ad en d” fo r ea ch of th e two 5 sy ste m s it

ope rate s. A cc or din g to Ca ble O ne , a “ ‘ he ad en d’

. . . se rv es as a co lle ct ion 6 sy stem for signals over the cable television sy stem ” and “ also hou ses equipm ent that 7 enables Cable One to provid e internet ac cess service a nd int erconnected V oIP service 8 to custom ers over the sam e cable television sy stem .” Cable One’ s sy stem uses opt ical 9 m eans t o tr an sm it an d r ec ei ve inf orm at ion

. 10 { 3} In 2008, the Depar tm ent “ becam e aw are that m any cab l e co m

panies wer e 11 tr an sit ion ing f

ro m one -w ay to tw o- w ay co m

m uni catio n se rv ic es . ” H ist or ic al ly , c ab le 12 television com

panies wer e considered to p ro v i d e “ one-way ” service, m eaning that 13 the ir sy ste m s w er e de sig ne d to tr an sm it but not re ce ive inf orm at ion an d w er e thu s no t 14 co nsi d e r e d

“ c o m m un i c at i o n s s y s t e m s ” f

o r p ur p o s e s o f c e n t r al a sse ssm en t. T el ep hone 117 D ep ar

tm en t the auth or ity

to as se ss the pr ope rty

of part ic ular ty

pe s of bus ine ss) ; § 7- 18 36- 15( B) ( pr es cr ibi n g a s t an dard va lua tio n m ethod fo r al l pr ope rty “ [u ] nle ss a

m ethod 19 or m ethods of va lua tio n ar e au tho ri ze d inS ec tio ns 7 -3 6- 20 thr ough7- 36- 33” ); §§ 7

- 20 36- 22 t o - 25, a nd - 27 t o - 33 ( pr ovi din g aspe ci al a nd d if fe re nt v al ua tio n m ethod fo r 21 each ty

pe of property

subject to ce ntral assessm ent under Section 7-36-2(B), (C) ).

3 1 co m panie s, by

c ontra st, pr ovi de tw o- w ay se rv ic e be ca

use the ir sy ste m s ar e ca

pable 2 of both tr an sm itt ing a nd r ec ei vin g in fo rm at ion

. I n r es pons e to the “ ev er [- ] ev olv ing 3 te ch nol ogi ca l a dvanc em en ts [i n] the ca ble te le vis ion , br oa dband i nte rn et , V oI P, a nd 4 tr ad iti ona l t el ep hone ind ustr[ ie s, ] ” the D ep ar

tm en t began ce ntr al ly

a sse ssi ng “ al l 5 ca ble c om panie s op er at ing in the state whi ch pr ovi de d tw o- w ay c om m uni catio ns 6 se rv ic es that[ Se ct ion s] 7- 36- 2 and 7 -3 6- 30 .

. . gov er ne d. ” Sp ec if

ic al ly , the 7 D ep ar tm en t no w c en tr al ly

a sse sse s “ al l c ab le te le vis ionc om panie s w hic h pr ovi de 8 br oa db an d i nt ern etan d Vo IP s erv ic es .” 9 { 4} Upon being no tified that the Depar tm ent recla ssified Cable One’ s property as 10 a “ co m

m uni catio ns sy ste m , ” Ca

ble O ne be gan pay ing it s ta xe s un de r pr ote st. Ca ble 11 O ne f ile d a co m

pla int in January 2014 se ek ing apart ia l r ef und of it s 20 13 t ax es pa id 1 2 a n da d e c l a r a t o ry j u d g me n tt h a t i t s p r o p e rt y i s n o tp a rto f ac o mmu n i c a t i o n s s ys t e m. 13 Inr es pons e to the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s qu es tio n a t the m oti on f or sum m ar y j udgm en t 14 hearing regarding why its internet access and V oIP service s did no t q u al i fy under 15 Section 7-36-30(B)’ s definition of “ com m unication s sy stem ,” Cable One conceded 16 that thos e services “ would fit within [Sec tion 7-36-30(B)(1)’ s] definition” bu t argued4

1 that the court could not look at Subsection (B )(1) “ in a vacuum .” Cable O ne argued 2 tha t “ canons of

statut or y c onstru ct iona re c le ar

. . . tha t [c ourts ar e] to look at a sta tut e 3 in i ts whol e an d gi ve e ff ec t t o e ve ry

pr ovi sio n of

it

. ” Ca ble O ne c ont en de d th at

the 4 D e p a rt me n t ’s r e l i a n c e o n S ub s e c t i o n ( B ) ( 1 ) ’s d e f i n i t i o no f “co m

m un i c a t i o n s s ys t e m” 5 t o g u i d e its determ ination failed to consider the Code’ s overall schem e of ce ntral 6 as se ssm en t and w he the r the L eg isl at ur e int en de d fo r pr ope rt

y suc h as Ca

ble O ne ’ s to 7 co m e w ith in tha t sc he m e. A s e vid en ce that the L eg islat ur e did not

int en d f or it s 8 pr ope rty to b e ce ntr al ly a sse sse d, Ca

ble O ne r el ie d on( 1) dis tin ct ion s be tw ee n it a nd 9 oth er ce ntr al ly -a sse sse d in dustri es , suc h a s w he the r the y a re r eg ula te d by

the P ubl ic 10 Reg ul at io ns Co m

m is si on an d c ro ss co un ty lin es ; (2 ) th e d efi ni ti on of “ pl an t” pro pe rty 11 contained in Section 7-36 -30(B)( 4 ), o f which Cable One contended it had non e, 12 m eanin g it

ha d no r el ev an t pr ope rty

to be c en tr al ly

a sse sse d; ( 3) the f

ai lur e of H ouse 13 Bill 617 (H .B. 617) durin g the 200 8 legislativ e session, which w ould have am ended 14 the de fini ti on of “ co m m uni catio ns s y ste m ;” a nd ( 4) the D ep ar tm en t’ s own lo ng15 standi ng c onstru ction that c ab le c om panie s are not

sub j ec t t o c en tr al a sse ssm en t, 16 w hic h C ab le O ne a rg ue s sh oul d be c ontro lli ng. 17 { 5} T he D ep ar

tm en t r es pond ed

that w he n C ab le O ne r ep ur pose d part s of

it s 18 ex ist ing sy ste m

be tw ee n 2002 and 2 011 in o rd er to be able to both tr an sm it an d 19 re ce ive inf

orm at ion , it

—l ike suc h si m ilarl y

c ap ab le te le co m

m uni catio ns5

1 co m panie s

— b e c am e s u

b j e c t t o c en tr al a sse ssm en t un de r Se ct ion s 7- 36- 2 and 7 -3 6- 30 2 be ca use it s pr ope rty

the n pl ai nly

qua lif ie d un de r the statut or

y de fi nit ionof 3 “ co m m uni catio ns s y ste m . ” T he D ep ar tm en t no te d th at the de fi nit ion em plo y s and the 4 sta tut e in g en er al re fe rs to the br oa de r te rm “ co m m uni catio ns sy ste m ” rathe r than th e 5 n a rr o w e r

t e rm “ te le com

m unication s sy stem ” that Cable One urged the district court 6 t o co n cl u d e t h e L eg i s l at u re i n t en d ed . Th e D ep ar t m en tal s o ch al l en g ed Ca b l e O n e’s 7 int er pr et at ionof

the de fi nit ionof

“ plant” a s vi ola tiv e of

r ule s of statut or y c o n s tru ct ion 8 an d i ts rel ia nc e o n H.B. 6 17 “ to in fer l eg is la ti ve in te nt ” as “ gr ou nd le ss .” 9 { 6} T he dis tr ic t co urt gr an te d inpart Ca ble O ne ’ s m oti on f

or sum m ar y j udgm en t, 1 0 c o n c l u d i n g t h a tC ab l e O n e ’s p r o p e rt y “i s n o tp a rto f a‘c o mmu n i c a t i o n [ s ] s ys t e m’ 11 unde r the

