HomeMy WebLinkAbout20090377.tiffRESOLUTION
RE: APPROVE PETITION FOR ABATEMENT OR REFUND OF TAXES - ECHOSTAR
SATELLITE, LLC, DBA DISH NETWORK
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, pursuant to
Colorado statute and the Weld County Home Rule Charter, is vested with the authority of
administering the affairs of Weld County, Colorado, and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, State of Colorado, at a
duly and lawfully called regular meeting held on the 9th day of February, 2009, at which meeting
there were present the following members: Chair William F. Garcia, and Commissioners Sean P.
Conway, Barbara Kirkmeyer, David E. Long, and Douglas Rademacher, and
WHEREAS, notice of such meeting and an opportunity to be present has been given to the
taxpayer and the Assessor of said County, with said Assessor, Christopher Woodruff, being
present, and taxpayer Echostar Satellite, LLC, dba Dish Network, not being present, and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners have carefully considered the attached
petition, and are fully advised in relation thereto.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Weld
County, Colorado, that the Board concurs with the recommendation of the assessor and the
petition be and hereby is, approved, and an abatement or refund be allowed as follows:
CORRECTION
TO ASSESSED
VALUATION
ABATEMENT
OR REFUND
TAX
YEAR
$262,423.00
$21,503.67
2006
$352,868.00
$28,193.04
2007
2009-0377
AS0072
TAX ABATEMENT PETITION - ECHOSTAR SATELLITE, LLC, DBA DISH NETWORK
PAGE 2
The above and foregoing Resolution was, on motion duly made and seconded, adopted by
the following vote on the 9th day of February, A.D., 2009.
BOARD OF CO COMMISSIONERS
W D .4 U ; ' OLORADO
ATTEST:
Weld County Clerk to the
BY'.
y
2
APPROVED AS2O
t Attorney
De
Clerts,to the Board
Date of signature. ?f?3bcc 1
illiam F. Garcia, Chair
(0:— GtrAi-v-KAA-Lasr
Douglas Rademacher, Pro -Tern
Sean P. Conway
arts Kirkmeye
David E. Long
2009-0377
AS0072
PETITION FOR ABATEMENT OR REFUND OF TAXES
Please submit in duplicate copies and answer all questions.
County Name Weld •
U ( '' l,! t t egg Received
STATEurUse Aslse5sol5 DdCommissionersDate Stamp
2009 MAR 18 PH 2:06
PETITIONER: Complete Section I on this side only
Section I:
Date: November 5, 2008
Month Day Year
Petitioner's Name: Echostar Satellite LLC, dba: Dish Network
Petitioner's mailing address: PO Box 6623
Englewood
CO 80155
NOV 05 2008
WELD COU�N�` i Y ASSESSOR
GREET .i Y , y
1:1
City or Town
State Zip Code
SCHEDULE OR PARCEL NUMBER(S) PROPERTY ADDRESS OR LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
Please see attached schedule
Please see attached schedule
Petitioner states that the taxes assessed against the above property for property tax year 2006 is
incorrect for the following reasons: (Briefly describe the circumstances surrounding the incorrect value or tax.
(The petitioner's estimate of actual value must be included.) Attach additional sheets if necessary.
Echostar Satellite is claiming a personal property exemption on set top boxes and LNBFs having a per item cost of $250 or
less as defined by the consumable personal property exemption (C.R.S 39-3-119). This position was upheld by the
Colorado Board of Assessment Appeals, docket no: 44034, on November 3, 2005 (copy of order attached). The order was
affirmed by the Colorado Court of Appeals, announced August 23, 2007 (copy attached). The attached schedule outlines
the Assessor's value by account and provides the Petitioner's value per account after $250 exemption is applied.
364,714
Petitioner's estimate of actual value $
tir Value
2006
Year
Petitioner requests an abatement or refund of the appropriate taxes associated with a reduction in value.
I declare, under penalty of perjury in the second degree, that this petition, together with any accompanying exhibits
or statements, has been examined by me, and to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, is true, correct
and complete-, SyrA‘,c ..JC�f..rfirt.,-
// St 720-514-5371
Daytime Phone Number
P tl oner's Signature
By Daytime Phone Number f )
Agent's Signature'
*Letter of agency must be attached when petition is submitted.
Every petition for abatement or refund filed pursuant to section 39-10-114, C.R.S., shall be acted upon pursuant to
the provisions of this section by the board of county commissioners or the assessor, as appropriate, within six
months of the date of filing such petition. 39-1-113(1.7), C.R.S.
Section II: Assessor's Use Only
2006
Tax Year
Assessed Value Tax
Original 368,190 $30.170.49
Corrected 105,767 8,666.82
Abate/Refund 262,423 $21,503.67
Multiple accounts Mill Levy
varies. See attached for
details by account.
