Source: http://taxappeals.state.wy.us/images/docket_no_200896.htm
Timestamp: 2018-08-19 11:39:37
Document Index: 696984921

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 9', '§ 39', '§ 2', '§ 11', '§ 39', '§ 39', '§ 39', '§ 4', '§ 18', '§ 39', '§ 39', '§ 39', '§ 6', '§ 6', '§ 6', '§ 6', '§ 6', '§ 6', '§ 39', '§ 6']

ERIN K. FAGAN FROM )
A DECISION OF THE LARAMIE COUNTY ) Docket No. 2008-96
Tucker Fagan appeared on behalf of Erin K. Fagan (Taxpayer).
This is an appeal from a decision of the Laramie County Board of Equalization (County Board) affirming the Assessor’s valuation of Taxpayer’s residence for 2008 tax purposes. Taxpayer’s Petition for Review was filed with the State Board effective August 28, 2008. The Assessor filed a brief as allowed by the September 25, 2008, Briefing Order. The Taxpayer chose to rely on the information submitted with her Petition for Review. Neither party requested oral argument.
The State Board of Equalization (State Board), comprised of Thomas R. Satterfield, Chairman, and Thomas D. Roberts, Vice-Chairman, considered the Taxpayer’s Petition for Review, the Assessor’s Brief of Respondent, the County Board record, and the decision of the County Board.
We evaluate Taxpayer’s appeal of the County Board decision against our standard of review, which is whether the decision was arbitrary, capricious, unsupported by substantial evidence, and/or contrary to law. Rules, Wyoming State Board of Equalization, Chapter 3 § 9.
The County Board conducted a hearing on June 11, 2008, at which Tucker Fagan (on behalf of Erin K. Fagan) and the Assessor each testified and presented exhibits. The County Board entered its Decision and Order on July 30, 2008, affirming the Assessor’s 2008 fair market value for Taxpayer’s property. The decision was mailed to Taxpayer on July 31, 2008. [County Board Record, pp. 93-102].
The State Board is required to “hear appeals from county boards of equalization.” Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 39-11-102.1(c). Taxpayer filed a timely appeal of the County Board decision with the State Board effective August 28, 2008. Rules, Wyoming State Board of Equalization, Chapter 3 § 2.
Taxpayer, in her Petition for Review, requests the Board take the following actions:
Actions Requested (Motions):
1. Direct the Laramie County Board of Equalization to re-review subject case using comparables property input and valuation data sheets of the Computer Assisted Mass Appraisal (CAMA) system.
2. Direct the Wyoming Department of Revenue to issue directions to county assessors to show taxpayers and equalization board members the CAMA input and output valuations for comparables properties when there are challenges to assessments.
[Petition for Review, State Board Record, p. 1].
Taxpayer also, however, makes the following statement in her Petition:
Note, we are not asking for a reduction in the Assessor’s assessment, we don’t know what is fair. We and the Laramie Board should see the comparable CAMA data. The information we submitted at the 11 June 2008 hearing (Attachment 4 is a summary) albeit sale prices and an assessment by a professional appraiser leads us to believe there is a valuation discrepancy when compared to similar properties.
[Petition for Review, State Board Record, p. 2]. (Emphasis in original).
The referenced requests and statement by Taxpayer and her representative in her Petition for Review suggest some confusion and possible misunderstanding as to this Board’s responsibilities and authority with regard to review of an assessor’s determination of value, and our review of a county board of equalization decision. We will thus consider Taxpayer’s Petition as generally asserting the County Board erred in accepting the Assessor’s valuation in light of the evidence Taxpayer presented regarding the value of her residence. Taxpayer, in order to prevail, must establish the County Board decision is not supported by substantial evidence, and/or the County Board acted unlawfully, arbitrarily, and capriciously in affirming the Assessor’s value for 2008 tax purposes.
1. Taxpayer owns residential property at 1617 Blues Drive, Cheyenne, Laramie County, Wyoming. [County Board Record, pp. 70-71]. Taxpayer’s house is a 1550 square foot single story ranch with an attached garage. [County Board Record, pp.73-76].
