CO Code § 39-8-108 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 39 - Taxation|Article 8 - County Boards of Equalization|§ 39-8-108. Decision - Review - Opportunity to Submit Case to Arbitration

  If the county board of equalization grants a petition, in whole or in part, the assessor shall adjust the valuation accordingly; but, if the petition is denied, in whole or in part, the petitioner may appeal the valuation set by the assessor or, if the valuation is adjusted as a result of a decision of the county board of equalization, the adjusted valuation to the board of assessment appeals or to the district court of the county wherein the petitioner's property is located for a trial de novo, or the petitioner may submit the case to arbitration pursuant to the provisions of section 39-8-108.5. Such appeal or submission to arbitration shall be taken no later than thirty days after the date such denial was mailed pursuant to section 39-8-107 (2). Any decision rendered by the county board of equalization shall state that the petitioner has the right to appeal the decision of the county board to the board of assessment appeals or to the district court of the county wherein the petitioner's property is located or to submit the case to arbitration and, to preserve such right, the time by which such appeal or submission to arbitration must be made. Any request by a taxpayer for a hearing before the board of assessment appeals shall be accompanied by a nonrefundable filing fee in an amount specified in section 39-2-125 (1)(h). In addition, any request by a taxpayer for a hearing before the board of assessment appeals shall be stamped with the date on which such request was received by the board. All such requests shall be presumed to be on time unless the board can present evidence to show otherwise.    If the petitioner has appealed to the board of assessment appeals and the decision of the board of assessment appeals is against the petitioner, the petitioner may petition the court of appeals for judicial review according to the Colorado appellate rules and the provisions of section 24-4-106 (11), C.R.S. If the decision of the board is against the respondent, the respondent, upon the recommendation of the board that it either is a matter of statewide concern or has resulted in a significant decrease in the total valuation of the respondent county, may petition the court of appeals for judicial review according to the Colorado appellate rules and the provisions of section 24-4-106 (11), C.R.S. In addition, on and after June 7, 1989, if the decision of the board is against the respondent, the respondent may petition the court of appeals for judicial review of alleged procedural errors or errors of law within thirty days of such decision when the respondent alleges procedural errors or errors of law by the board of assessment appeals. If the board does not recommend its decision to be a matter of statewide concern or to have resulted in a significant decrease in the total valuation of the respondent county, the respondent may petition the court of appeals for judicial review of such questions within thirty days of such decision. Any decision issued by the board of assessment appeals shall inform the petitioner or respondent, as may be appropriate, of the right to petition the court of appeals for judicial review.    If the decision of the county board of equalization has been appealed to the district court, the decision of the court shall be subject to appellate review according to the Colorado appellate rules and the provisions of section 24-4-106 (9), C.R.S.    If the taxpayer submits his case to arbitration pursuant to the provisions of section 39-8-108.5, the decision reached under such process shall be final and not subject to review.    In any appeal authorized by this section or by section 39-5-122, .7, or 39-10-114:   Repealed.    The assessor's valuation of similar property similarly situated shall be credible evidence;    The respondent may not rely on any confidential information which is not available for review by the taxpayer unless such confidential data is presented in such a manner that the source cannot be identified;    Upon request, the respondent shall make available to the taxpayer two working days prior to any appeal hearing data supporting the assessor's valuation. Such request shall be accompanied by data supporting the taxpayer's valuation. Nothing in this paragraph (d) shall be construed to prohibit the introduction at such appeal hearing of any data discovered as a result of the exchange of data required by this paragraph (d).    In using the market approach to determine the value of residential real property, if the assessor has knowledge of the conversion from one residential use to a different residential use, such conversion shall create a rebuttable presumption that the sale of such property is not a comparable sale for purposes of establishing the value of a property having a similar prior residential use.       In any appeal or submission to arbitration authorized by this section, there shall be no presumption in favor of any pending valuation.     