2009-0377
4
(FOR ASSESSORS AND COUNTY COMMISSIONERS USE ONLY)
RESOLUTION OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Resolution No.
Section I: In accordance with 39-1-113(1.5), C.R.S., the commissioners of County authorize
the assessor to review petitions for abatement or refund and to settle by written mutual agreement any such
petition for abatement or refund in an amount of one thousand dollars or less per tract, parcel, or lot of land or per
schedule of personal property.
The assessor and petitioner mutually agree to an assessed value and tax abatement/refund of:
Tax Year
Assessed Value Tax
Original
Corrected
Abate/Refund
PLEASE NOTE: THE TOTAL TAX AMOUNT DOES NOT INCLUDE ACCRUED INTEREST, PENALTIES, AND
FEES ASSOCIATED WITH LATE AND/OR DELINQUENT TAX PAYMENTS, IF APPLICABLE. PLEASE
CONTACT YOUR COUNTY TREASURER FOR FULL PAYMENT INFORMATION.
Petitioner's Signature
Assessor's or Deputy Assessor's Signature
Date
Date
If Section I is not complete and/or if petition is for more than $1,000, Section II must be completed. Submit an
original petition and a copy to the Division of Property Taxation.
S ' ssessor's recommendation:
..r. Approved in part $
No protest filed in act? . (If a protest was filed, please attach a copy of NOD.)
Denied for the following reason(s):
an may, ! o //�\� /n -
S t -o ° Ake
tOIAOii run W lX�fachn 66b c &A Cek—r / n
✓VW
Assessor's dr Deputy Assessor' S(gnature
Section III: WHEREAS, T County Commissioners of County, State of Colorado, at a duly
and lawfully called regular meeting held on / / 2006 , at which meeting there were present the following
mo day yr
members:
with notice of such meeting and an opportunity to be present having been given to the taxpayer and the Assessor
of said County and Assessor (being present/not present) and
Name
petitioner (being present/not present), and WHEREAS, The said
Name
County Commissioners have carefully considered the within petition, and are fully advised in relation thereto, NOW
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board (agrees/does not agree) with the recommendation of the assessor
and the petition be (approved/denied) and an abatement/refund be (approved/denied) for property tax year
. The taxes to be abated or refunded are $ which represents an assessed value of
Chairperson of the Board of County Commissioners' Signature
I, County Clerk and Ex -officio Clerk of the Board of County
Commissioners in and for the aforementioned county, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing order is truly
copied from the record of the proceedings of the Board of County Commissioners.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said County
at , this day of
Time Date Month Year
County Cleric's or Deputy County Cleric's Signature
ACTION OF THE PROPERTY TAX ADMINISTRATOR
Denver, Colorado
the Board of County Commissioners, relative to the within petition, is hereby
proved in part $ ' Denied for the following reason(s):
Secre : ry's Signature
G\U5' .ABASE\FORMREVI-2000
Month
Property�j:S!'; Inistrator's ignature
Year
Vg
{
t
L (O
4)
W Q
O
L C
W N
W �
O)
O
O (6
N Q
2006 Tax
Difference
u)
N
4
-$25.761
