Opinion ID: 1198748
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Colorado Constitution, Article X, Section 15.

Text: It is asserted that the 1976 statute, by requiring county assessors to achieve any increase ordered by the State Board only by changes to individual valuations for assessments of property . . ., [11] effectively empowers the State Board to make original assessments in violation of Colo. Const. Art. X, Sec. 15. That section declares that the state board of equalization shall have no power of original assessment. Assessment is the act of placing a value for tax purposes upon the property of a particular taxpayer. Equalization, on the other hand, is the act of raising or lowering the total valuation placed upon a class, or subclass, of property in the aggregate. Equalization deals with all the property of a class or subclass within a designated territorial limit, such as a county, without regard to who owns the individual parcels making up the class or subclass. Assessment relates to individual properties; equalization relates to classes of property collectively. Union Pacific R. Co. v. Board of Commissioners, 35 F.2d 785, 790 (10th Cir. 1929) (interpreting Colorado law). Here the State Board did not attempt to single out or raise the assessed valuation of any individual taxpayer. That task was left to the county assessors. Rather the State Board dealt only with aggregate values, and . . . this cannot be deemed an act of original assessment. MacGinnis v. Denver Land Co., 90 Colo. 72, 77, 6 P.2d 919, 921 (1931). In our view the State Board's order here under consideration is not an original assessment. Nor does the statute under attack purport to authorize the State Board to make any original assessment. Quite the contrary, the statute, and the State Board's order, respect the county assessors' function of making original assessments. The statute plainly states that it is the assessor who is to make any changes to individual valuations for assessments of property [12] within each affected class or subclass. Neither the statute nor the State Board's order goes beyond requiring increases in aggregate valuation for assessment of any class or subclass of property affected. We hold that neither the statute nor the board's order offends the constitutional proviso that the State Board have no power of original assessment.