History. Source: L. 64: R&RE, p. 713, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 137-8-6. L. 70: P. 386, § 23. L. 77: (2) amended, p. 1736, § 19, effective June 20. L. 83: (2) amended, p. 2087, § 5, effective October 13. L. 85: Entire section amended and (2) amended, pp. 1228, 1230, §§ 2, 1, effective July 1. L. 88: (1) and (2) amended, (3) R&RE, and (4) added, pp. 1302, 1303, §§ 11, 12, effective April 29. L. 89: (1) and (2) amended, p. 1458, § 17, effective June 7. L. 90: (2) amended and (5) added, pp. 1694, 1700, §§ 13, 31, effective June 9. L. 92: (1), (2), and (5)(d) amended, p. 2210, § 8, effective June 3. L. 96: (1), (2), and (5)(a) amended and (6) added, p. 723, § 7, effective May 22. L. 2002: IP(5) amended and (5)(e) added, p. 843, § 4, effective August 7. L. 2003: (1) amended, p. 1467, § 4, effective July 1. L. 2021: (5)(a) repealed,(HB 21-1083), ch. 25, p. 112, § 1, effective April 7. History. Source: L. 64: R&RE, p. 713, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 137-8-6. L. 70: P. 386, § 23. L. 77: (2) amended, p. 1736, § 19, effective June 20. L. 83: (2) amended, p. 2087, § 5, effective October 13. L. 85: Entire section amended and (2) amended, pp. 1228, 1230, §§ 2, 1, effective July 1. L. 88: (1) and (2) amended, (3) R&RE, and (4) added, pp. 1302, 1303, §§ 11, 12, effective April 29. L. 89: (1) and (2) amended, p. 1458, § 17, effective June 7. L. 90: (2) amended and (5) added, pp. 1694, 1700, §§ 13, 31, effective June 9. L. 92: (1), (2), and (5)(d) amended, p. 2210, § 8, effective June 3. L. 96: (1), (2), and (5)(a) amended and (6) added, p. 723, § 7, effective May 22. L. 2002: IP(5) amended and (5)(e) added, p. 843, § 4, effective August 7. L. 2003: (1) amended, p. 1467, § 4, effective July 1. L. 2021: (5)(a) repealed,(HB 21-1083), ch. 25, p. 112, § 1, effective April 7.    Editor's note:   Amendments to subsection (2) by House Bill 85-1106 and Senate Bill 85-85 were harmonized.   Cross references:   For right to judicial review under the “State Administrative Procedure Act”, see § 24-4-106 .   ANNOTATION   Law reviews. For article, “Appealing Property Tax Assessments”, see 15 Colo. Law. 798 (1986).   “Petitioner” refers to taxpayer. In § 39-8-106 and this section, the term “petitioner” refers to taxpayer. Adams County Bd. of County Comm'rs v. Union P. R. R., 34 Colo. App. 156, 525 P.2d 1202 (1974).   Subsection (2) expressly authorizes a county board of equalization to seek judicial review of procedural errors or errors of law made by the board of assessment appeals. A board of equalization is the “respondent” in proceedings before the board of assessment appeals. SecurityLink from Ameritech, Inc. v. City and County of Denver, 32 P.3d 499 (Colo. App. 2000).   The board of equalization may seek judicial review of a decision of the board of assessment appeals within 45 days of the final order, but only if the board of assessment appeals recommended that the case involved an issue of statewide concern or that the ruling would result in a significant decrease in the total valuation of the count. Absent such a recommendation, the board of equalization was required to seek judicial review within 30 days of the final order. Steamboat Ski & Resort Corp. v. Routt County Bd. of Equaliz., 23 P.3d 1258 (Colo. App. 2001).   Property tax valuation challenge. A taxpayer has the statutory right to challenge a property tax valuation for each tax year under the protest and adjustment procedure and possibly through de novo evidentiary proceedings before the board of assessment appeals. Weingarten v. Bd. of Assess. Appeals, 876 P.2d 118 (Colo. App. 1994).   Taxpayer may seek review at each stage of decision-making process. It is evident from § 39-8-106 and this section that the general assembly contemplated that at each stage of the decision-making process the taxpayer could seek review of an adverse decision. Adams County Bd. of County Comm'rs v. Union P. R. R., 34 Colo. App. 156, 525 P.2d 1202 (1974).   Lessee does not have standing to challenge a property tax valuation of leased property. Traer Creek-EXWMT LLC v. Eagle County Bd. of Equaliz., 2017 COA 16 , 401 P.3d 569.   A party may seek review of only the total valuation for assessment and not of the component parts of that total. The statutes speak only of the right to appeal the value or the valuation assessment set by the assessor. Notably absent from the statutes is language that would permit a party to limit the scope of the protest by appealing only a portion or component of the assessed value. Cherne v. Bd. of Equaliz., 885 P.2d 258 (Colo. App. 1994).   Joinder of indispensable parties. Part of the perfection of an action for judicial review includes the joinder of indispensable parties. Cissell v. Bd. of Assess. Appeals, 38 Colo. App. 560, 564 P.2d 124 (1977).   Statute specifying judicial review in the district court of the county in which the property is located applies only when, prior to payment of any taxes, the taxpayer seeks an adjustment of taxes assessed against property and is not applicable when the taxpayer has paid taxes on property and proceeds for a tax refund. Gunnison County v. Bd. of Assess. Appeals, 693 P.2d 400 (Colo. App. 1984).   Subsection (2) limits judicial review to certain specific circumstances. Where the case does not involve a matter of statewide concern or result in a significant decrease in the total assessed valuation of the taxing entity, and the board of assessment appeals' ruling is supported by the evidence, no judicial review is authorized. Denver v. Bd. of Assess. Appeals, 802 P.2d 1109 (Colo. App. 1990).   