-$387.741
-$685.301
-$652.80
CO
U7
I-
u)
U7
(9
CO
CO
O)
N
O
S
N-
CO
(O
co
O
r
W
V
O
(9
CO
O)
O
N
-$5,394.711
CO
(O
I-
N-
CO
u)
N.:
Cr
O
r
(O
I-
N
(9
O
u)
N
C--
r
-$145.701
U1
u)
M
N
V
CO
00
Cr
T-
r
4
N
69
O
0
O
CO
O)
1 -$625.031
1 -$46.411
1 -$85.83
1 -$276.991
V
O)
CO
67
CO
CO
V
O)
Ce
-$1,777.161
I-$4,279.601
r
CO
6
Cr
69
OD
CO
V
Ce
1 -$21,503.671
2006 New Tax
$57.431
0)
V
O
Tv
69
$156.451
$276.061
N
CO
CO
NN -
$627.701
CO
V
yr
N
$357.441
N
CO
W
O
C
$48.651
00
O
V
NT
N
(9
V
r
M
Vi
$59.411
$514.201
$47.73
$58.72
$49.77
N0)
IT-
O)
6
N-
O)
69
$145.131
1 $251.88
CO
CO
CO
Ce
$34.73
O
(O
.r-
V-3
CO
CO
(A
N
CO
CO
CO Vi
1 $716.27
CO
V
CV
(9
O
W
W
Ce
UP
r
(O
N
OD
(D
(D
au
(9
Petitioners
New 2006
Assd
O
M
N-
69
co
CO
fA
Cr
O
u)
Tv
(9
$3,8651
$3,0711
$7,6841
V
r
co
V
CO
O
CO
N
V
(9
O)
O
(0
V
E9
O)
V
r
Vi
1 $27,3711
$441
$617
O
V
V
ui
(9
N-
I�
u)
V3(9
r
r
O)
N-
ct
W
f9(9Ce
CO
u)
N-
O)
M
N
V'
co
rf
CO
N
CO
W
N
e
$254
u)
M
V
69
CO
Tv
O
N
(9
N
CO
(9
$432
I-
N
r
ai
(9
r $21,165
V
Cr
N
E9
CO
I-
(9
1 $105,767
Petitioners
New 2006
Actual
$2,6891
O)
I.0
V
CO
O)
CO
uS
f9
$13,3281
r
0)
(O
O
(9
cO
O)
Cr
(D
N
N
O
O
O
O
Tv
V3
$14,7791
r
O
r
M
r
$2,5821
$94,384
$1501
CO
N
r
N
Vi
$18,7581
O
0)
O)
r
69
$3,140
r
N
O)
N
69
(")
r
co
N
69
$478
O
LO
co
M
69
(O
CO
n
O)
69-
(D
N-
co
69
O
O
LO
r
(9(9
N
V
CID
M
r
r
C
CO
OO
Cr
( 9
CO
N
O
aD
N
(N
CO
CO
O)
N
N-
N
V
CO
V3
1 $252
CO
r
n
V
M
(9
2006 Tax
CO
U1
O)
O)
TT
69
U7
N
O
co
69
O)
r
V
V
u)
(9
$961.351
$915.97
$2,185.23
W
V
V
E9
$1,244.311
$1,423 63
W
u)
O)
(O
(9
$7,568.791
$10.821
O)
O
(O
O
N
(9
O
CO
O
O)
N-
r
(9
CO
N
M
CO
(9
$204.41
N
CO
M
N.,
(9
O
O
W
O
N
(9
r $33.89
O)
r
u)
O
u)
E9
T-
O)
co
(`
co
(9
V
N
u)
(D
E9
$120.56
$388.59
CO
U7
u)
(9
O
N
M
CO
r
69
$2,493.42
$6,004.40
$69.27
CO
O
r
N
(9
O)
Cr
O
I—
T-
p
Co
69
2006 Mill Levy
u)
V
u)
M
P...
O
6
O)
O
CO
CO
r
O
6
u)
CO
O
O
O
TT
6
0.0714231
u)
CO
O
u)
CO
O
0
Tv
O)
CD
r
CO
O
0
W
O
O
N
O
0
O)
O)
CO
CO
CO
O
0
Cr
u)
U)
0-
CO
O
0
0.064974
0.0794291
CO
V
N
r
O
0
O
N-
N
u)
O
O
0
u)
N
(0
V
0)
O
0
r
N
00
O
-
V
W
C
V
CO
0
0
U7
n
co
U7
0
0
O
O
CO
co
I—
0
0
N
Tv
CO
O
N-
0
0
co
Tv
CO
co
NT
0
0
(O
Cr)
O
co
CO
0
0
V
V-
R
N-
O
6
Cr
CO
O)
0-
0
0
V
CO
V
U1
u)
0
6
0.05058
M
O
CO
W
CO
O
0
00
CO
W
CO
O
0
M
O)
Cr
CO
O
0
M
O)
V
CO
O
6
O)
N
44-
CO
O
0
ASSDVAL
$2,7101
O
CD
VM
$5,4401
O
(D
V
M
.-
(9
O
O)
O
O
E9
$26,7501
O
(D
r
O
69
O
N
O)
U3
$16,2601
O
T-
(O
N
(A
O
O)
N
u)
O)
(9
$1501
O
U7r
N
(9
$18,9401
O
O
N
(9
$3,1701
$2,950
0
V
(O
N
(9
0
CO
Cr
69
0
r
Cr
()
(9
0
(O
CO
O)
(9
0
CO
O
43
0
u)
(9
1 $7,010
O
Tv
69.V3
O
O
u)
E9
I $28,290
I $73,680
O
LOU)
CO
O
N
69
1 $368,190
ACTVAL
$9,362_1
$1,597
$18,775
$46,399
0)
CO
CO
CO
CO
(9
$92,2401
$57,7881
$51,450
$56,053
N-
CO
O)
00
(9
(D
NT
u)
CO
N
CO
O
$5211
O)
O
V
h
(1
565,302
(O
N
CD
O
03
TT
CO
O)
O
r
(9
O
r
r
O
r
(A
CO
O)
0
O)
(9
1 $1,665
I-
O
r
N
N
(9
O)
O)
W
M
CO
(9
O
U1
O
M
(9
N
N
N
u)
(9
(O
co
r
V
N
(9
u)
co
CO
69
O)
N-
r
u)
(9
I $97,556
V
r
O
V
u)
( VV
N
CO
W
N
(9
N-
r
CO
69
U7
uO
(.0
CD -
(O
N
(9
Account #
U)
0
CO
u)
r-
N
co
O
u)
0
N
(D
n
N
co
a
u)
0
CO
(D
N
N
co
d
u)
0
U7
uJ
N-
N
CO
d
u)
0
U)
uJ
r
N
CO
a
u)
0
r
O
N
N
M
O
u)
0
CO
U)
N
N
CO
O
u)
0
O)
(O
N
N
CO
O
u)
0
O
N-
N
N
M
CL
1P32771051
1P3277205
u)
O
