Court Opinion

ID: 9748966
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 16:19:06.960779+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:41.149026
License: Public Domain

Justice SAYLOR,
concurring.
I join the majority opinion. I write only to note that, in the IOGA case, I joined Mr. Justice Nigro’s concurrence, which relied on the special characteristics of oil and gas to support the conclusion that such minerals were beyond the reach of Section 201 of the General County Assessment Law. I appreciated that oil and gas have been termed “real estate” in various decisions, but applying a strict construction of the statute most favorable to the taxpayers, I found sufficient ambiguity in Section 201 with regard to these minerals, in light of their vagrant and fugacious character, to support the taxpayers’ position. However, with regard to solid minerals attached to the earth, on or beneath its surface, there seems to me to be no room for any similar ambiguity-these are almost universally understood to be real estate. See generally 58 C.J.S. Mines and Minerals § 141 (2007) (“Minerals in place are generally held to be a part of the real estate with all the attributes and incidents peculiar to the ownership of land, but after their removal from the land they become personalty.”). Thus, I conclude that Section 201 was plainly intended to reach them. See 72 P.S. § 5020-201(a) (providing for taxation of “[a]ll real estate” and “all other real estate not exempt by law from taxation”).