2. An on-site inspection of Taxpayer’s property was completed by the Assessor’s office on June 18, 2007, as part of the normal rotation of on-site inspections every four years. [County Board Record, pp. 12-13].
3. The Assessor sent Taxpayer a Notice of Assessment for her property for the 2008 tax year on March 17, 2008, indicating a fair market value of $228,419. [County Board Record, pp. 13, 70].
4. Taxpayer requested the Assessor review the characteristics of her property. Based on information provided by Taxpayer, the Assessor issued an amended assessment schedule on March 24, 2008, reducing the fair market value of Taxpayer’s property to $223,972. [County Board Record, pp. 13, 71]. The reduction in value was based on a change by the Assessor of the quality of the basement finish to “fair.” The basement has only been framed, thus the Assessor determined it was just 20% finished. [County Board Record, p. 13].
5. On April 2, 2008, Taxpayer filed an Official Appeal of Assessment with the County Assessor. [County Board Record, p. 24]. The County Board held a hearing on Taxpayer’s appeal on June 11, 2008. [County Board Record, p. 1].
6. Tucker Fagan appeared and testified on behalf of Taxpayer, his daughter, Erin K. Fagan. Taxpayer, through her father, asserted her house was overvalued by the Assessor. She asserted the value for her property should be no more than $218,000, as indicated by a January 11, 2008, fee appraisal done by John Hardung for Wells Fargo Bank as part of a mortgage refinance. The appraiser was not called as a witness to testify concerning the appraisal. The appraisal stated:
[County Board Record, pp. 3-7, 29, 54].
7. Taxpayer further asserted the list of comparable sales provided to her by the Assessor was not complete as it did not focus on applicable comparatives such as houses of similar size and improvements. [County Board Record, pp. 3-7, 45-47].
8. Taxpayer, as additional support of her position, submitted a letter from Kuzma Success Realty setting out information on real estate activity for the first quarter, 2008, for the Harmony Hills development, as well as a MLS listing for 1620 Blues Drive. [County Board Record, pp. 7-8, 48-49].
9. Tucker Fagan is not a certified appraiser under Wyoming law. [County Board Record, pp. 9-10].
10. The Assessor has been a certified Wyoming tax appraiser since 1989, and is accredited by the International Association of Assessing Officers. [County Board Record, pp. 10-11].
11. The Assessor explained the mass appraisal process used to value all residential property in Laramie County, including Taxpayer’s, for tax purposes. The Assessor utilizes a computer assisted mass appraisal (CAMA) system. Information is collected on each residential property including square footage, number of plumbing fixtures, as well as the garage and the basement size. The information collected is entered into the CAMA system. [County Board Record, pp. 13-14].
12. The CAMA system, utilizing the collected information, calculates a replacement cost new using Marshall & Swift cost tables. The replacement cost new is then adjusted for depreciation based on the remaining life of the structure and its condition. The result is replacement cost new less depreciation (RCNLD) for any structure. [County Board Record, pp. 13-14].
13. The Assessor monitors prior year residential sales, and compares the reported sale prices to the CAMA replacement cost new less depreciation plus land value for each property sold. By comparing the 2007 sales prices and RCNLD for 62 residential properties similar to and in the same area as Taxpayer’s, the Assessor determined buyers were paying, on average, 12 % above RCNLD for the 62 properties compared. The Assessor thus increased the RCNLD of Taxpayer’s property, as well as for every other property in Taxpayer’s area, by 12 %, to estimate the fair market value for each property. [County Board Record, pp. 13-15, 69-83].
14. The Assessor also testified concerning the State Board equalization standards, as well as her review of the fee appraisal supplied by Taxpayer. There is, however, no indication the County Board relied on this information in reaching its ultimate decision. [County Board Record, pp. 14-18, 93-102].