M
0
r
N
COCOCOCO
a
u)
O
V
n
N-
N
O
u)
O
u)
r
N
N
f
u)
O
(D
r
N
N
d
1P3277705
u)
C
CO
r
r
N
CO
a
u)
O
O)
r
r
N
CO
d
u)
O
O
CO
r
N
CO
a
IP3278105
u)
0
CO
CO
N
N
CO
CL
u)
0
'V
CO
N
N
CO
a
u)
0
U7
CO
r
N
M
a
u)
0
O
CO
r
N
CO
a
u)
0
r
CO
r
N
CO
CL
u)
0
co
CO
r-
N
CO
CL
u)
0
O)
CO
r
N
CO
CL
u)
0
O
O)
r
N
CO
a
1P3279105
CO
O
I -
U7
0)
u)
CO
O
t
Petitioner's Actual Value
O)
CO
(O
N
O
4591
co
0)
CO
N
13,3281
O)
N
O
coo
0
V
N
O
(O
0
14,7791
r
O I
r
(O
N
CO
10
N
V
CO
CO
O
(0
r
co
N
r
NiN
coW
10
I--
coOO
0)
Ol
r
O
Act
CON
N
0
M
(D
N!
4781
O
N
M-
(0
t0
0
O)
coo
N-
COI
O
N
O
M
O
0
r
6,9421
r
r
r
CO
CO
At
r
28,023
72,983
N
V
00
N
(0
N
364,7141
Assessor's Actual Value ]
N
O
CO
O)
O
0-
O)
N
r
N
N-
N-
OO
r
O)
m
M
O
0)'
O
CO
co
CO
92,240]
57,788
Various, Business Personal Property -Ft Lupton 51,450]
Various, Business Personal Property -Frederick 56,053]
r
(O
0)
W
328,576]
r
N
(0
O)
O
cr
I.
N
O
CO
N
CO
(O
N
O)
co
r
CO
O)
O
r
0
N-
r
O
r
O
0)
0
O)
(O
0
(D
r
I-
0
r
N
N
0)
0
0
M
CO
N
N
N
(0
24,166
385
O)
N-
r
(D
(O''.
LO
1010
N-
O)'N
I
V
N-
N
N
CO
co
N
h
I—
O
(O
O
(O
O)
M
IFietition for Abatement - Weld County I
Echostar Satellite Corp dba: Dish Network
12006 Personal Property
Property Address or Legal Description of Property
P3275805_ 'Various, Business Personal Property -Ault
Various, Business Personal Property -Berthoud
Various, Business Personal Property -Brighton
Various, Business Personal Property-Dacono
Various, Business Personal Property -Eaton
Various, Business Personal Property -Erie
Various, Business Personal Property -Evans
Various, Business Personal Property -Firestone
Various, Business Personal Property-Gilcrest
Various, Business Personal Property -Greeley
Various, Business Personal Property -Grover
Various, Business Personal Property -Hudson
Various, Business Personal Property -Johnstown
Various, Business Personal Property-Keenesburg
Various, Business Personal Property -Kersey
P3277805 ;Various, Business Personal Property -La Salle
]Various, Business Personal Property-Lochbuie
Various, Business Personal Property -Longmont
]Various, Business Personal Property -Mead
]Various, Business Personal Property -Milliken
Various, Business Personal Property -Nunn
Various, Business Personal Property -Pierce
[Various, Business Personal Property -Platteville
Various, Business Personal Property-Raymer
]Various, Business Personal Property -Severance
Various, Business Personal Property Windsor
Various, Business Personal Property-Misc Unincorp. Weld
Various, Business Personal Property-Misc Locations
Various, Business Personal Property -Garden City
(Total
'Account Number
0
0
0
0
(0
(0
0
0
N
P3277105
IP3277205
N
0
O
to
IP3277705
N
N
N
0
0
0
0
0
N
0
0
1P3279105
(0
0
CO
0
N
(O
0
M
0
0
(0
0
0
(O
0
0
I-
(0
0
OO
(D
0
O)
(0
0
O
N-
O
Co
r
O
V
r
O
10
N.
co
co
r
0
O)
N-000
0
O
0
r
0
CO
0
V
(O
0
10
O
0
(D
c0
0
IA-
m
0
CO
w
0
O)
m
0
O
0
O
N-
M
r
N
r
N
n
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
C---
N
N
N
r
NN
i r
I--
NN
r
N
r
N
r
N
N
N
N
N
I--
N
r
N
N
N
r
N
n
N
N
N
N
N
O)
()
CO
EL
CO
0_0_
CO
CO
0_0_0
CO
CO
CO
0_0_0_
CO
CO
CO
,0_0_0_0_
CO
CO
M
CO
0.0_0_0_0_0_0_0_0
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
0.0.
