Opinion ID: 883905
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The request for assessment review:

Text: Section 15-7-102(3), MCA (1993), does not require that the request for assessment review be filed. Instead, it provides that the taxpayer could request an assessment review by  submitting an objection in writing to the department.... (Emphasis added.) Section 15-15-102, MCA (1993), allows the taxpayer fifteen days after the DOR's determination on review to file an appeal. Thus, if a taxpayer submitted a timely request for review by the DOR, he or she had fifteen days after receipt of the department's determination on review to file an appeal. In the present case, Canbra mailed its appeal and its request for review on the same day, July 27, 1993. That mailing presents two questions: 1) does a mailing constitute filing an appeal with the CTAB; and 2) does a mailing constitute submitting an objection to the DOR under § 15-7-102(3), MCA (1993)? We must first address the question of whether mailing constitutes submitting a request for review under § 15-7-102(3), MCA (1993). If we answer that question in the affirmative, then, since the time for filing an appeal under § 15-15-102, MCA (1993), was not triggered until the DOR first conducted its assessment review, we need not address the question of whether a mailing satisfied the requirement that an appeal be filed. Tax statutes are to be strictly construed against the taxing authorities and in favor of the taxpayer. Butte Country Club v. Department of Revenue (1980), 186 Mont. 424, 430, 608 P.2d 111, 115. In the instant case, § 15-7-102(3) MCA (1993), required Canbra to submit its request for assessment review to the DOR within fifteen days of receiving the appraisal. Here, the issue is whether Canbra's July 27, 1993, mailing satisfied the requirement that a request be submitted within fifteen days of Canbra's receipt of the appraisal on July 12, 1993. Although we have not had occasion to interpret the meaning of the term submit, we note that the North Dakota Supreme Court in Husebye v. Jaeger (N.D.1995), 534 N.W.2d 811, 815, addressed the distinction between filing and submitting. The North Dakota Court was asked to determine the constitutionality of a state statute requiring that referendum petitions be submitted to the Secretary of State by 5:00 p.m. on the day designated as the deadline. The North Dakota constitution does not require that a referendum petition be filed; rather, it provides that it may be submitted only within 90 days. Art. II, Sec. 5, N.D. Const. Prior to 1978, the constitution had provided that such petitions be filed. In deciding that the petition could be submitted until midnight on the 90th day, the court held: As construed in the prior cases, filing requires not only presentment of the document to the public official, but the officer's action of accepting it and placing it into the official records of the office for public examination. Similarly, this court has held, in the context of liens, that filing requires more than merely leaving the documents in the office of the appropriate official. Powers Elevator Co. v. Pottner, 16 N.D. 359, 113 N.W. 703 (1907). Filing implies not only presentation, but official action to place the document into the permanent record. Husebye, 534 N.W.2d at 815. The court then went on to contrast the requirement of filing with submitting. By contrast, the term submit has a much less restrictive meaning. Webster's New World Dictionary 1418 (2nd ed.1982), defines submit as to present or refer to others for decision, consideration, etc. See also 83 C.J.S. Submit (1953) [The verb `submit' is defined generally as meaning to present for determination]. Submitting does not imply any required action on the part of the recipient, but would be complete upon presentation. We conclude that, by changing the constitutional requirement from filed within 90 days to submitted within 90 days, the people intended a less restrictive requirement. The rationale of those cases holding that petitions must be filed by the close of normal business hours is inapplicable. Husebye, 534 N.W.2d at 815. We agree that submit is a less restrictive requirement than filing; that the term submit implies that the receiving party is not required to act; that a unilateral action on the part of a taxpayer will suffice. Thus, Canbra's unilateral act of mailing the AB-26 Form on July 27, 1993, satisfied the statutory requirement that the request be submitted to the DOR within fifteen days of its receipt of the appraisal on July 12, 1993.