15. The difference in market value requested by Taxpayer before the County Board and the 2008 market value placed on Taxpayer’s property by the Assessor, is $5972, or 2.7%. The difference in ad valorem tax, based on the 2007 mill levy applicable to Taxpayer’s property, is $42.92. [County Board Record, pp. 17-19]
16. The County Board issued its decision on July 30, 2008, affirming the Assessor’s revised 2008 fair market value of Taxpayer’s property. The County Board, in its Decision and Order, paragraph 31, concluded Taxpayer had not met her burden of showing the Assessor had failed to properly utilize the CAMA system in valuing Taxpayer’s property. [County Board Record, pp. 101-102].
17. The Wyoming Constitution, article 15 § 11(d), requires “[a]ll taxation shall be equal and uniform within each class of property. The legislature shall prescribe such regulations as shall secure a just valuation of taxation of all property, real and personal.”
18. Broken into its component parts, the constitutional standard requires: (1) a rational method; (2) equally applied to all property; and (3) essential fairness. It is the burden of one challenging an assessment to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that at least one of these elements has not been fulfilled. Basin Electric Power Coop. v. Dept. of Revenue, 970 P.2d. 841, 852 (Wyo. 1998).
19. All property must be valued annually at fair market value. Wyo. Stat. Ann.§ 39-13-103(b)(ii). Further, all taxable property must be valued and assessed for taxation in the name of the owner of the property on January 1. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 39-13-103(b)(i)(A).
Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 39-11-101(a)(vi); See Rules, Wyoming Department of Revenue, Chapter 9 § 4(f.).
21. An assessor is required to annually value property within the assessor’s county for tax purposes at its fair market value. In completing this task, an assessor is required to “[f]aithfully and diligently follow and apply the orders, procedures and formulae of the department of revenue or orders of the state board of equalization for the appraisal and assessment of all taxable property.” Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 18-3-204(a)(ix).
22. The Department is required to confer with, advise and give necessary instructions and directions to the county assessors as to their duties, and to promulgate rules and regulations necessary for the enforcement of all tax measures. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 39-11-102(c)(xvi) and (xix). The Department is required to “[p]rescribe the system of establishing the fair market value of all property valued for property taxation to ensure that all property within a class is uniformly valued.” Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 39-11-102(c)(xv).
23. In particular, the Department “shall prescribe by rule and regulation the appraisal methods and systems for determining fair market value using generally accepted appraisal standards.” Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 39-13-103(b)(ii). The Department has promulgated rules prescribing the methods for valuing property. The acceptable methods include a sales comparison approach, a cost approach, and an income or capitalized earning approach. The rules also authorize the use of the CAMA system. Rules, Wyoming Department of Revenue, Chapter 9, § 6(a.)–(d.).
24. In valuing real property and improvements for tax purposes, the assessor must take into consideration depreciation. Rules, Wyoming Department of Revenue, Chapter 9 § 6(b.)(iv.). Depreciation is defined as:
25. An assessor is also required to take into consideration appreciation. Rules, Wyoming Department of Revenue, Chapter 9 § 6(b.)(iii.). Appreciation is defined as “an increase in value due to an increase in cost to reproduce, value over the cost, or value at some specified earlier point in time, brought about by greater demand, improved economic conditions, increasing price levels, reversal of depreciating environmental trends, or other factors as defined in the market.” Rules, Wyoming Department of Revenue, Chapter 9 § 6(b.)(v.)(A.).
26. The determination of fair market value involves a degree of discretion:
27. An assessor’s valuation is presumed valid, accurate, and correct. Teton Valley Ranch v. State Board of Equalization, 735 P.2d 107, 113 (Wyo. 1987). This presumption survives until overturned by credible evidence. Id.; Britt v. Fremont County Assessor, 2006 WY 10, ¶ 34, 126 P.3d 117, 127 (Wyo. 2006). A mere difference of opinion as to value is not sufficient to overcome the presumption. J. Ray Mc Dermott & Co. v. Hudson, 370 P.2d 364, 370 (Wyo. 1962); Britt, supra. The presumption is especially valid where the Assessor valued the property according to the Department’s Rules and Regulations which provide for the use of the CAMA system in the assessment of real property. Rules, Wyoming Department of Revenue, Chapter 9 § 6(b.), (d.). “The burden is on the Taxpayer to establish any overvaluation.” Hillard v. Big Horn Coal Co., 549 P.2d 293, 294 (Wyo. 1976).