CO
CO
0
CO
O
U)
BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS,
STATE OF COLORADO
1313 Sherman Street, Room 315
Denver, Colorado S0203
Petitioner:
ECHOSTAR SATELLITE, L..L.C.,
v.
Respondent:
A.RAPAHOE COUNTY BOARD OF
EQUALIZATION.
Docket No- 44034
ORDER
THIS MATTER was heard by the Board of Assessment Appeals on October 4, 2005,
Sondra W. Mercier, Karen E. Hart, and Lyle D. Hansen presiding. Petitioner was represented by
Alan Poe, Esq.. Respondent was represented by Geor�,e Rosenberg, Esq. Petitioner is protesting the
2004 valuation of the subject property, contendin`, that the property is exempt pursuant to §39-3-119
C.R.S. and Colo. Coast., art. X, §3(1)(c).
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
The subject property is described as follows:
Arapahoe County Schedule Nos. 27394-59414-001 through 27394-59414-012
The subject property consists of set top boxes or receivers (Boxes) and low -noise block
filters (LNBFs). The Boxes and LNBFs are located at hundreds of service addresses of EchoStar's
customers in Arapahoe County. The Boxes and LNBFs are leased to consumers in Arapahoe County
for utilization in television signal reception by individual end users.
FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. Petitioner contended that if each Box and each LNBF, or each Box and LNBF
combined, constitutes one "item" under the guideline established by tax law, then the Boxes and
LNBFs are exempt as the items are held for consumption by a business.
44031
S
•t
Petitioner presented the following. M support of its :trizin kilt:
a. EchoStar purchases the Boxes and I.NB1 s separately.
b. The loxes and t.NBFs are produced by different manufacturers.
c. EchoStar purchases the individual items from manufacturers at different times of
the year.
d. Each Box and LNBI: performs an individual function.
c. Each Box and LNBF is ready for installation with no assembly necessary.
f. Each Box and LNBF is recorded in EchoStar's accounting system as a separate
asset.
g. Each Box and I. NBh could be used with a television signal provider other than
I::choStar.
ii. Each Box and LNBF is leased to one consumer.
i. Each Box and LNBF is considered to be a system in its individual performance.
j. The acquisition cost of each Box and I_NBF is less than $250.00.
3. Petitioner requested reclassification of the subject property to exempt.
Respondent contended that the subject property is taxable based on the following:
a. The Boxes and I.NBI:s are nor individual "items." they are components ofa larger
system.
b. The Boxes and i_NBP's cannot provide a television signal to an iudi\ ideal user
without being connected to the total EchoStar system.
5. Respondent assigned an actual value or'S806,242.00 to the subject property for tax
year 2004; however, the patties stipulated to an actual value of $708,262.00 in the event the Board
determined that the subject property was not exempt.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
Petitioner presented sufficient probative evidence and testimony to prove that the
subject property should be classified as exempt for tax year 2004.
2. Although the Boxes and LNBFs function together, each item performs a unique
operation. The items are produced by different manufacturers, purchased separately and recorded as
separate assets. Each item is capable of functioning with non-EchoStar signal providers. When an
EchoStar customer relocates, the LNBF stays in its original location while the Box moves with the
customer. As such, the Board concluded that the Boxes and LNBF's are individual "items- and not
part of a larger system.
3. Pursuant to §39-3-119 C.R.S., .inventories or merchandise and materials and
supplies that are held for consumption by any business or are held primarily for sale shall be exempt
from the
4.0)34
•
levy and collection of property tax. The subject property clearly meets the Statlttoty guidelines for
exemption.
i. Volume t i)t the Assessor's Reference Library indicates that. to order for personal
property to be considered "consumable,'' the item must tall under one of two criteria:
a. The item must have an economic life of one (I ) year or less.
b. The item of personal property has an economic life exceeding_ one year, but has an
acquisition cost, inclusive of installation cost, sales tax, and freight expense to the
point of use. of $250 or less.
The subject property has an economic Iite exceeding One year, but an aCtlt11SItioii cost
Hitless than $250.00. The subject property meets the criteria for "consumable" personal property as
established by the Property Tax Administrator.
4. The Board declares this matter to be of statewide concern.
ORDER:
Respondent is ordered to reclassify the subject personal property to exempt.
