Taxpayer appealed order of Board of Tax and Land Appeals denying 77 of its 86 individual tax abatement appeals on its property.
The Supreme Court of New Hampshire held that:
- Taxpayer failed to meet burden of providing evidence that utility regulatory environment in which it operated impacted market value of property to such degree to make assessments disproportional;
- Findings by Board that appraisals of property presented by taxpayer did not result in credible opinions of market value were supported by record;
- Judicial estoppel did not apply to bar municipalities from assessing property at value greater than
- Department of Revenue Administration’s assessed value; and
Board’s decision did not violate state constitutional requirement that taxation be uniform and proportional.
Taxpayer failed to meet its burden of providing sufficient probative evidence that utility regulatory environment in which it operated impacted market value of its utility property to such degree as to make municipal assessments disproportional in Board of Tax and Land Appeals’ denial of 77 of its 86 individual tax abatement appeals. While taxpayer relied upon impact that regulation had upon its ability to set rates and impact that regulation would have upon sale of utility, as, in such sale, Public Utilities Commission approval was required, fact that Commission disfavored passing on acquisition costs to customers did not mean practice was forbidden, as it could approve sale and pass costs to customers provided that it found such sale to be for public good, and identifying regulation that might impact market value of property was insufficient.
Findings by Board of Tax and Land Appeals that appraisals of utility property presented by taxpayer did not result in credible opinions of market value were supported by record in its denial of 77 of taxpayer’s 86 individual tax abatement appeals on property. First appraiser did not consider possibility of sale of any of key components of property, but Public Utilities Commission concluded that taxpayer’s hydroelectric plants could be sold separately and for higher value, first appraiser used flawed income approach, as he did not have specific revenue or expense information, second appraiser shifted how much weight he placed upon his approach for differing years but provided no support for deduction for what he called non-taxable, pollution control items, and second appraiser did not provide independent opinion of market value of property in individual towns.
Judicial estoppel did not apply to bar municipalities from assessing taxpayer’s utility property at value greater than Department of Revenue Administration’s assessed value, even though municipalities did not challenge Department’s assessment before Board of Tax and Land Appeals denied 77 of taxpayer’s 86 individual tax abatement appeals. Department’s equalization process was not legal proceeding in which municipalities were litigants, and taxpayer did not show that municipalities took inconsistent positions, as municipalities submitted their local assessed values to Department, which unilaterally substituted allocated values from its appraisal for local assessed values supplied by municipalities and, thus, position municipalities were asserting was that their local assessed values represented correct market value of property, which was consistent with assessing taxes based upon those values.
Board of Tax and Land Appeals’ decision to deny 77 of taxpayer’s 86 individual tax abatement appeals on its utility property did not violate state constitutional requirement that taxation be uniform and proportional, despite claim that it allowed local municipal assessments to be significantly greater than Department of Revenue Administration’s assessments used to determine municipality’s share of county taxes. Taxpayer paid same proportion of local taxes, regardless of value of county taxes owed by municipality, and, thus, it was not being taxed disproportionately compared to other municipal residents, and taxpayer could not show that it was harmed, as Department’s valuations of property did not yield accurate opinion of market value and, thus, property was effectively being value disproportionately lower at county level.