. . . Code .” In it s orde r, the dis tr ic t c ourt ne ve r ad dr es se d w he the r Ca ble 12 One ’s pro pe rty m etSect io n 7- 36 -3 0( B)(1 )’s de fin it io n o f “ co m m un ic at io ns syste m .” 1 3 In s t ea d , i tp ri m ar i l y re l i ed o n t h e a d m i n i s t ra t i v e g l o s s d o c t r i n e

— i .e ., t h at “ [a ]n 14 adm inistrative interpretation of ev en am bigu ous language m ight bind an agency over 15 a pe ri od o f ti m e to a

part ic ular co nstru ct ion ” as the dis tr ic t c ourt de sc ri be d it —and 16 its view of the fa ilure of H .B. 617 as “ persuasive evidence th at [t he Le gislature] 17 int en de d to pr es er

ve the the n c ur

re nt a sse ssm en t pr ac tic es c onc e r n i n g c a b l e t e l e vis ion 18 pr ope rty ” to con cl ude tha t Cable O ne ’ s pr ope rty “ is n ot p ar

t of a‘ co m m uni catio n[ s] 19 syste m ’ un de r th e . . . Cod e.”6

1 { 7} The district court denied Cable One’ s summ ary j udgm ent m otion with re spect 2 to its claim

for a refund of it s 2 0 1 3 taxes based upon its need to cond uct an 3 ev ide nti ar

y he ar ing to as cert ai n the r ef und am ount

to w hic h C ab le O ne m ay be 4 en tit le d. Whil e the January 201 4 a ct ionw as sti ll pe ndi ng, Ca ble O ne f ile d ase co nd 5 com plaint in January

2015 seeking the sam e re lief as to its 2014 taxes. A fter the c ases 6 w er e co nsol ida te d, Ca

ble O ne m ove d f

or sum m ar y j udgm en t on its r ef

und cl ai m s f

or 7 ta x years 2 01 3 a nd 20 14 . Th e pa rti es st ip ul at edto th e refu nd am ou nt s fo r th os e two 8 y ears a n d ag re ed that there w as no need for an evidentiary hearing. I n its final 9 j udgm en t, the dis tr ic t co urt or de re d th e D ep ar tm en t t o r ef

und Ca ble O ne $54 , 387. 40 10 of it s 20 13 t ax es an d $5 3, 986. 84 o f its 201 4 ta xe s, am ount s th at r ep re se nt the 11 “ di ffer en ce b et ween th e p ro pe rty ta xe s Cab le One pa id un de r cen tra l as se ss m en t . . . 12 an d w ha t i t w oul d have pa id u nd er loc al a sse ssm en t. ” T he D ep ar tm en t t im el y 13 ap pe al ed

. 14 DISC US SION 15 { 8} The singular questio n b ef o re u s i s wh et h ert h e D ep ar t m en tp ro p er l y re cl as sified 16 Cable O ne’ s property as a “ com

m unication s sy stem ?” The D epartm ent argues that 17 w he n C ab le O ne r ep ur pose d it s e qui pm en t t o e xpand i ts s er vic es to in cl ude both 18 int er ne t a cc es s and V oI P, it “ tr an sf orm ed its [] busi ne ss fr om a ca ble co m pany int o a 19 co m m uni catio ns s y ste m ” as de fi ne d inS ec tio n 7- 36- 30( B) (1 ), thus br ing ing Ca ble7

1 One under the D e pa

r t m e nt ’ s a ut hority . C able One argues that the Le gislature intend ed 2 the term

“ com m unication s sy stem ” to apply only to “ t ra d ition al, regulated 3 te le co m

m uni catio ns c om

panie s, ” w hic h C ab le O ne is not , m eanin g th e D ep ar tm en t 4 ha d no auth or ity

to re cl as sif

y Ca ble O ne ’ s prop er

ty an d valu e it unde r Se ct ion7- 36- 5 30. W e ag re e w iththe D ep ar tm en t. 6 Stand ard of R eview 7 { 9} “ Su mm ary

j udgm en t is a

ppr opr ia te w he re the re a re no g enuin e iss ue s of 8 m aterial f

act and the m ovant is enti tled to j udgm ent as a m atter of law. ” Self v. United 9 P arc el Serv ., In c. , 1998-NMS C-046, ¶ 6, 126 N. M. 396, 970 P. 2d 58 2. T he parties 10 agree that there ar e n o m aterial f acts in dispu te and that the issue presented on appeal 11 is pu rel y

leg al

. See F

ed

. E xp ress C orp. v . A be

yta , 2004-NMC A- 011, ¶ 2, 135 N.M. 12 37, 84 P

. 3d 8 5. W e lik ew ise re vie w de nov o th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s c onc lus ionthat C ab le 13 O ne ’ s pr ope rty

is not part of ac om m uni catio ns s y ste m

be ca use that c onc lus ionr es ts 14 up on th e d is tri ctco ur t’s i nt erp ret at io n o f th e Co de , whi ch is al so a q ue st io n o f la w. 15 See Cooper v. Chevron U. S.A ., Inc. , 200 2- N MS C- 020, ¶ 16, 132 N

. M. 382 , 49 P

. 3d 16 61 (“ The m eaning of language us ed in a statute is a question of l aw t h at w e re view 17 de novo .” ).8

1 I. Th e Le gis lat ur e In te nd ed f or C ab le On e’ s P ro pe rt y t o B e C las sif ie d as 2 “Com m unications S ystem ” and Su bjec t to C entr al Ass es s men t by t he 3 De partm ent 4 A . A pp lic ab le R ul es of S ta tu to ry C on st ru ct ion 5 { 10} Inc onstru ing a sta tut e, our “ pr im ar y goa l is t o a sc er

ta in and g ive e ff

ec t t o th e 6 in te nt of t he Legi sl atur e.” St a r ko , I n c. v. N. M. H

u ma n Servs. D ep’t , 2 0 14- N MS C- 033, 7 ¶ 18, 333 P. 3d 947 (i nte rn al quo ta tio n m ar ks and c itatio n om itt ed ). “ Indis ce rn ing the 8 Leg is la tu re’s in te nt , we are ai de d by cl as si c can on s o f st atut ory co ns tru ct io n, an d we 9 lookfirst to the plain lang uage of the statute, giving the words their ordinary 10 m eaning, un l es s the Le gislature indi cates a differe nt one was intended.” M arbo b 11 Ene r gy Corp. v. N. M. Oil C

onservati on Comm’n , 2009-NMS C-013, ¶ 9, 146 N. M. 12 24, 206 P

. 3d 1 35 ( al te ratio n, int er na l qu ota tio n m ar

ks, a nd c itatio n om itt ed ). W e al so 13 exam ine “ the context in which [the s t at u te] wa s prom ulgated, includin g the histo ry 14 of t he statute and the objec t and purpos e th e Legislature sough t to accom plish .” Maes 15 v. A udub on I

nde m . I ns. G rp. , 200 7- N MS C- 046, ¶ 11, 142 N

. M. 235 , 164 P

. 3d 9 34. 16 In instances where the Le gislature has specia lly defined a ter

m in a statute, c ourts are 1 7 re qui r e d t o f

o l l o w a n d ap p l y t h e L e g i s l a tu r e ’ s d e f i n i t i o n “ u n l e s s t h e d e f

i n i t i o n is 18 ar bitrary , c re at es obv iou s in co ngr uit ie s in the sta tut e, de fe at s a m aj or pur pose of the 19 le gi sl at io n[ ,] or i s s o d is co r da nt to co m m on us ag e as to ge ne rat e co nf us io n.” 20 W ils ch ins kyv . M

edina , 1989-NMS C-047, ¶ 26, 108 N. M. 511, 775 P. 2d 71 3 (internal9

1 quot at ionm ar

ks and c itatio n om itt ed ). W e ac co rd suc h we igh t to st at uto ry de fi nit ion s 2 be ca use c ourts “pr es um e [tha t st at uto ry de fi nit ion s] a cc ur at el y re fl ec t l eg isl at ive 3 in te nt .” 2A No rm an J. Si ng er, Sta tut es and Sta tut oryCo nstruc tio n § 47 :7 at 31 0 ( 7th 4 e d . 2 0 1 4 ). “ Un l es s i two u l dl ea dt o an u n re as o n ab l e r es u l t , we re g ar da s t at u t e’s 5 definition of a term as t he Le gislature’ s intended m eaning.” M orr is v