28. The Wyoming Supreme Court has recognized the validity of valuations derived from the CAMA system. Gray v. Wyoming State Board of Equalization, 896 P.2d 1347 (Wyo. 1995); Britt v. Fremont County Assessor, 2006 WY 10, ¶ 39, 126 P.3d 117, 128 (Wyo. 2006). In fact, the Wyoming Supreme Court rejected the use of actual sales price for properties in favor of the value established by the CAMA system because of the equality and uniformity which result from its use. Gray, supra, 896 P.2d at 1351.
29. Our evaluation of this appeal turns, at least in part, on the question of whether there is substantial evidence in the record which reasonably supports the County Board’s decision. In determining whether there is the required substantial evidence, the State Board will not substitute its judgement for findings reasonably supported by evidence in the County Board record. Laramie County Board of Equalization v. State Board of Equalization, 915 P.2d 1184, 1188-1189 (Wyo. 1996); Holly Sugar Corp. v. Wyoming State Board of Equalization, 839 P.2d 959 (Wyo. 1992); Sage Club, Inc. v. Employment Sec. Comm’n., 601 P.2d 1306, 1310 (Wyo. 1979). While substantial evidence may be less than the weight of the evidence, it cannot be clearly contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence. The Wyoming Supreme Court has stated “[s]ubstantial evidence is a term of art best described as relevant evidence that a reasonable mind can accept as adequate support for an agency’s conclusion.” Sidwell v. State Workers’ Compensation Div., 977 P.2d 60, 63 (Wyo. 1999).
30. The Assessor complied with the requirements of state law in determining the value for Taxpayer’s property by using the cost approach adjusted to account for both depreciation and appreciation as prescribed in Chapter 9 of the Rules promulgated by the Department. Rules, Wyoming Department of Revenue, Chapter 9 § 6(b.). Specifically, the Assessor employed the CAMA system supplied by the Department to determine the value of Taxpayer’s house. The use of the CAMA system is specifically authorized and entitles the Assessor’s value to be afforded a presumption of correctness. Supra ¶¶ 27, 28.
31. Taxpayer, in her appeal, requests this Board take two actions. She requests we direct the County Board to review again the fair market valuation of her property using data which, even presuming it is available, the Assessor chose not to present at the County Board hearing. Taxpayer further requests we direct the Department to the direct all county assessors to supply “CAMA input and output valuations for comparable properties” when a valuation is challenged. [Petition for Review, State Board Record, p. 1].
32. Each action requested by Taxpayer is beyond the purview of the Board’s authority. Our review of a county board of equalization decision is limited by statute, Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 39-11-102.1(c), and case law, Laramie County Board of Equalization v. Wyoming State Board of Equalization, 915 P.2d 1184, 1188 (Wyo. 1996); Union Pacific Railroad Company v. Wyoming State Board of Equalization, 802 P.2d 856, 859 (Wyo. 1990). The Board is an intermediate level of review, charged with determining whether the County Board action is:
33. The Board’s authority in reviewing a county board of equalization decision does not empower it to direct a county board to demand an assessor present specified evidence in support of a fair market value determination, and clearly does not empower the Board to direct another independent state agency to take any certain action. Even in appeals the Board considers from decisions of the Department, our authority is strictly adjudicatory:
Amoco Production Company v. Wyoming State Board of Equalization, 12 P.3d 668, 674 (Wyo. 2000). See also, Amoco Production Company v. Department of Revenue, 2004 WY 89, ¶ 22, 94 P.3d 430, 440 (Wyo. 2004).
34. The actions requested by Taxpayer can not be fulfilled by this Board.
35. Taxpayer presented three documents in support of her challenge to the fair market value of her property established by the Assessor. The first document was a fee appraisal of Taxpayer’s property done in conjunction with a mortgage refinance. Supra, ¶ 6.