1989 amendment to statutory appeal procedures demonstrated intent of general assembly to expand circumstances under which taxing authority may initiate an appeal of an adverse decision of the board of assessment appeals. Farny v. Bd. of Equaliz., 985 P.2d 106 (Colo. App. 1999).   A claim that evidence is legally insufficient to support the board's decision is a claim based on an alleged “error of law” and is appealable by the taxing authority to the court of appeals pursuant to subsection (2). Farny v. Bd. of Equaliz., 985 P.2d 106 (Colo. App. 1999).   A failure by the board to apply the correct legal standards or to abide by the statutory scheme would constitute an error reviewable by the court. Clarke v. Douglas County Bd. of Equaliz., 899 P.2d 240 (Colo. App. 1994), rev'd on other grounds, 921 P.2d 717 (Colo. 1996).   Section does not give state property tax administrator the right to appeal from adverse decisions pertaining to exemption from taxes. Maurer v. Young Life, 751 P.2d 653 (Colo. App. 1987), aff'd in part and rev'd in part on other grounds, 779 P.2d 1317 (Colo. 1989); Maurer v. Loyal Order of Moose Lodge, 779 P.2d 1345 (Colo. 1989).   Taxpayer failed to preserve property-classification issue for review when he did not appeal or cross-appeal from board of assessment appeals' ruling on that issue. Gyurman v. Weld County Bd. of Equaliz., 851 P.2d 307 (Colo. App. 1993).   Thirty-day time limit for filing appeal with the board of assessment appeals begins to run on the date of the mailing of the board of equalization's decision directly to the taxpayer. Tri-Havana LLC v. Arapahoe County Bd. of Equaliz., 961 P.2d 604 (Colo. App. 1998).   Thirty-day time limit for filing appeal with court of appeals in tax assessment cases is applicable only if initial appeal was made directly to district court with no intervening appeal to state board of assessment appeals. Denver v. Bd. of Assess. Appeals, 748 P.2d 1306 (Colo. App. 1987).   Apart from timely filing requirement, there are no other statutory jurisdictional requirements for taking administrative appeals before the board of assessment appeals. Fleisher-Smyth v. Bd. of Assess. App., 865 P.2d 922 (Colo. App. 1993).   Proceedings before the board of assessment appeals are de novo in nature and an appeal of a classification decision of the board is thus limited to review of the propriety of the board's classification decision without regard to the prior decision of the county assessor. Johnston v. Park County Bd. of Equaliz., 979 P.2d 578 (Colo. App. 1999).   Trial de novo under this section does not mean review but means an entirely independent determination of the facts. Arapahoe P'ship v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 813 P.2d 766 (Colo. App. 1990).   Taxpayers protesting a tax assessment in the trial de novo must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment is incorrect. Arapahoe P'ship v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 813 P.2d 766 (Colo. App. 1990).   A taxpayer must prove by a preponderance of the evidence only that an assessment is incorrect to prevail at a board of assessment appeals proceeding and is not required to establish an appropriate basis for an alternative reduced valuation for the property at issue. Bd. of Assess. Appeals v. Sampson, 105 P.3d 198 (Colo. 2005).   The board of assessment appeals is not bound by any valuation methodology or results from a prior ruling valuing the taxpayer's property. Lawrence v. Bd. of Equaliz., 989 P.2d 232 (Colo. App. 1999).   The board of equalization was a necessary party to de novo proceedings in district court, but dismissal of the action was not the appropriate remedy for nonjoinder of the board; rather the court should join the necessary party or allow plaintiff an opportunity to do so. B.C., Limited, et al. v. Krinhop, 815 P.2d 1016 (Colo. App. 1991).   Dismissal without prejudice of appeal for trial de novo may constitute a final, appealable order if, during the pendency of the appeal, a limitations period has expired and the case may not be refiled because it is time-barred. Wyler/Pebble Creek Ranch v. Colo. Bd. of Assess. Appeals, 883 P.2d 597 (Colo. App. 1994).   Trial court's consideration of assessor's reference library, consisting of manuals and directives, was not inconsistent with the conduct of a trial de novo. Amax v. Grand County Bd. of Equaliz., 892 P.2d 409 (Colo. App. 1994), rev'd on other grounds sub nom. Huddleston v. Grand County Bd. of Equaliz., 913 P.2d 15 (Colo. 1996).   Protest and adjustment procedures are separate and independent from abatement and refund procedures. An appeal for a trial de novo under this section is not an “alternate petition” for abatement or refund under § 39-10-114 (1)(a)(I) . Wyler/Pebble Creek Ranch v. Colo. Bd. of Assess. Appeals, 883 P.2d 597 (Colo. App. 1994).   Applied in BA Leasing Corp. v. Bd. of Assess. Appeals, 653 P.2d 80 (Colo. App. 1982); Laredo Hous. Apts., Ltd. v. Bd. of Assm't. Appeals, 675 P.2d 23 (Colo. App. 1983); Arapahoe Cty. Bd. of Equaliz. v. Podoll, 935 P.2d 14 (Colo. 1997).