. B rand

en burg , 6 2016 -N MS C- 027, ¶ 15, 376 P. 3d 8 36; Sw

. L and In v. , I nc . v . H ubba rt , 1993-NMS C7 072, ¶ 6, 116 N

. M. 742 , 867 P

. 2d 412 (e xpl ai nin g in a ca se inv olv ing int er pr et at ion 8 of the te rm

“ ow ne r” a s c ont ai ne d inthe Code , t ha t c ourts “ m ust f oll owthe 9 [L ] eg isl at

ur e’ s in te nt as e vid en ce d by ale gis la tiv e de fi nit ionunl es s th at de fi nit ion 10 results in an unreasonabl e classifica tion”). 11 B. Cable One Com es Within the Statu tory De finition o f “ Co m m unications 12 S y s t e m” 13 { 11} A s u s e d i n t h e C o d e , “ c o m m u n i c a t i o n s s y s t e m ” m e a n s “ a s y s t em f orthe 14 tr an sm iss iona nd r ec ep tio n of inf orm at ionby

the use of

e lectr onic, m ag ne tic or 15 opt ic al m eans o r an y

c om bin at ion the re of

a nd w hic h sy ste m

or a ny portio n th er eo f 16 is av ai labl e fo r us e by ano th er p ers on forco ns id erat io n.” Sect io n 7 -3 6- 30 (B)( 1) . As 17 the D ep ar

tm en t po int s ou t, the L eg isl at ur e’ s de fi nit ione vin ce s it s in te nt tha t any 18 pr ope rty

that— (1 ) is u se d f

or the tr an sm iss iona nd r ecep ti on of inf orm at ion ; ( 2) 19 em plo y s ele ctro nic , m ag ne tic , or opt ic al m ea

ns, or a ny c om bin at ionthe re of

, to 20 ac co m

pli sh the tr an sm itt al an d re ce pti on of inf orm at ion ; an d ( 3) that i t be a va ila ble10

1 fo r use by

a nothe r pe rs on fo r co nsi de ratio n is co nsi de re d part of a“ co m m uni catio ns 2 sy stem .” Id

. T he und isp ute d f

ac ts i n th e re co rd

e sta bli sh tha t Cab le O ne ’ s pr ope rty 3 qua lif ie s un de r the pla in la ngua ge of Se ct ion 7- 36- 30( A ) an d ( B) (1 ) fo r cl as sif ic at ion 4 as part of a “ co m

m uni catio ns sy ste m . ” Ca

ble O ne , in fa ct , co nc ed ed at the m oti on f

or 5 sum m ar y j udgm en t he ar ing that i ts p ro pe rty in N ew Me xic o m ee ts the de fi nit ionof 6 “ co m m un ic at io ns syste m .” 7 { 12} Ca

ble O ne a rg ue s, how ev er , that the f ac t tha t the D ep ar

tm en t “begin[s ] a nd 8 en d[ s it s] ar gum en t w ith the de fi nit ion of ‘ co m m uni catio ns sy ste m ’ ” in Se ct ion7- 36- 9 30( B) (1 ) co nst itu te s “ se le ct ive pars ing of the statut or y sc he m e. ” A cc or din g to C ab le 10 O ne , a nothe r sta tut or

y pr ovi sio n—s pe ci fi ca lly

S ec tio n 7- 36- 30( B) (4 )— “ giv e[ s] r ise 1 1 t o [a n ] ambi g u i t y” re g ar d i n g wh et h e r t h e L eg i s l at u re i n t en d ed fo r C ab l e O n e’s 12 pr ope rty

to be c onsi de re d part

of a“ co m m uni catio ns s y ste m . ” T hus, Ca ble O ne 13 ar gue s th at

w e m ust tur n to oth er int er

pr et ive ai ds in orde r to det er m ine w he the r the 1 4 s t a tu t o ry d e f

i n i t i o n o f “ c o mm u n i c a t i o n s s ys t e m” ap p l i e s t o C ab l e On e ’s p r o p e rt y. 15 What Cable O ne disregards, however, is that “ techniques in aid of construction o f a 16 statute are used to resolve an am bigu ity , not to create one.” Ta foya v

. N. M

. Sta te 17 P oli ce B d. , 197 0- N MS C- 106, ¶ 13, 81 N

. M. 710 , 472 P

. 2d 9 73. Mo re ove r, in 18 ins tanc es suc h a s th is w he re th e Le gis la tur e ha s sp ec ia lly de fi ne d ate rm , the 19 D ep ar tm ent’ s fo cu s o n S ect io n 7 -3 6- 30 (B)( 1) ’s def in it io n i s ap pr op ria te be caus e “ our11

1 an al y sis is boun d by

the statut or

y langua ge ” an d w e ar e not a t l ibe rty to “ go b ey ond 2 th e p l a i n l an gu ag e” o f th e d efi ni ti on . M orr is , 201 6- N MS C- 027, ¶ 16. T ha t i s 3 part ic ularl y

so whe re , a s he re , the party ch al le ngi ng the ap pli catio n of the de fi nit ion 4 has failed to allege—m uch less establish —that the definitio n ei t h er leads to an 5 unr ea sona

ble r es ult , is ar

bitrary , is inc ongr

uous w iththe r es t of the statut e, de fe at s th e 6 le gis la tiv e pur

pose of the statut e, or ge ne rate s co nf usi on be ca

use it is s o di sc or dant 7 to co m m on us ag e. Se e id. ¶

15; W ilschins ky , 198 9- N MS C- 047, ¶ 26. 8 { 13} T hus, be ca

use Ca ble O ne ha s f

ai le d to c ha lle nge the statut or y de fi nit ionit se lf 9 unde r the appl ic ab le standard , no f urthe r co nstru ct ionis re qui re d. Howev er, to the 10 ex te nt C ab le O ne ’ s a sse rt ed a m big uity a rg um ent c oul d be c onstru ed a s c ont en din g 11 tha t the de fi nit ionof “ co m m uni catio ns s y ste m ” is i nc ongruo us w iththe r es t of 12 Se ct ion7- 36- 30 o r oth er pr ovi sio ns of the Co de , w e ex pla in w hy tha t arg um en t a lso 13 fa ils

. 14 C . Se ct ion 7- 36- 30( B) (1 )’ s D ef in it ion of “C om m un ic at ion s Sy st em ” Is N ot 15 “Incongruous” With S ection 7-36-30(B) (4)’s D efinit ion of “Plant ” 16 { 14} “ Pl an t” is de fi ne d a s “ al l t an gib le pr ope rty lo cat ed in this state a nd u se d or 17 useful for th e p rovisio n of co m m unication service as r eflec ted by the uniform

sy stem 18 of a cc ount ing in use by

the ta xpay er , but

doe s not inclu de c onstru ct ionw ork in 19 pr ogr ess or m at er ia ls and s uppl ie s[

. ] ” Se ct ion7- 36- 30( B) (4 ). A cc or din g to Ca ble 20 O ne , “ [n ] one of