The Arapahoe County Assessor is directed to change his records accordingly.
APFEA L:
Petitioner may petition the Court of Appeals for judicial review within 45 days from the date
of this decision.
If Respondent alleges procedural errors or errors of law by this Board, Respondent may
petition the Court of Appeals for judicial review within 30 days from the date of this decision.
DATED and MAILED this -_''day of November 2005.
BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS
Sondra W. Mercier
fin, C ..
Karen E. Hart
f Me D. Hansen
his decision was put on the record
NOV 0 3 2005
I hereby certify that this is a tale
and correct copy of the decision of
the Board of Assessment Appeals.
Pcnn' 'S. Lowenthal
COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS
Court of Appeals No.: 05CA2584
Colorado State Board of Assessment Appeals No. 44034
EchoStar Satellite, L.L.C.,
Petitioner -Appellee,
and
Colorado State Board of Assessment Appeals,
Appellee,
Arapahoe County Board of Equalization,
Respondent -Appellant,
and
Jo Ann Groff, Property Tax Administrator for the State of Colorado,
Intervenor -Appellant.
ORDER AFFIRMED
Division I
Opinion by: JUDGE MARQUEZ
Taubman and J. Jones, JJ., concur
Announced: August 23, 2007
Holland & Hart, LLP, Allan Poe, MUSU V. Brooks, Greenwood Village, Colorado,
for Petitioner -Appellee
John W. Suthers, Attorney General, Lisa Brenner Freimann, Assistant Attorney
General, Denver, Colorado, for Appellee
Kathryn L. Schroeder, County Attorney, George Rosenberg, Assistant County
Attorney, Littleton, Colorado, for Respondent -Appellant
John W. Suthers, Attorney General, Robert H. Dodd, Jr., Assistant Attorney
General, Denver, Colorado, for Intervenor -Appellant
In this property tax case, respondent, the Arapahoe County
Board of Equalization (BOE), and intervenor, the Property Tax
Administrator (PTA), appeal from an order of the Board of
Assessment Appeals (BAA) that reclassified certain personal
property owned by petitioner, EchoStar Satellite, L.L.C. (EchoStar),
as exempt for the 2004 tax year. We affirm.
According to the parties' partial stipulation, the subject
property here consists of "set top boxes" (boxes) and "low -noise
block filters" (filters) owned by EchoStar that were located at
hundreds of service addresses of its customers in Arapahoe County
on January 1, 2004. EchoStar rented the boxes and filters to its
customers for their use with other equipment in obtaining television
signal reception.
At issue is whether this equipment qualified for the property
tax exemption authorized in constitutional and statutory provisions
for personal property held for consumption by a business, under
the applicable criteria for this exemption set forth in the
reference
manuals published by the PTA. Contrary to the arguments of the
BOE and the VIA, we perceive no error in the BAA's ruling that the
subject property met the PTA's published criteria for this
i
exemption.
Under the Colorado Constitution, certain classes of personal
property, as defined by law, are exempt from property taxation,
including "inventories of merchandise and materials and supplies
which are held for consumption by a business or are held primarily
for sale." Colo. Const. art. X, § 3(1)(c). Such personal property is
similarly exempted from property taxation under § 39-3-119, C.R.S.
2006, which further requires the PTA to publish in the reference
manuals a definition or description of the types of personal property
that are "held for consumption by any business" and are thereby
exempt.
As to the 2004 tax year, the PTA's published criteria for the
"consumable" personal property exemption are set forth in 5
Assessors Reference Library § VII, at 7.12-7.13 (rev. Jan. 2004).
Under these provisions, an item of personal property must satisfy
one of two criteria to be classified as "consumable" and therefore
exempt. To qualify for this exemption, the "item must have an
economic life of (1) one year or less," or have "an economic life
exceeding one year," but have "an acquisition cost, inclusive of
installation cost, sales tax, and freight expense to the point of use,
2
of S250 or less."
After the BOE denied EchoStar's exemption claims regarding
the property at issue for the 2004 tax year, EchoStar appealed to
the BAA. In the BAA proceedings, EchoStar and the BOE stipulated
that the boxes and filters have an economic life exceeding one year,
but that each box and each filter, or a combination of one box and
one filter, had an acquisition cost to the point of use of
250 or less.
EchoStar asserted that the boxes and filters are exempt from
property tax under § 39-3-119 and Colo. Const. art. X, § 3(1)(c),
which, as noted, exempt inventories of merchandise and materials
and supplies that are held for consumption by a business or are
held primarily for sale. EchoStar contended that each box, filter, or
combination at a customer's address qualified for the "consumable"
personal property exemption under the second criterion of the MIA's
published guidelines. The BOE contended that the boxes and filters
were components of a larger system rather than individual items
under the guidelines and did not qualify for exemption under this
criterion because the cost of the total system in place and ready for
the end user exceeded
250.
