CO Code § 39-5-122 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 39 - Taxation|Article 5 - Valuation and Taxation|Part 1 - Real and Personal Property|§ 39-5-122. Taxpayer's Remedies to Correct Errors

     On or before May 1 of each year, the assessor shall give public notice in at least one issue of a newspaper published in the assessor's county that, beginning on the first working day after notices of adjusted valuation are mailed to taxpayers, the assessor will sit to hear all objections and protests concerning valuations of taxable real property determined by the assessor for the current year; that, for a taxpayer's objection and protest to be heard, notice must be given to the assessor; and that such notice must be postmarked, delivered, or given in person by June 1. The notice must also state that objections and protests concerning valuations of taxable personal property determined by the assessor for the current year will be heard commencing June 15; that, for a taxpayer's objection and protest to be heard, notice must be given to the assessor; and that such notice must be postmarked or physically delivered by June 30. If there is no such newspaper, then such notice must be conspicuously posted in the offices of the assessor, the treasurer, and the county clerk and recorder and in at least two other public places in the county seat. The assessor shall send news releases containing such notice to radio stations, television stations, and newspapers of general circulation in the county.    Repealed.       If any person is of the opinion that his or her property has been valued too high, has been twice valued, or is exempt by law from taxation or that property has been erroneously assessed to such person, he or she may appear before the assessor and object, complete the form mailed with his or her notice of valuation pursuant to section 39-5-121 (1) or (1.5), or file a written letter of objection and protest by mail with the assessor's office before the last day specified in the notice, stating in general terms the reason for the objection and protest. Reasons for the objection and protest may include, but shall not be limited to, the installation and operation of surface equipment relating to oil and gas wells on agricultural land. Any change or adjustment of any ratio of valuation for assessment shall not constitute grounds for an objection. If the form initiating an appeal or the written letter of objection and protest is filed by mail, it shall be presumed that it was received as of the day it was postmarked. If the form initiating an appeal or the written letter of objection and protest is hand-delivered, the date it was received by the assessor shall be stamped on the form or letter. As stated in the public notice given by the assessor pursuant to subsection (1) of this section, the taxpayer's notification to the assessor of his or her objection and protest to the adjustment in valuation must be delivered, postmarked, or given in person by June 1 in the case of real property. In the case of personal property, the notice must be postmarked or physically delivered by June 30. All such forms and letters received from protesters shall be presumed to be on time unless the assessor can present evidence to show otherwise. The county shall not prescribe the written form of objection and protest to be used. The protester shall have the opportunity on the days specified in the public notice to present his or her objection in writing or protest in person and be heard, whether or not there has been a change in valuation of such property from the previous year and whether or not any change is the result of a determination by the assessor for the current year or by the state board of equalization for the previous year. If the assessor finds any valuation to be erroneous or otherwise improper, the assessor shall correct the error. If the assessor declines to change any valuation that the assessor has determined, the assessor shall state his or her reasons in writing on the form described in section 39-8-106, shall insert the information otherwise required by the form, and shall mail two copies of the completed form to the person presenting the objection and protest so denied on or before the last regular working day of the assessor in June in the case of real property and on or before July 10 in the case of personal property; except that, if a county has made an election pursuant to section 39-5-122.7 (1), the assessor shall mail the copies on or before August 15 in the case of both real and personal property. (2.5) If the property that is the subject of an objection and protest is rent-producing commercial real property located in a county that has made an election pursuant to section 39-5-122.7 (1) , then, on or before July 15, the taxpayer shall provide to the assessor the information described in section 39-8-107 (5)(a)(I) .    