Ca ble O ne ’ s pr ope rty

in

. . . N ewMe xic o m eet s [S ec tio n 7- 36-12

1 30( B) (4 )’ s] de fi nit ion[ of ‘ plant’ ] , a s C ab le O ne ha s ne ve r m ai nta ine d an d is n ot 2 re qui re d to m ai nta in i ts b ooks a nd re co rd s in a cc or danc e w itha ny uni fo rm sy ste m of 3 ac co unt ing

. ” Ca

ble O ne c ont en ds tha t the phr as e “ un ifo rmsy ste m of a cc ount ing ” 4 refe rs specifically and onlyto the Federa l Com m unication s Com

m issio n’ s Uniform 5 Sy ste m of A cc ount s ( U SO A )— “ a his tor ic al fin an cia l a cc ount ing sy ste m ” tha t i s 6 intended “ for use by

telephone com

panies,” 47 C. F. R. § 3 2.1 (2016); 47 U.S .C. 7 § 22 0( a) (2 ) (2 012) —de spi te the fa ci al dif fe re nc es be tw ee n th e te rm s. T hus, r ea sons 8 Ca ble O ne , be ca

use it doe s no t and i s no t re qui re d to use the U SO A , it doe s no t have 9 pr ope rty

that qu al if

ie s a s a“ pl an t” a s c ont em pla te d by S ec tio n 7- 36- 30( B) (4 ), a nd 10 because it does not have property that qualifies as a “plant,” it cannot be considered 11 to h av e pr ope rt

y that i s part

of a“ co m m uni catio ns s y ste m ” as de fi ne d in S ec tio n 7- 1 2 36- 30( B ) ( 1 )

. C ab l e O n e ’ s s t r a i n e dr e a d i n g o f S e c t i o n 7

- 3 6

- 3 0

—

p a rt i c u l a r l y

i ts 13 decontexualization of the term “ plant” and the inordin ate we ight it p laces on the term 14 “ uniform s ystem

of acc ount ing” as used within th e definition of “ plant”—is an 15 extrem e deviation from not on ly the approach taken through out th e Cod e with respect 16 to the r el at ion shi p be tw ee n pr ope rty c la ssi fi catio n an d valu at ion , but a lso w el l17 es ta bli she d r ule s of statut or y c onstru ct ion

. 18 { 15} Our L egislature enacted a p ro p er t y tax code that distin guish es betwe en 19 dif fe re nt c la sse s of

pr ope rty a nd e sta bli she s sp ec ia l m ethods of va lua tio n ti ed

to a13

1 pr op ert y ’s cla ss ifi cat io n. Se e ge ne ral ly§§ 7 -3 6- 1 to - 33. Whil e “ cl as sif ic at ion ” an d 2 “ va lu at io n” are rel at edco nc ep ts , th ey are d is ti nc t. See , e. g. , § 7- 36- 2( E ) (p ro vid ing 3 tha t the D ep ar

tm en t “ m ay

de le ga te auth or ity

to the c ounty

a sse sso r fo r the va lua tio n 4 and classification of property ” (e m phasis add ed)). 5 { 16} T he pur

pose of pr ope rty c la ssi fi catio n is “ to s hif t the bur de n of

ta xe s f ro m 6 pr ope rty , a s su ch , t o pr od uc tivity , . . . it s ut ili ty , it s ge ne ra l se tti ng i n th e ec onom ic 7 or ganiz at ion of soc ie ty , so tha t e ve ry [] one w ill be c al le d up on t o c ontri but e ac co rd ing 8 to his abil ity

to bear the burdens[.] ” H ilg er v . M oore , 182 P. 477, 483 (Mont. 1919 ). 9 T hus, c la ssi fi catio n of pr ope rty inh er en tly fo cu se s on cate gor iz ing pr ope rty ba se d on 10 it s u se . See , e. g. , N. M. Const. art. VI II, § 3 (exem pting from

taxation certain classes 11 of pr ope rty , inc lud ing “ al l c hur chpr ope rty not used f or c om m erc ia l purp ose s, a ll 1 2 p r o p e rt y used

f or ed uc at ion al or ch ar ita

ble pur pose s, [ an d] a ll ce m et er ie s not use d or 13 held for private o r corporate profit” (em phases added)); § 7-36-2.1(A ) (providing th at 14 “ [p] roperty

subject to valuatio n for prop erty taxation purpos es shall be classified as 1 5 either re sidential pr o p er t y o r n o n re s i d en t i al p ro p er t y”); § 7 -3 6 -2 0 (p ro v i d i n g a s p ecial 16 m ethod of

va lua tio n f

or “ land used

pr im ar ily

f or ag ric ult

ur al pur pose s” ); § 7- 36- 17 23( A ) (p ro vid ing aspe ci al m ethod of va lua tio n for

“ al l m ine ra l pr ope rty

a nd p ro pe rty 18 used in connection with m ineral property ”).14

1 { 17} Va luation , by

contrast, f

ocuses on th e p rocess b y

which the governm ent—after 2 ta kin g in to c onsi de ratio n th e pur pose f or w hic h part ic ular pr ope rty is 3 us ed —as cert ai ns th e p ro pe rty’ s v al ue in or de r to le vy a u ni fo rm tax th ereo n. See N. M. 4 Co nst

. a rt

. V II I, § 1(A ) (p ro vid ing tha t “ ta xe s levi ed upontangi ble pr ope rty sha ll be 5 in propo rtion to th e v alue t hereof, ” and “ [d] iffer ent m ethods m ay be provided b y law 6 to dete rm ine value of differ ent kind s of property ”); First Nat ’l Bank v. Be rnali llo Cty. 7 Val ua tion Prot es t B d. , 1 9 7 7

- N M C A

- 0 0 5 , ¶ 2 9 , 9 0 N

. M

. 1 1 0 , 5 6 0 P

. 2 d174 8 (ex p laining that those tasked with assessin g or valuing property m ust “ exercise an 9 hone st j udgm en t” a nd tha t an “ ‘ hone st j udgm en t’ is not one that f

av or s th e sta te or 10 the ta xpay er ” but “ shou ld be a fa ir , re as ona ble , j ust an d tr

uth fu l j udgm en t of

va lua tio n 11 of pr ope rty ”) ; see a lso Gerner v. State Tax Comm ’n , 1963-NMS C-022, ¶ 9, 71 N. M. 12 385, 378 P

. 2d 6 19 ( ex pla ini ng tha t “ to h av e uni fo rm ity a nd e qua lity in a

f orm of ta x, 13 the va lua tio ns m

ust be es ta

bli she d by

som e standard ”) ; B lac k’

s L awD ic tio nary178 4 14 (1 0the d. 2014 ) (d ef

ini ng “ as se sse d va lua tio n” as “ [t ] he va lue tha t a ta xin g auth or ity 15 giv es to pr ope rty

a nd t o w hic h th e ta x r at e is a ppl ie d” ). In or der to d et er m ine the 16 pr ope r va lua tio n m ethod to u se to as se ss the va lue of pr ope rty , the pr ope rty m ust f ir st 17 be cla ss ifi ed

. Se e Ji ca ril la A pac he Na tio n v . R odar te , 2004 -N MS C- 035, ¶¶ 2, 3, 14, 18 136 N

. M. 630 , 103 P

. 3d 5 54 (d es cribing the iss ue pr es en te d a s w he the r ce rt ai n 19 property

“ s h o u ld be classified and valued as agricultural land” rather than15

1 “ recr eational” land because “ [t] he questio n whether property is entitled to the special 2 valuation m ethod in Sec tion 7 -3 6 -2 0 [for land used prim arily for agr icultural 3 pur pose s] is a que sti on o f cl as sif ic at ion ” (i nte rn al quot at ion m ar ks om itt ed ))