36. An assessor is bound by statute to establish the fair market value of residential property in compliance with the procedures and systems prescribed by the rules and regulations of the Department. Supra, ¶¶ 21, 22, 23. The Department has, by Rule, identified three acceptable methods for determining fair market value for purposes of taxation - sales comparison approach, cost approach, income or capitalized earnings approach - one or all of which may be incorporated into the CAMA system. The use of a fee appraisal is not an identified, acceptable method. Rules, Wyoming Department of Revenue, Chapter 9, §§ 6(a.), (b.), (c.), and (d.).
37. The fee appraisal of Taxpayer’s property is not sufficient to call into question the Assessor’s determination of value. It provides an estimate of value as of January 11, 2008, rather than the statutory assessment date of January 1, 2008, to which the Assessor is bound. Supra, ¶ 19. The appraisal, in addition, clearly states its purpose is to evaluate Taxpayer’s property for a mortgage finance transaction, not valuation at fair market value for purposes of taxation. The appraiser was not called as a witness, thus the County Board record lacks any evidentiary input by the appraiser as to why his appraisal for financing purposes should equate to a fair market value determination for tax purposes. Supra, ¶ 6.
38. The other two documents offered by Taxpayer clearly do not in any manner provide insight into whether the presumption in favor of the Assessor’s valuation should be negated. The letter from Kuzma Realty lists two sales which occurred after the statutory assessment date of January 1, 2008. It is not clear from the letter whether the properties are similar to Taxpayer’s, or are even located in the same relevant area as the comparables used by the Assessor. [County Board Record, p. 49]. Supra, ¶ 8. The other information in the Kuzma letter, and the MLS listing, are not sales data, but rather asking prices for properties which is not relevant information for determining the fair market value for Taxpayer’s property. [County Board Record, pp. 48-49]. Supra, ¶ 8.
39. We conclude neither the fee appraisal completed for financing purposes nor the Kuzma letter and MLS listing are sufficient to overcome the presumption in favor of the Assessor’s valuation. Supra, ¶ 27.
40. Taxpayer asserts the Assessor’s list of comparable properties was somehow deficient in that it allegedly did not compare houses of similar size and improvements. Supra, ¶ 7. Taxpayer, however, provides no detail as to how such an alleged deficiency would lead to an incorrect fair market value for her property in light of the Assessor’s testimony as to the manner in which sales of comparable properties are used to determine fair market value. Supra, ¶¶ 11, 12, 13.
41. Taxpayer did not present evidence directly challenging the CAMA system, its use by the Assessor, or the amended information specific to her property entered into the CAMA system. Taxpayer can not prevail simply by having an opinion or presenting opinions of others contrary to that of the Assessor. As we have noted, a mere difference of opinion is not sufficient to overcome the presumption in favor of the Assessor’s valuation. Supra, ¶ 27.
42. While we can appreciate Taxpayer’s reaction to her initial assessment notice, we conclude there is substantial evidence in the record to support the County Board’s decision affirming the Assessor’s amended valuation of Taxpayer’s property. Taxpayer did not challenge the CAMA system or assert the Assessor improperly utilized the system. The CAMA system ensures all residential real estate is valued using the same rational method. By its uniform application, the constitutional requirements of uniformity and essential fairness are met. Supra, ¶¶ 17, 18, 27, 28.
43. The valuation derived by the Assessor using the CAMA system is presumed valid, accurate, and correct. In this case, Taxpayer failed to present sufficient evidence to prove by a preponderance of the evidence the CAMA system was not a rational method, that it was not equally applied to all property, or that it did not achieve essential fairness. The decision of the County Board affirming the Assessor’s valuation is supported by substantial evidence. We further conclude, based on our review of the County Board record, the County Board decision was neither unlawful, arbitrary, nor capricious.
IT IS THEREFORE HEREBY ORDERED the Laramie County Board of Equalization Order affirming the Assessor’s 2008 valuation of Taxpayer's property is affirmed.