Any person whose objection and protest has been denied in writing by the assessor may appeal to the county board of equalization in the manner provided in article 8 of this title.    The assessor shall continue his hearings from day to day until all objections and protests have been heard, but all such hearings shall be concluded by June 1 in the case of real property and July 5 in the case of personal property.      Any written statement given by any assessor which consists only of a denial of any objection and protest or which consists of a statement referring to compliance by the county with the requirements of valuation for assessment study shall not be sufficient to satisfy the requirements of subsection (2) of this section concerning the statement of reasons why an objection and protest is denied.    Any information presented by the taxpayer regarding the value of his property shall be considered by the assessor in determining whether an adjustment in value is warranted.         History. Source: L. 64: R&RE, p. 703, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 137-5-22. L. 73: P. 1441, § 1. L. 76: (1), (2), and (4) amended, p. 762, § 24, effective January 1, 1977. L. 77: (2) amended, p. 1735, § 16, effective June 20. L. 81: (1), (2), and (4) amended, p. 1833, § 9, effective June 12. L. 84: (2) amended, p. 1000, § 1, effective March 5. L. 88: (1), (2), and (4) amended, p. 1300, § 6, effective April 29; (2) amended, p. 1287, § 18, effective May 23. L. 89: (1) and (2) amended, p. 1455, § 10, effective June 7. L. 90: (1), (2), and (4) amended and (5) added, p. 1691, § 9, effective January 1, 1991. L. 92: (2) amended, pp. 2209, 2213, §§ 5, 11, effective June 3. L. 98: (2) amended, p. 468, § 2, effective July 1. L. 2002: (1) and (2) amended, p. 42, § 2, effective August 7. L. 2005: (2) amended, p. 390, § 1, effective April 27. L. 2008: (1) and (2) amended, p. 949, § 4, effective August 5. L. 2013: (1) amended,(HB 13-1113), ch. 11, p. 28, § 2, effective March 8. L. 2019: (2) amended and (2.5) added,(HB 19-1175), ch. 43, p. 147, § 1, effective March 21. L. 2020: (1)(a) amended and (1)(b) repealed,(SB 20-136), ch. 70, p. 292, § 34, effective September 14. L. 2021: (2) amended,(SB 21-293), ch. 301, p. 1812, § 12, effective June 23. History. Source: L. 64: R&RE, p. 703, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 137-5-22. L. 73: P. 1441, § 1. L. 76: (1), (2), and (4) amended, p. 762, § 24, effective January 1, 1977. L. 77: (2) amended, p. 1735, § 16, effective June 20. L. 81: (1), (2), and (4) amended, p. 1833, § 9, effective June 12. L. 84: (2) amended, p. 1000, § 1, effective March 5. L. 88: (1), (2), and (4) amended, p. 1300, § 6, effective April 29; (2) amended, p. 1287, § 18, effective May 23. L. 89: (1) and (2) amended, p. 1455, § 10, effective June 7. L. 90: (1), (2), and (4) amended and (5) added, p. 1691, § 9, effective January 1, 1991. L. 92: (2) amended, pp. 2209, 2213, §§ 5, 11, effective June 3. L. 98: (2) amended, p. 468, § 2, effective July 1. L. 2002: (1) and (2) amended, p. 42, § 2, effective August 7. L. 2005: (2) amended, p. 390, § 1, effective April 27. L. 2008: (1) and (2) amended, p. 949, § 4, effective August 5. L. 2013: (1) amended,(HB 13-1113), ch. 11, p. 28, § 2, effective March 8. L. 2019: (2) amended and (2.5) added,(HB 19-1175), ch. 43, p. 147, § 1, effective March 21. L. 2020: (1)(a) amended and (1)(b) repealed,(SB 20-136), ch. 70, p. 292, § 34, effective September 14. L. 2021: (2) amended,(SB 21-293), ch. 301, p. 1812, § 12, effective June 23.    Editor's note:   Amendments to subsection (2) by sections 5 and 11 of Senate Bill 92-50 were harmonized.   Cross references:   For the legislative declaration in SB 20-136, see section 1 of chapter 70, Session Laws of Colorado 2020.   ANNOTATION   Law reviews. For article, “A Calendar of Tax Procedure in Colorado”, see 6 Dicta 17 (July 1929). For article, “Some Aspects of Colorado Taxpayers' Remedies”, see 23 Rocky Mt. L. Rev. 145 (1950). For article, “Property Tax Assessments in Colorado”, see 12 Colo. Law. 563 (1983). For article, “Appealing Property Tax Assessments”, see 15 Colo. Law. 798 (1986). For article, “Property Tax Litigation Before the Board of Assessment Appeals”, see 35 Colo. Law. 87 (Aug. 2006).   