. It is a 4 p r o pe rty ’ s c la ssi fi catio n th at dic ta te s th e ap pli ca

ble va lua tio n m ethod or

m ethods , not 5 whether a particular valuation m ethod ca n b e ap p lied that determ ines whether 6 pr op ert y sh ou ld be cl as si fie d a cert ai n way. Se e R odar te , 200 4- N MS C- 035, ¶ ¶ 2, 3, 7 1 4

. 8 { 18} Ca b l e O n e’s i n t er p re t at i o n tu rn s t h i s an al ysi s o n i t s h ea d , m ak i n g a p ro p er t y’ s 9 classification as a “ com m unication s sy stem ” dependent not on the purpose for w hich 10 the pr ope rty

is use d but ins te ad on w he the r a part ic ular va lua tio n m ethod m ay appl y 11 de pe ndi ng o n whe th er the pr ope rty ’ s owne r use s aspe ci fi c ac co unt ing m ethod. 12 Cr iti ca lly , Ca

ble O ne ’ s an al y sis ign or es tha t the te rm “ plant” appe ar s inne ith er the 13 definition of “ com

m unication s sy stem ” nor in Section 7-36-30(A), which establishes 14 th e ap pl ic ab le sco pe of S ect io n 7 -3 6- 30

. See § 7-36-30(A) (“ All property that is part 15 of a com

m unication s sy stem

and is sub j ect to valuation for prop erty taxation pu rposes 16 sha ll be va lue d ina cc or danc e w iththe pr ovi sio ns of thi s sec tio n. ”)

. T ha t is to say , the 17 Leg islat

ur e did not m ak e a pr ope rty ’ s class ifi ca tio n as a “co m m u n i ca t i o n s s yst em” 18 co nti nge nt o n w he the r a ta xpay er ’ s prop er ty inc lud es a“ plant” a nd m ost c er ta inl y did 19 no t m ak e c l a ss ifi cat io n d ep en de nt on whet he r th e ta xp ay er em pl oys th e USOA.16

1 Rather, “ plant” appears only in Section 7-36-30(B)(4), wher ein it is defined as set 2 fo rth pr ev iou sly , an d Se ct ion 7- 36- 30( D ), w hic h pr es cr ibe s one of two va lua tio n 3 me t h o d s t h a tat a x p a ye r w h o s e p r o p e rt y i s c l a s s i f i e da s “c o mmu n i c a t i o n s s ys t e m” 4 m ay el ect to ha ve th e Dep art m e n t a pp ly. See § 7-36-30(C) (providing that “ [e] ach 5 ta xpay er

ha vin g pr oper ty s ub

jec t t o va lua tio n un de r thi s se ct ionsha ll el ec t t o have 6 tha t pr ope rty

va lue d by the [D ] ep ar

tm en t i n a cc or danc e w ithe ith er S ubse ct ionD or 7 Subsection F o f t h is section”); § 7-36-30 (D ) (providing a valuatio n m ethod th at 8 fo cu se s on the va lue of the ta xpay er ’ s “ plant, ” “ co nstru ct ionw ork inpr ogr es s, ” an d 9 “ m at er ia ls and s uppl ie s” ). I m portantl y , the te rm

“ plant” a lso doe s no t a ppe ar in 10 Subsection F, the ot her o f th e two poss ible valuation m ethods a taxp ay er m ay elect 11 an d, no tabl y , th e on e th at Cab le One di d n ot ch oo se . See § 7-36-30(F) (providing an 12 al te rn at ive va lua tio n m ethod tha t us es “ one or m or e or a co m bin at ion of the f

oll ow ing 13 m ethods of

va lua tio n and a

ppl y ing the unit

r ule or appr ai sa l t o th e pr ope rty : ( 1) 14 ca pit al iz at ionof

e ar nin gs[ , ] ( 2) m ar

ke t va lue of st oc k an d de bt[ , ] or ( 3) c ost le ss 15 depreciation and obs olescence”)

. 16 { 19} Whil e w e ar e m in df ul th at “ w he re se ve ra l se ct ion s of astatut e ar e inv olv ed , 1 7 t h ey m

u s tb e r ea dt o g et h ers o t h at al l p ar t s ar e g i v en ef fe ct [, ]” H igh R idg e H

ink le 18 Jo int V en tur e v. Ci tyof

A lbu que rque , 199 8- N MS C- 050, ¶ 5, 126 N

. M. 413 , 970 P

. 2d 19 599, that r

ule of statut or y c onstru ct iondoe s no t a

ppl y he re be ca

use ne ith er S ec tio n17

1 7- 36- 30( B) (4 ) nor

S ec tio n 7- 36- 30( D )—

both r el at ing to va lua tio n—i s “ inv olv ed ” in 2 re sol vin g th e pe rt ine nt i ssu e Ca ble O ne r ai se s he re : w he the r the D ep ar tm en t pr ope rl y 3 recla ssified its prop erty as “ com m unication s sy stem .” They relate onlyto the m anner 4 in which the De partm ent as ce rt ai n s the taxable value of property alrea dy classified 5 as a “co m

m u n i ca t i o n s s yst em” b as ed o n wh et h eri tme e t s Se ct i o n 7 -3 6 -3 0 (B )( 1 )’s 6 sta tut or

y de fi nit ion

. A ddi tio na lly , to ad op t Cab le O ne ’ s c onstru ct ionof the statut e 7 w oul d e ff

ec tiv el y r equir e tha t w e re ad

int o S ec tio n 7- 36- 30( A ) an d ( B) (1 ) langua ge 8 that is no t the re . S pe ci fi ca lly , w e w oul d ne ed to re w ri te S ubse ct ionA to say “ [a ] ll 9 pr ope rty

that i s part

of ac om m uni catio ns s y ste m [and inc lud es a plant]

. . . sha ll be 10 valued in accordance with the provisi ons of this section” and Subsection (B)(1) to say 11 “ ‘ co m

m uni catio ns s y ste m ’ m eans a sy ste m [ tha t i nc lud es aplant and is us ed ] f or the 12 tra ns mi ss io n a nd rece pt io n o f in fo rm at io n[ .] ” We are no t at li be rty to d o s o. See 13 A lbu que rque Co m m ons P ’s hip v. Ci ty Co unc il of Cityof A lbu que rque , 2011-NMS C14 002, ¶ 7, 149 N

. M. 308, 248 P. 3d 856 (e xpl ai nin g that co urts “ m ay onl y a dd w or ds 1 5 t o a s t at u t e w h e r e i ti s n ec es s ar y t o m ak e t h e s t at u t e c o n fo rm to t h e [ L]eg i s l at u re ’s 16 cl ear int en t, or

to pr ev en t the sta tut e fr om be ing absur d” ( int er na l qu ota tio n m ar

ks and 17 ci ta tio n om it te d) ). T hus, f oll ow ing appl ic ab le r

ule s of statut or y c onstru ct iona nd 18 pr ope rl y

pla ci ng i n c ont ex t the te rm “ plant, ” w e co nc lud e the re e xis ts n o “ obvi ous 19 in co ng ru it [y ]” bet ween th e d efi ni ti on s o f “ co m m un ic at io ns syste m” an d “ pl an t.”18

1 W ilschins ky , 198 9- N MS C- 047, ¶ 26. W e br ie fl y e xa m ine le gis la tiv e his tor y to 2 ill ustrate that the re is ne ith er inc ongr uity —ob vio us o r not

