Court Opinion

ID: 9786824
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 00:03:20.423852+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:36:49.075333
License: Public Domain

HOWE, Chief Justice,
dissenting:
«[ 28 I respectfully dissent from the majority's analysis of escaped property and would advise the bankruptey court to employ the guidelines set out in this dissenting opinion for determining whether the Fine Arts Building constituted an escaped property.
129 The majority bases its opinion on this court's decision in County Board of Equalization v. State Tax Commission of Utah ex rel. Sunkist Service Co., 789 P.2d 291 (Utah 1990), and specifically relies on the following language:
Thus, for the improvement to qualify as an escaped property rather than an underas-sessed property, the tax assessment notice must not list the improvement. If the improvement is underassessed but shown on the assessment notice, the statute prohibits the reassessment of the improvement.
Id. at 294 (citing County Bd. of Equalization v. Nupeteo Assocs, 779 P.2d 1188, 1139 (Utah 1989) (holding mistake in acreage on tax assessment was not escaped property)). Thus, the majority would hold that if the heading "Buildings" appears on the assessment notice, any building not included must constitute undervalued and not omitted property, and therefore cannot be an escaped property. I disagree.
130 First, this court's decision in Sunkist was governed by the 1974 version of the code, which did not define escaped property. The statutory provision in effect at the time of the events in this case, Utah Code Ann. § 59-2-102(8)(a)G) (Supp.1996), defines escaped property to mean "any property ... or any improvements to the property ... inadvertently omitted from the tax rolls."
{31 A fundamental rule of statutory interpretation is that we must first look to the plain language of the statute to determine legislative intent. See Valcarce v. Fitegerald, 961 P.2d 305, 318 (Utah 1998); Chris & Dick's Lumber & Hardware v. Tax Comm'n, 791 P.2d 511, 514 (Utah 1990). We must also give every word meaning and effect, see Nelson v. Salt Lake County, 905 P.2d 872, 875 (Utah 1995), and avoid any interpretation that renders parts or words in a statute inoperative or superfluous, see A.C. Fin., Inc. v. Salt Lake County, 948 P.2d 771, 779 (Utah 1997); State v. Hunt, 906 P.2d 311, 812 (Utah 1995).
1 32 The key phrase in the statutory definition of eseaped property is "any property . or any improvements." Black's Law Dictionary defines "any" as "one indiscerimi-nately of whatever kind or quantity." Black's Law Dictionary 86 (5th ed.1979); see also Mt. Olympus Waters, Inc. v. Utah State Tax Comm'n, 877 P.2d 1271, 1273-74 (Utah Ct.App.1994) (applying above-mentioned Black's definition of "any" to tax code). *174"Any" has also been described as "[oJne or another without restriction or exception." Webster's II New Collegiate Dictionary 51 (1995). Thus, "escaped property" can mean any property or any improvement that has been inadvertently omitted from the tax rolls. See § 59-2-102(8)(a)@G). "Improvements" include "all buildings ... erected upon or affixed to the land." § 59-2-102(12). The Fine Arts Building is a building erected upon the land. The definition does not provide exceptions where other improvements are included on the assessment, or where there is a general heading on the assessment notice for "Buildings." Such exceptions should not be read into the statutory definition.
33 Second, section 59-2-102(8)(a)() defines escaped property as "any property ... inadvertently omitted from the tax rolls." (Emphasis added.) Section 59-2-102(25) defines tax roll as:
a permanent record of the taxes charged on property, as extended on the assessment roll and may be maintained on the same record or records as the assessment roll or may be maintained on a separate record properly indexed to the assessment roll. It includes tax books, tax lists, and other similar materials.
Thus, tax rolls encompass much more than just a tax assessment notice. This court clearly stated in Sunkist that we made our determination on the "complete absence of any valuation for the building on the tax roll or assessment notice." Sunkist, T89 P.2d at 294 (emphasis added). This ruling should not be construed so narrowly as to hold that the tax assessment notice is the only determinative factor, and that as long as the separate headings of "Real Estate" and "Buildings" are listed on a tax assessment notice, any real property or building is precluded from ever being escaped. The only cases the majority cites in support of its position are from other jurisdictions and are interpreting different statutory language.
134 I would hold that the bankruptcy court should look further to the tax rolls to determine whether or not the Fine Arts Building actually appeared on any tax book, list, or other record indexed to the property. We have multiple tax documents before us in this case regarding the Westgate Business Center. While some list only the broad categories of "Real Estate" and "Buildings," one of the documents, the Pareel Listing, lists not only the legal description of the real estate, but detailed information on each of the buildings on the real estate. The only year for which we have a parcel listing is 1997, after the omitted property had been found and reported on the listing. We do not have in front of us this part of the tax rolls during the disputed years of 1992 to 1996. From those lists, it would be clear whether the Fine Arts Building was considered when the tax was levied, or if it was omitted and therefore escaped assessment. The statute clearly directs us to the tax rolls, and so does the plain language in Sunkist.
4[ 35 In applying Sunkist, it is important to note that the key holding was that real estate and improvements could be assessed as separate units of property and not just as one complete unit. In Sunkist, there was one building on the property, and the tax assessment did not list the category of "Buildings," but only "Real Estate." Thus, because there was no separate assessment for "Buildings," this court held that someone with very general knowledge would know from the face of the notice that the improvement had not been assessed and had escaped assessment. See Sunkist, 789 P.2d at 292-98. That is not the case here.
136 Sunkist did not consider what should happen in the case of multiple improvements listed under the single category of "Buildings." Under the majority's holding, no property, whether land or improvement, could ever be escaped if the headings "Buildings" and "Real Estate" appeared on the assessment notice sent to the taxpayer. Taken to an unlikely but logical end, a property where only one building was assessed, yet ten buildings existed, would be considered undervalued-even where it could clearly be shown that nine of them had been omitted from the tax rolls when the assessment was made-so long as the assessment had a sum listed under the heading of "Buildings." Such a holding would be very poor *175law and surely does not comport with the plain meaning of the statute.
137 Finally, the majority points out that "West Side relied on this assessment to be correct." I dissented in Sunkist on the same issue of finality and reliance. I thought that the taxpayer in Sunkist, a bona fide purchaser, should have the right to rely on the tax assessment. However, this issue was addressed in Sunkist, where this court reasoned:
Sunkist also argues that because it relied on tax rolls which showed no delinquent taxes at the time Sunkist purchased the property, the County should be estopped from collecting the escaped taxes. But the question is not one of estoppel or perceived inequity; it is, rather, one of statutory construction.
Sunkist, 789 P.2d at 298-94. While I recognize the general rule that statutes imposing taxes and prescribing tax procedures should generally be construed favorably to the taxpayer, see Nupetco, 779 P.2d 1188 at 1139, such a preference should not come at the expense of the plain meaning of the statute. The statute could not be more clear,. The legislature has said any improvement inadvertently omitted from the fax rolls is escaped property, and we should so hold. My concerns expressed in my dissent in Sunkist are no longer valid.
1 38 It is our task to interpret the law, not to change what the legislature intended. The determination of whether a property has escaped assessment must be based on whether the property has actually been omitted from the tax rolls. The mere fact that the heading "Buildings" appeared on the tax assessment notice with an amount listed under it does not eliminate the possibility of an improvement being omitted and escaping assessment. Any other holding would clearly violate and make inoperative the plain language of the current statute.
1 39 Justice WILKINS concurs in Chief Justice HOWE's dissenting opinion.