Following a hearing, the BAA ruled that the boxes and filters
were individual "items" and not component parts of a larger system
for purposes of the second exemption criterion of the PTA's
published guidelines. Consistent with EchoStar's evidence, the
BAA found that the boxes and filters were produced by different
manufacturers, were purchased separately, and were recorded by
EchoStar as separate assets. The BAA further found that, although
the boxes and filters function together, each item performs a unique
operation, and that when a customer relocates, only the box moves
with the customer while the filter stays at its original location.
Consequently, the BAA ruled that the subject personal property
should be reclassified as exempt for the 2004 tax year. This appeal
followed.
I. Exemption Issues
The key issue on appeal is whether the second exemption
criterion of the PTA's published guidelines applies to exempt the
subject property under the circumstances here. EchoStar and the
BAA contend that the boxes and filters qualify for exemption under
this criterion as individual items of consumable equipment. The
BOE and the PTA contend that the boxes and filters do not qualify
for exemption under this criterion, arguing that they are merely
4
components of a larger and fully taxable system of personal
property. We agree with EchoStar and the BAA.
Although property tax exemptions generally are strictly
construed, each claim for tax exemption must be resolved on the
basis of its own facts under the applicable legal standards. See
Pilgrim Rest Baptist Church, Inc. v. Prop. Tax Adm'r, 971 P.2d 270,
272 (Colo. App. 1998); Nat'l Junior Coll. Athletic Ass'n v.
Huddleston, 939 P.2d 509, 511 (Colo. App. 1997).
The ultimate determination as to whether the subject personal
property qualified for a property tax exemption under the second
exemption criterion of the PTA's published guidelines involves
mixed issues of law and fact. Consequently, under the applicable
standard of review, the BAA's exemption determination must be
sustained if it has a reasonable basis in law and is supported by
substantial evidence in the record as a whole. See § 24-4-106(7),
(11)(e), C.R.S. 2006; Pilgrim Rest Baptist Church, Inc. v. Prop. Tax
Adm'r, supra, 971 P.2d at 272; see also Family Tree Found. v. Prop.
Tax Adm'r, 119 P.3d 581, 584 (Colo. App. 2005).
To the extent that the BOE challenges the limited factual
findings made by the BAA regarding the characteristics of the boxes
5
and filters, we reject these challenges. Because these factual
findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record as a
whole, they may not be disturbed on judicial review. See § 24-4-
106(7), (11)(e); Steamboat Ski & Resort Corp. v. Routt County Bd. of
Equalization, 23 P.3d 1258, 1260-61 (Colo. App. 2001). However,
courts must interpret the law and are not bound by an agency
interpretation that misconstrues it. See FirstBank-Longmont v. Bd.
of Equalization, 990 P.2d 1109, 1111-12 (Colo. App. 1999)
(rejecting BAA's interpretation of BAA's own procedural rule).
The PTA's published guidelines contain additional provisions
regarding the second criterion for the "consumable" personal
property exemption. Specifically, the applicable guidelines provide
that "[t]he $250 per item limitation applies to the acquisition cost of
the item as completely assembled for use in the business, not the
item's unassembled, individual component parts." 5 Assessors
Reference Library, supra, § VII, at 7.13 (emphasis added).
Thus, we first conclude that by use of the term "business," the
constitution, statute, and guidelines indicate that the costs are
costs to the business owner of the property, which is the entity to
be taxed.
6
The applicable guidelines also provide two examples. The first
example provides that the
250 threshold applies to "a complete
computer system in place and ready for the end user," rather than
the component parts of that system, such as the mouse, keyboard,
and monitor. In the second example, the guidelines provide that
the $250 threshold applies to "an entire theater seating system,"
and that the individual theater seats are unassembled individual
component parts of that system. 5 Assessors Reference Library
supra, § VII, at 7.13.
Here, the boxes and filters are separate pieces of equipment
that are owned by EchoStar and leased to EchoStar's customers for
ultimate use at the customers' locations, where they are used
together with other equipment for television signal reception by the
customers. As found by the BAA, EchoStar purchases the boxes
and filters separately from different manufacturers, and they are
recorded as separate assets by EchoStar. The undisputed
testimony of EchoStar's witnesses also indicates that the boxes and
filters have their own component parts, and that EchoStar
purchases the boxes and filters as completely assembled units
ready for installation at a customer's location.
These characteristics of the subject property support the
conclusion that the boxes and filters should be considered separate
items of equipment for purposes of applying the PTA's second
criterion for the "consumable" personal property exemption. The
boxes and filters individually satisfy the description of the type of
property exempted under the PTA's published guidelines, because
they are each acquired completely assembled for use in EchoStar's
business. See 5 Assessors Reference Library, supra, § VII, at 7.13.