—w ith in the statut e nor 3 am bigu ity as to the Le gislature’ s intent regarding whether Cable O ne’ s property m ay 4 be cla ss ifi edas a “ co m m un ic at io ns syste m .” 5 D. Legislative History Evinces th e Legislature ’s Inte nt t o Ex pand t he 6 D ep ar tm en t’ s C en tr al A sse ssm en t A ut ho ri ty Be yon d “T ra di ti on al, 7 R eg ul at ed Te le co m m un ic at ion s C om pa ni es ” 8 { 20} L eg isl ativ e h is to ry —pa rt ic ula rl y the L eg isl at

ur e’ s 19 85 a

m en dm ent of

S ec tio ns 9 7- 36- 2 and 7 -3 6- 30— furthe r re inf or ce s our co nc lu si on that the L eg isl at ur e did not 10 int en d to r es tr ic t the D ep ar tm en t’ s ce ntr al a sse ssm en t auth or ity to onl y “ tr ad iti ona l, 11 reg ul at edtel eco m

m un ic at io ns co m

pa ni es ” as Ca b l e O ne co nt en ds

. Se e N. M

. R ea l 12 E stat e C om m ’ n v. Barger , 201 2-NMC A- 081, ¶ 18, 284 P. 3d 11 12 (explainin g that 13 “ [t ] he re is N ewMe xic o pr ec ed en t f or loo kin g to la te r am en dm en ts of sta tut es [ to] a id 14 in i nte rp re tin g a m

big uous or

unc le ar statut or y langua ge ”) ; In r e G a b ri el M. , 200 2- 15 NMC A- 047, ¶ 15, 132 N. M. 124 , 45 P. 3d 64 (explaining that courts m ay com pare an 16 earl ie r ve rs ionof

astatut e w ithacu rrent ve rs ion“ to h el p de te rm ine le gis la tiv e 17 int en t” ). P ri or

to 1985 , the D ep ar

tm en t’ s c en tr al a sse ssm en t autho rit y ex te nde d to 18 pr ope rty

“ use d inthe c ondu ct

of the f oll ow ing bus ine sse s:” 19 (1 ) ra ilr oa d; 20 (2 ) te le grap h, te le

phon e or m ic row av e tra nsm iss ion ;19

1 (3) pipelin e; 2 (4 ) publ ic uti lity ; and 3 (5) airline. 4 N MS A 1953 , § 72- 29- 2 ( 1975 ) (e m pha sis a dde d) (V ol. 1 0 Repl., Part 2, 1 975 Pocket 5 Su pp. ). A cc or din gly , a spe ci al va lua tio n m ethod ex ist ed f or “ pr ope rty

that i s part

of 6 a te le phon e or t el egraph co m

m uni catio ns sy ste m . ” N MS A 195 3, § 72 -2 9- 19 ( 1975 ) 7 (em phasis add ed) (V ol. 10 Repl., Part 2, 1975 Pocket Supp.). Im portantly , in the pre8 1985 version o f wh at i s now Sec tion 7 -36-30, there wa s provid ed only one special 9 m ethod of

va luatio n f

or pr ope rty c la ssi fi ed

a s “ pa rt of

ate le phon e or

te le gr ap h 10 co m m uni catio ns s y ste m ”: the one t ha t co nsi de rs “ [p ] lant, ” “ [c ] onstru ct ionw ork in 11 pr ogr es s[ , ] ” an d “ m at er ia ls and supp lie s” pr ope rty in de te rm ini ng va lue , i. e. , pr es en t12 da y Sect io n 7 -3 6- 30 (D). See § 72-29-19 (A ), (C) -(E ). 13 { 21} In198 5, however, th e L eg isl at ur e am en de d th e Co de in thr ee c ri tic al w ay s. 14 Fi rs t, it

spe ci fi ca lly

r em ove d r ef

er en ce s to “ te le phon e o r te le gr ap h, ” re pla ci ng the 15 prior classification with a newone: “ com m unication s sy stem .” See 198 5 N

. M. L aw s, 1 6 c h

. 1 0 9 , § § 2 ( B ) , 6

. S e c o n d , i te n a c t e dt h e d e f i n i t i o n o f “c o mmu n i c a t i o n s s ys t e m” 17 pr ev iou sly

dis cu sse d an d subj ec te d to ce ntr al as se ssm en t a ll pr ope rty use d a s part

of 18 a “ com

m unication s sy stem as t hat term is defined in Section 7-36-30[.] ” 1 985 N.M. 19 L aw s, c h. 109 , § 2( B)

. I m portantl y , the ne wc la ssi fi catio n and d ef ini tio n r et ai ne d no16 The 1985 am endm ent allowed elec ti o n o f ei ther of the tw o prescribed 2 17 va lu at io n m et ho ds foro n l y th e 1 98 6 a nd 19 87 pro pe rty tax y ears . See 1985 N. M. 18 L aw s, c h. 109, § 6( G ). A 198 7 a m en dm en t e xte nde d th e ab ili ty to el ec t a va lua tio n 19 m et ho d t hr ou gh th e 1 98 9 p ro pe rty tax y ear. See 1987 N. M. L aw s, c h . 206 , § 1. In 20 1989 , the L egislature am ended S ection 7-36-30 to its current for m , which contin ues 21 to a llo wthe ta xpay er to se le ct b et we enthe tw o va lua tio n m ethods pr ovi de d in 22 Sect io ns 7-3 6- 30 (D) an d (F ). See 1989 N. M. L aw s, ch. 112, § 1; § 7-36-30 (C). 20 1 re fe re nc e to “ te le phon e” or “ te le gr ap h” sy ste m s to qua lif y the te rm “ co m m uni catio ns 2 sy stem .” Se e id. T hir d, it pr ovi de d an “ al te rn at ive to va lua tio n” und er the pr ee xis tin g 3 m et ho d that al low ed

the ta xpay er

to el ec t t o have it s pr ope rty va lue d “ usi ng o ne or 4 m ore or a com

binatio n of” th ree m ethods: “ (1) capitalization of ear ning s; (2) m arket 5 value of stock and debt ; or (3) cost less depreciation and obso lescence[ ,] ” 1985 N.M. 6 L aw s, c h. 109 , § 6( G ), ( H ), i. e. , the opt ionpr ovi de d by pr es en t- day

S ec tio n 7- 36- 2 7 30(F) that contains no refere nce to “ plant” property . W e note that our Le gislature was 8 not th e only

one to so am end its prop erty tax cod e i n re s p o nse to technol ogical 9 inn ova ti ons in i nf

orm at iontr an sm iss ionthat oc curr ed in the la tte r part

of the 10 t w e nt ie th cen tu ry . Se e Ca ble O ne, I nc . v . A riz

. D ep ’t

of R ev en ue , 3 0 4 P

. 3 d 10 98, 11 1103-04 ( A ri z. Ct

. App. 201 3) ( ex pla ini ng tha t the A ri zo nale gis la tur e en ac te d it s 12 “ te le co m

m uni catio ns c om

pany de fi nit ion ” in 1 985 at a tim e w he n “ the 13 te le co m

m uni catio n s i n d

u s tr y w a s un d er goi ng p ro fo und ch an ge s c onc er nin g lo ca l and 14 lon g- dis tanc e te le phon e se rv ic es a nd w ho c oul d pr ovi de tho se se rv ic e[ s] ”) ; se e als o 15 Co m ca st C

orp. , 337 P

. 3d a t 77 4- 75, 787 -8 9 ( ex pla ining th at unt il 1973 , O re gon21

1 ce ntr al lyass es se d o nl y “ ‘ te le gr ap h c om mun ic at io n’ an d ‘te le phon e 2 co m m uni catio n’ ” busin es se s but tha t i n 19 73 the O re gon le gis la tur e “ re pla ce d th e 3 refe rences to telegra

ph and telepho ne com

m unicat ion with the m ore genera l term 4 ‘ co m m uni catio n’ ” a nd d es cr ibi ng the thr ee m aj or “ ev olu tio nary

pe ri od[ s] f

or c ab le 5 te le vis ion ” be tw ee n 19 50 and the m id- 1990 s)

