Court Opinion

ID: 9545870
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:21:14.582101+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:15:40.343939
License: Public Domain

*439TUCKETT, District Judge.
I dissent insofar as the opinion of the Court pertains to the tailings dump lands.
It is apparent from the record in this case that the Tax Commission arrived at its valuation of the tailings dump solely upon the value of the land to the plaintiff. This is apparent from the testimony of Commissioner Hammond that he considered the tailings dump would be of only a nominal or negative value if the plaintiff’s mining and milling operations were abandoned, but that measured by its value to the plaintiff for its present use its valuation for tax purposes is $45.73. In other words, the Commission determined that the market value of the tailings dump was $114.40 per acre and by taking forty per cent of that figure arrived at the valuation of $45.73.
It is apparent that the tailings dump lands have no other use or value except for the purpose of dumping the refuse from the mills, aside from the copper precipitates recovered from the dump and which are taxed under the net proceeds provision of the statute.
The elements to be considered by the Tax Commission in determining the reasonable fair cash value are the same in arriving at a valuation for tax purposes and in the determining of the value in condemnation cases. These principles were before the U. S. Supreme Court in the case of Great Northern Railroad Company v. Weeks, 297 U. S. 135, 56 S. Ct. 426, 428, 80 L. Ed. 532; wherein the Court said:
“The full and true value of the property is the amount that the owner would he entitled to receive as just compensation upon a taking of that property by the state or the United States in the exertion of the power of eminent domain. That value is the equivalent of the property, in money paid at the time of the taking.” Olson v. United States, 292 U. S. 246, 254, 54 S. Ct. 704, 78 L. Ed. 1236.
The principles governing the ascertainment of value for the purposes of taxation are the same as those that control in *440condemnation cases, confiscation cases, and generally in controversies involving the ascertainment of just compensation. West v. Chesapeake & Potomac Teleph. Co., 295 U. S. 662, 55 S. Ct. 894, 79 L. Ed. 1640.
The tailings dump lands have no value except for, .the. purpose for which they are now used. The original value of the lands for grazing purposes has been destroyed. Under the law applicable to condemnation cases the owner of land sought to be condemned would be entitled to the reasonable market value of the land for the highest and best use to. which it could be put at the time of the taking. Moyle v. Salt Lake City, 111 Utah 201, 176 P. 2d 882. The law contemplates that market value is that which the land would bring on a free market between a willing buyer and a willing seller.
The defendant and the intervenor argue that the value of the lands might properly be measured by its peculiar, value to the plaintiff. I do not think this is the proper basis for determining market value.
The Tax Commission may properly consider the factor of “use” in determining the market value of the lands, but this is only one of the factors to be considered in determining such value. The use factor is important in determining the market value in both condemnation cases and in other cases involving the valuation of property. However, the use factor is only one of many elements to be considered in arriving at a price a tract of land would bring on an open and free market. While the Court will not substitute its judgment for that of the Tax Commission, the Court should grant relief where it appears that the taxing body, has based its valuation upon an erroneous premise, so that the assessment resulted in' an arbitrary fixing of such value.
CROCKETT, J., being disqualified, does not participate herein.
HENRIOD, J., not participating.