Annotator's note. The following annotations include cases decided under former provisions similar to this section.   Statutes fixing meeting times deemed directory. Statutes fixing times for meetings and other functions of state officials are merely directory; the alleged noncompliance therewith on the part of said officials being matters nonprejudicial to complainants, they are not subject to attack on their part. Citizens' Comm. for Fair Property Taxation v. Warner, 127 Colo. 121 , 254 P.2d 1005 (1953).   Steps in assessment process which are for benefit of taxpayer are mandatory. Sperry Rand Corp. v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 31 Colo. App. 444, 503 P.2d 356 (1972).   The statutory requirements set forth in this section are mandatory only if an aggrieved taxpayer can show that noncompliance by county officials has deprived him of an opportunity for a hearing or other right which he might otherwise have had. Modular Cmtys., Inc. v. McKnight, 191 Colo. 101 , 550 P.2d 866 (1976).   The provisions of § 39-8-106 and this section are remedial. Kortz v. Ellingson, 181 F. Supp. 857 (D. Colo. 1960 ).   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 Assessment Appeals, 876 P.2d 118 (Colo. App. 1994).   Subsection (2) is unambiguous and authorizes an assessor to raise a property valuation after a taxpayer has filed a protest challenging the original valuation of the property. San Miguel County Bd. of Equaliz. v. Telluride Co., 947 P.2d 1381 (Colo. 1997).   Aggrieved person must conform to provisions of section. This section gives to an aggrieved property owner a remedy which, in its absence, he would not have by prescribing a special procedure to which the person seeking to avail himself of its provisions must conform. It cannot by construction be extended to embrace cases not falling within its letter or spirit. Bd. of County Comm'rs v. Denver Union Water Co., 32 Colo. 382 , 76 P. 1060 (1904).   If an assessment is erroneous or excessive, the right to relief can be lost through failure to pursue the proper statutory remedy. Citizens' Comm. for Fair Property Taxation v. Warner, 127 Colo. 121 , 254 P.2d 1005 (1953).   When burden on taxpayer to show illegal tax. Where a taxpayer claims a refund of taxes, paid under protest, for over-valuation in successive years, and where the facts show that the initial over-valuation based on the type of construction was neither illegal nor invalid, the taxpayer has burden, if proceeding under this section, of showing that the tax was illegally laid, erroneous in its entirety, and incapable of adjustment. City & County of Denver v. Athmar Park Bldg. Co., 151 Colo. 424 , 378 P.2d 638 (1963).   There is no need to characterize the tax paid as wholly illegal before claiming a refund. Bd. of Assessment Appeals v. Benbrook, 735 P.2d 860 (Colo. 1987) (overruling prior cases).   Administrative remedies to be exhausted before court action permissible. Exhaustion of administrative remedies, as provided by this section and § 39-8-106 is a requisite precedent to the maintenance of a court action. Citizens' Comm. for Fair Property Taxation v. Warner, 127 Colo. 121 , 254 P.2d 1005 (1953).   The trial court is without jurisdiction to permit condominium owners to bring a class action challenging the assessor's routine increase in valuation of all condominiums upon their conversion where most owners had not pursued the remedy provided by this section. Hoffman v. Bd. of Assessment Appeals, 683 P.2d 783 (Colo. 1984).   Until relief under this section is sought, a taxpayer cannot appeal. Bordner v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 92 Colo. 81 , 18 P.2d 323 (1932).   A taxpayer is not entitled to bring C.R.C.P. 106 proceeding without first having filed its protest and pursued the proper administrative remedies. Honeywell Info. Sys. v. Bd. of Assessment Appeals, 654 P.2d 337 (Colo. App. 1982).   No deprivation of relief by failure to provide timely notice. The failure to provide timely notice of the correct amount of an increase in valuation does not deprive taxpayer of the right to administrative or judicial relief. Modular Cmtys., Inc. v. McKnight, 191 Colo. 101 , 550 P.2d 866 (1976).   Provisions on abatement and refund of taxes apply to relief sought under this section. When a taxpayer who seeks administrative relief under this section prevails before the board of assessment appeals or the district court and such board or court's decision occurs after the challenged property tax is due, §§ 39-1-113 and 39-10-114 apply to the refund of taxes paid under § 39-8-109 . Bd. of Assessment Appeals v. Benbrook, 735 P.2d 860 (Colo. 1987).   