. N ota bly , our ow n S upr em e Co urt, a lso 6 in 1 985, e xpr es se d an “ aw ar e[ ne ss] that the te le co m m uni cat io ns f

ie ld i s r ap idl y 7 de ve lop ing ” whe n it he ld tha t c ab le c om panie s pr ovi din g th e the n- ne wse rv ic e of 8 “ dig ita l hi gh s p e ed

da tatr an sm iss ion ” on an in tr as ta te ba sis w er e subj ec t t o r eg ula tio n 9 by the S ta te Co rp or at ionCo m m iss ion

. I

n re G ener ic I

nv es tigati on i nto Ca ble 10 Tel evisi on Se rvs. i n S ta te of N.M. , 198 5- N MS C- 087, ¶ ¶ 3, 4, 27, 103 N

. M. 345 , 707 11 P. 2d 1 155. 12 { 22} T his his tor

y al so re ve al s the L eg isl at ur e’ s int en t to br oa de n th e unde rs tandi ng 13 of what ty

pes of com

m unicati o n s -r el at ed property would be subject to ce ntral 14 assessm ent and Sectio n 7-36-30’s special valuation m ethods. It also reveals an 15 aw ar en es s by

the L eg isl at

ur e tha t a ft er

so b ro ad en ing the sc ope of Se ct ion7- 36- 30, 16 it be cam e ne cess ary

to pr ovi de a nothe r m ethod of va lua tio n—o ne that do es not 17 ap pr oa chva lua tio n by c onsi de ri ng the tangi ble pr ope rty c ost of a “ plant. ” T hus, it is 18 tr ue that pr ior

to 1985 , onl y

pr ope rty that w as part

of atr ad iti ona l t el ep hone or 19 telegraph sy stem

fell under the De partm ent’ s authority . S ection 72-29 -2. H owever ,22

1 aft er 1 98 5, any pr ope rty that i s part

of a“ sy ste m

f or the tr an sm iss iona nd r ec ep tio n 2 of inf orm at ion by the use of el ec tr oni c, m ag ne tic or opt ic al m eans o r an y

c om bin at ion 3 thereof and w hich sy stem or an y portion thereof and is available for use by another 4 pe rs on forco ns id erat io n” is su bjec t t o c la ss ifi cat io n a s “ co m m un ic at io ns syste m .” 5 Se ct ion s 7- 36- 2( B) (2 ), - 30( B) (1 ). P er ha ps m ost sig nif ic an tly , that a

c om pany 6 ar gua bly doe s no t po sse ss an y pr ope rty m ee tin g Se ct ion 7- 36- 30( B) (4 )’ s de fi nit ion 7 of “ plant” f or va lua tio n purp ose s inno w ay dis qua lif ie s it f ro m ha vi ng its pr ope rty 8 cl as si fie d a s “ co m

m un ic at io ns syste m .” 9 { 23} Ca b l e O n e f

ai l s t o o ff eran y ex p l an at i o n t h at wo u l dre co n ci l e t h e L eg i s l at u re ’s 10 1985 am endm ent of Sec tions 7-36-2 and 7-36-30 with its claim that “ central 11 assessm ent . .

. is intend ed to apply only to . .

. t ra d i t i onal, re gulated 12 te le co m

m uni catio ns c om

panie s[

. ] ” If

the L eg isl at

ur e ha d in te nde d to li m it the 13 D ep ar tm en t’ s auth ority

to ce ntr al ly

a sse ss o nly

“ tr ad iti ona l” te le co m

m uni catio ns 14 co m panie s th at

use the U SO A as Ca

ble O ne c ont en ds, it

w oul d have m ad e little se nse 15 to am en d th e Co de in 1985 a s it did

. W e cannot

ign or e the L eg isl at

ur e’ s expr es s 16 re m ova l and r ep lac em en t of “ te le phon e” a nd “ te le gr ap h” a nd a ssu m e the 198 5 17 am en dm en ts d o no t e vin ce le gis la tiv e int en t t o c hange the the n- ex is ti ng lawa nd 18 br oa de n t he sco pe of t he De p a r t m en t’s ce nt ral ass es sm en t au th or it y . See State v. 19 Ada m M. , 199 8- N MC A -0 14, ¶ ¶ 19- 20, 124 N

. M. 505 , 953 P. 2d 4 0 ( re j ec tin g a15 Whil e in n o w ay ne ce ssary

to our hol din g, w e obse rv e its c onsi stenc e w ith 3 16 tho se of oth er

state appe llate c ourts tha t have c onsi de re d si m ilar ch al le nge s br ough t 17 by Cabl e One

. See Kay-D ecke r v. Iowa St a t e Bd

. o f Tax R eview , 857 N

. W

. 2d 2 16, 18 217 (I ow a 2014 ) (h old ing that C ab le O ne’ s pr ovi sio n of V oI P se rv ic e al low ed

it to 19 be sub j ec te d to c en tr al a sse ssm en t a s a“ te le phon e co m pany ope ratin g ali ne in thi s 20 sta te ” unde r Io w a Co de §§ 4 33. 1 ( 2003 ), 433

. 12 ( 2008 )) ; Cable One, Inc. , 304 P

. 3d 21 at 110 9 (h old ing tha t “ Ca

ble O ne is a te le co m

m uni catio ns co m

pany unde r [A ri z. Re v. 22 St at

. A nn. ] § 42 -1 4401 [ (1 999) ] a nd the re fo re sub j ec t t o c en tr al a sse ssm en t by the 23 [A rizona] De partm ent [of Re venue] ”). 23 1 re que st t o re ad int o a sta tut e langua ge that the L eg isl at ur e ha d de le te d) ; In re E

sta te 2 of G re ig , 1988-NMC A- 037, ¶ 12, 107 N. M. 227, 755 P. 2 d 7 1 (exp laining that 3 “ [w ] he n th e [L ] eg isl at

ur e en ac ts a

ne w law or am en ds an ex ist ing one , it doe s so f or 4 the ex pr es s p u r

p o s e o f c h a n g i n g t h e l a wa s i tp r e v i o u s l y e x i s t e d ” )

. I n l i g h to f

t his 5 le gis la tiv e his tor

y a nd the c le ar , unam

big uous de fi nit ionof

“ co m m uni catio ns 6 sy ste m , ” w e co nc lu de tha t the L eg isl at ur e int en de d to gr an t the D ep ar tm en t the 7 au tho ri ty

to cl as sif y Ca ble O ne ’ s pr ope rty

a s “ co m m uni catio ns s y ste m ” an d a sse ss i t 8 under Section 7-36-30 when Cable O ne elected to re purpos e portions o f its sy stem 9 in o rd er

to pr ovi de tw o- w ay

c om m uni catio ns s er

vic es ( i. e. , int er

ne t and V oI P) to i ts 10 cu sto m er s. 3 11 II. Cable One’ s Othe r A rgum ents 12 { 24} Ca

b l e O n e m a k e s an u m

b e r o f o t h e r a r g u m e n t s r e g a r d i n g w h y i t s p ro pe rt y 13 shou ld n ot b e subj ec t t o c en tr al a sse ssm en t by the D ep ar

tm en t. W e br ie fl y

a ddr es s 14 each one.24

1 A . Th e F ail ur e of

H. B. 617 D ur in g t he 200 8 L eg isl at ive S es sio n 2 { 25} Ca

ble O ne a rg ue s th at

abse nt a ct ionby

the L eg isl at

ur e to am en d th e Co de , the 3 D epar tm en t i s bo und by

it s pr ev iou s in te rp re ta tio n th at Ca ble O ne is not

sub j ec t t o 4 ce ntr al a sse ssm en t and m ust le av e va lua tio n of its pro pe rty to county as se sso rs . Ca ble 5 On e p o i n t s t o a f

ai l ed at t emp tb y t h e L eg i s l at u re i n 2 0 0 8 t o amen dSe ct i o n 7 -3 6 -3 0 ’s 6 de fi nit ion

o f “ c o m m uni catio ns s y ste m ” as e vid en ce that the L eg isl at ur e did not int en d 7 fo r its pr ope rt

y to be c en tr al ly

a sse sse d un de r the the n- ex ist ing —and s til l8 ex ist ing —de fi nit ionof “ co m m uni catio ns s y ste m . ” G iven ou r fo re goi ng ana ly sis of 9 an d c onc lus ionr eg ar din g S ec tio n 7- 36- 30, w e find it unn ec es sary

to ad dr es s 10 ar gum en ts r el at ed

to w ha t in te nt m ay

be gle an ed

f ro m the L eg isl at

ur e’ s f ai lur e to 11 am en d th e de fi nit ionof “ co m m uni catio ns s y ste m ” in 2 008, ot he r th anto ca uti on 12 parties and district courts against jum p i n g to and rely ing on legislative inaction as 13 so m eh ow p ro vi di ng ev id en ce o f le gi sl at iv e in te nt

. Se e W eg ne r v . H air P rods

. of 14 Te xa s , 200 5- N MC A -0 43, ¶ 7, 137 N

. M. 328 , 110 P

. 3d 5 44 ( “ L eg isl at ive sil en ce is 15 not ar el ia ble ind ic at or

of int en t. ”) ; see also Regents of Univ. of N .M . v . N .M . F ed’n 16 of T ea ch er s , 199 8- N MS C- 020, ¶

¶ 29- 33, 125 N

. M. 401 , 962 P. 2d 1236 (r ef usi ng t o 17 consider e v i d en ce of “ legislative his tory ” and construe “ the language of statuto ry 18 pr ovi sio ns tha t w er e ne ve r en ac te d” because suc h e vid en ce “ te lls us n oth ing25

1 dispo sitive abou t the Le gislature’ s intentio ns” and instead reaf firm ing th at courts are 2 to “ determ ine legislative int ent prim arily from ” the language of the statute itself). 3 B. Overreach by th e D epartm ent 4 { 26} Ca

ble O ne a lso a rg ue s th at

the D ep ar

tm en t ne ve r “ atte m

pt[ ed ] to cl ar if

y or 5 br oa de n the

. . . Co de thr oughar eg ula tio n or r uli ng” a nd tha t the D ep ar tm en t’ s su a 6 spon te decision in 20 08 to b egin centrally a ssessin g Cable O ne and sim ilar com panies 7 w as a n un law fu l a sse rt ionof auth or ity

. A ga in, fo r the re as ons pr ev iou sly dis cu sse d, 8 w e co nc lud e tha t the D ep ar tm en t was not

r equir ed to “ cl ar if

y or br oa de n” the 9 int er pr et at ionof

w ha t p r o p e r

ty w a s s u b j ec t t o c en tr al a sse ssm en t un de r Se ct ion s 7- 36- 10 2( B) (2 ) an d 7- 36- 30 i n or de r to as se ss Ca ble O ne be ca

use the L eg isl at

ur e ha d a lr ea dy 1 1 p r o v i d e dt h e De p a rt men twi t h s u c h au t h o r i t y. 12 C . Wh ethe r th e D ep ar tm en t Was R eq ui re d to Le ave A sse ssm en t of C ab le 13 One’ s Pr operty t o Count y Assessors and A llow Coun ty Assessors to V alue 14 Cab le One’ s Pro pert y i n Acco rda nce w ith Sect io n 7 -3 6- 2( F) 15 { 27} Fi na lly , Ca

ble O ne ar gue s that the D ep ar tm en t does not

ha ve sol e au tho ri ty

to 16 value “ com

m unication s sy stem ” property and contends th at Sec tion 7 -36-2(F) 17 provides cou nty

assessors with the ability to “ value property

belongi ng to com

panies 18 subject to ce ntral assessm ent.” Section 7-36-2(F) provides 19 T he [ D ] ep ar

tm en t i s auth or ized to e nte r int o on e or m or e ag re em en ts 20 w ithe ac h c ounty a sse sso r . . . und er

w hic h th e county as se sso r ag re es to 21 pe rf

orm the va lua tio n of pr ope rt y f or w hic h th e [D ] ep ar

tm en t i s 22 re spon sib le und er S ubse ct ionB of thi s se ct ionbut w hic h pr ope rty

is not26

1 subj ec t t o the spe ci al m ethods of va lua tio n se t f

orth i n S ec tio ns 7 -3 6- 27, 2 7- 36- 28[ , ] a nd 7 -3 6- 30 thr ough7- 36- 32. 3 A cc or din g to Cable One , th is s ubse ct ionind ic at es that the L eg isl at ur e (1 ) 4 “ co nte m

pla te d th at

som e prope rty

of ‘ co m m uni catio ns s y ste m s’ w oul d no t be 5 sus ce pti ble to va lua tio n unde r ei the r of [S ec tio n 7- 36- 30’ s] spe ci al m ethods , ” an d ( 2) 6 “ ch ose not

to ve st [ the D ep ar

tm en t] w ithple nary

pow er to use a ny

oth er m ethod to 7 va lue suc h pr ope rty . ” Ca ble O ne m isc onstru es S ec tio n 7- 36- 2. 8 { 28} Subsection F p e rm i ts —b ut d oe s no t r equir e— the D ep ar

tm en t t o e nte r int o 9 ag re em en ts w ith co unty as se sso rs to hav e county as se sso rs pe rf orm va lua tio ns if and 10 onl y if it is for property

li s t ed Se ct ion 7-36 -2(B) that “ is not s ubjec t to the special 11 m ethods of

va lua tio n se t f

orth i n Se ct ion s 7-36 -2 7, 7- 36- 28[ , ] an d 7-36 -3 0 th ro ugh 12 7- 36- 32. ” T he onl y ty pe of pr ope rty lis te d in Se ct ion7- 36- 2( B) that i s no t su bj ec t t o 13 a spe ci al va lua tio n m ethod in the enum er at ed se ct ion s is “ publ ic uti lity ” pr ope rty . A ll 14 oth er ty pe s of pr ope rty

—r ai lr oa d, c om

m uni catio ns s y stem , p ipe lin e, a nd 15 ai rli ne —h av e p res cri be d s pe ci al m et ho ds of v a l u a t i on . See S ec tio n 7- 36- 27 16 (p ro viding a s pe ci al m ethod of va lua tio n f

or oil , na tur al ga s, c ar

bon dio xid e, a nd 17 liquid hy dr oc ar bons pip el ine s) ; § 7- 36- 28 ( pr ovi din g aspe ci al m ethod of va lua tio n 18 fo r w at er

pip el ine s) ; § 7- 36- 30 ( pr ovi din g aspe ci al m ethod of va lua tio n f

or 19 “ co m m uni catio ns s y ste m ” pr op er ty ); § 7- 36- 31 ( pr ovi din g aspe ci al m ethod of 20 va lua tio n f

or r ai lr oa ds) ; § 7- 36- 32 ( pr ovi din g aspe ci al m ethod of va lua tio n f

or27

1 co m m er cial air cr af

t)

. Ca ble O ne ’ s c la im

that S ec tio n 7- 36- 2( F) a llo w s c ounty 2 assessors to value “ com m unication s sy stem ” property under a valuation m ethod ot her 3 than th ose pr ovi de d inS ec tio n 7- 36- 30 i s in co rr ec t. 4 CON CLU SION 5 { 29} Fo r the fore goin g reasons, w e re verse the district court’ s grant of summ ary 6 j udgm en t i n f

av or of C ab le One a nd r em an d f or e ntr y of j udgm en t i n li ght

of thi s 7 opi nio n. 8 { 30} IT IS S O ORDERE D.

9

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ __ __ __ __ ___ 10 J. M IL ES HA N IS EE , Ju dg e

11 WE CO NCUR:

12

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ 13 M IC HA EL E. V IG IL , Ju dg e

14

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ 15 M . M ON IC A Z A M OR A , Ju dg e