Because the term “erroneous valuation for assessment” in § 39-10-114 on abatement of taxes and “excessive valuation” under the protest and adjustment provisions of this section refer to the same process of assessment, the remedies available to the taxpayer regarding abatements apply to refunds ordered pursuant to this section. Bd. of Assessment Appeals v. Benbrook, 735 P.2d 860 (Colo. 1987).   No choice of remedies. The legislature's perpetuation of procedures and remedies for protest and adjustment separate and distinct from procedures and remedies for abatement and refund indicates that a taxpayer who seeks redress under one procedure cannot claim the remedy of the other procedure if the taxpayer ultimately prevails. Gates Rubber Co. v. Bd. of Equalization, 770 P.2d 1189 (Colo. 1989).   For the assessor's yearly property valuations of which the taxpayer has received notice, this section is the appropriate route of protest. Sections 39-1-113 and 39-10-114 provide a remedy for the abatement or refund of property taxes that cannot be challenged under this section. Valley Country Club v. Bd. of Assessment Appeals, 778 P.2d 285 (Colo. App. 1989), rev'd on other grounds, 792 P.2d 299 (Colo. 1990).   If a taxpayer receives no notice of a higher assessment and therefore is unable to file a timely protest under this section, the taxpayer may instead apply for abatement or refund under §§ 39-1-113 and 39-10-114 . Valley Country Club v. Bd. of Assessment Appeals, 778 P.2d 285 (Colo. App. 1989), rev'd on other grounds, 792 P.2d 299 (Colo. 1990).   If appeal is directed at assessor and made prior to levy, it is correct to follow procedure specified in this section, rather than that for abatement and refund. B.A. Leasing Corp. v. State Bd. of Equal., 745 P.2d 254 (Colo. App. 1987), aff'd sub nom. Gates Rubber Co. v. Bd. of Equalization, 770 P.2d 1189 (Colo. 1989).   Where property has been assessed improperly because of an error capable of adjustment, this section must be followed and the procedure in §§ 39-1-113 and 39-10-114 for abatement or refund is not available. Schmidt-Tiago Const. Co. v. Propty. Tax Adm'r, 687 P.2d 528 (Colo. App. 1984); Alpenrose Unit Week Ass'n v. Bd. of Assessment Appeals, 713 P.2d 932 (Colo. App. 1985).   Where assessor failed to give timely notice of property valuation, proper remedy is not to invalidate tax but to allow taxpayer to seek abatement of the tax increase pursuant to § 39-10-114 . Bea Kay Real Estate Corp. v. Aragon, 782 P.2d 837 (Colo. App. 1989).   Burden of proof that assessment incorrect. A taxpayer who protests a property tax assessment bears the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the assessment is incorrect. Honeywell Info. Sys. v. Bd. of Assessment Appeals, 654 P.2d 337 (Colo. App. 1982).   Challenges based on overvaluation. Although taxpayers challenged the amount of taxes assessed as excessive, this was not an “overvaluation” as the term is used in § 39-10-114 because, due to the taxpayers' wrongful inaction, the assessor's BIA valuations are presumed to be valid. Therefore, for purposes of § 39-10-114 , the assessor's valuation cannot be considered an overvaluation, and § 39-10-114 may not be asserted by a taxpayer to avoid the provisions of § 39-5-118 and the protest procedure under this section. Prop. Tax Adm'r v. Prod. Geophysical, 860 P.2d 514 (Colo. 1993).   Application of abatement procedure to personal property taxes. The protest procedure set forth in this section, as opposed to the abatement procedure set forth in § 39-10-114 , is the exclusive method for challenging personal property BIA evaluations. Prop. Tax Adm'r v. Prod. Geophysical, 860 P.2d 514 (Colo. 1993); Spectra Pub. v. Prop. Tax Adm'r, 860 P.2d 520 (Colo. 1993).   Taxpayer may seek an abatement and refund under § 39-10-114 even though taxpayer initially protested valuation of the property under this section, because the taxpayer did not base its petition for abatement on the ground of overvaluation but on the arbitrator's clerical error. Landmark Petroleum v. County Comm'rs, 870 P.2d 610 (Colo. App. 1993).   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).   Applied in Laredo Hous. Apt., Ltd. v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 628 P.2d 135 (Colo. App. 1980); Laredo Hous. Apts., Ltd. v. Bd. of Assessment Appeals, 675 P.2d 23 (Colo. App. 1983); Southern Cafeteria, Inc. v. Propty. Tax Adm'r, 677 P.2d 362 (Colo. App. 1983); Telluride Airport Auth. v. Bd. of Equalization, 789 P.2d 201 (Colo. App. 1989); Lucchesi v. State, 807 P.2d 1185 (Colo. App. 1990).