Contrary to the arguments of the BOE and the VIA, we are not
persuaded that the examples in the PTA's published guidelines
indicate otherwise, because we find the "systems" described in
these examples are factually distinguishable and inapplicable to the
situation at issue in this case.
Relying on the examples in the published guidelines, the BOE
and the PTA also contend that the boxes and filters must be viewed
as individual component parts of a larger system for providing
satellite television service upon installation to individual customers,
and that the complete system in place and ready for use by each
customer exceeds the
250 threshold. However, unlike the
"systems" described in the published examples, the business in the
8
situation here owns the box and filter but does not own all the
component parts of the complete system asserted, and the
components owned by the business are required to be used with
other equipment owned by the customer at the customer's location.
At a minimum, the "system" asserted by the BOE and the VIA
as to an individual EchoStar customer would include not only the
box and filter leased by EchoStar, but also a satellite dish, cable,
and television set at the customer's location. There was undisputed
testimony at the hearing that the dish, cable, and television set are
owned by the customer upon installation.
Even acknowledging that an individual customer cannot use a
box and filter alone to receive the desired television signal reception,
we perceive no basis in the PTA's published guidelines for
aggregating the cost of all components of this "system," including
those not owned by EchoStar, for purposes of determining whether
EchoStar's equipment at the customer's location qualifies for
exemption under the PTA's second criterion.
Such an approach is not required by the published examples,
which do not involve ownership of components of a "system" by
different entities or off -site use of leased equipment with other
9
•
equipment. The BOE's witness, a representative of the PTA,
testified at the hearing that the published guidelines have not
addressed different ownership of components of a system.
Even though the boxes and filters are rented, the BAA also
found that the filters remain at their original installed location when
a customer relocates. If EchoStar sold the boxes and filters instead
of renting them, they would appear to qualify for a property tax
exemption when owned by EchoStar as inventories held for sale.
See § 39-3-119. We perceive no compelling reason under the
published guidelines for treating this equipment as exempt if sold
but taxable if leased.
Thus, absent any language in the PTA's published guidelines
further describing "systems" and "components" or requiring
aggregation of costs in similar circumstances for purposes of the
second criterion of the "consumable" personal property exemption,
we conclude that the BAA did not err in ruling that the subject
property qualified for this exemption. Because the BAA's exemption
determination has a reasonable basis in law and is supported by
substantial evidence in the record as a whole, it must be sustained
under the applicable standard of review. See § 24-4-106(7), (11)(e);
10
Family Tree Found. v. Prop. Tax Adm'r, supra, 119 P.3d at 584;
Pilgrim Rest Baptist Church, Inc. v. Prop. Tax Adm'r, supra, 971
P.2d at 272.
Finally, we note the limited nature of our holding in this case.
Like the BAA, we must determine only how a particular set of facts
may relate to the PTA's published guidelines regarding the
"consumable" personal property exemption for a particular tax year.
Contrary to the PTA's argument, we have no authority or intent "to
determine the scope of the `consumable' exemption" in any broader
factual context than the one before us. By statute, the PTA has the
responsibility to determine the scope of the "consumable"
exemption by publishing appropriate guidelines in the reference
manuals. See § 39-3-119.
II. Evidentiary Ruling
We also reject the arguments of the BOE and the PTA that the
BAA erred in excluding a document offered by the BOE from
evidence. In our view, any error in this regard was harmless.
At the hearing, the BOE sought to introduce into evidence a
memorandum from the PTA dated June 1, 2004. This
memorandum was prepared in response to EchoStar's 2004 tax
11
year property tax challenges, and stated the PTA's position that
EchoStar's equipment should be viewed as component parts of a
larger telecommunications system for purposes of the S250
consumable personal property exemption.
The BAA sustained EchoStar's objection to this exhibit
because it was not submitted in advance of the hearing, as required
by the BAA's rules. See BAA Rule 11, 8 Code Colo. Begs. 1301-1.
Nevertheless, the BOE's witness was the author of this
memorandum, and the BAA permitted him to testify at length
regarding the same issues and the 111 _ A's position.
Error may not be predicated on a ruling excluding evidence
unless a substantial right of a party is affected. CRE 103(a). Even
if we assume that the document should have been admitted into
evidence, we perceive no reversible error in the BAA's ruling
because in view of the testimony permitted on the matter, the BOE
was not prejudiced by its exclusion. See Goodwill Indus. v. Indus.
Claim Appeals Office, 862 P.2d 1042, 1045 (Colo. App. 1993)(in
hearing on unemployment claim, no reversible error in exclusion of
documents from evidence for failure to provide copies in advance of
hearing in view of testimony permitted); see also Rojhani v.
12
Meagher, 22 P.3d 554, 557 (Colo. App. 2000).
In view of this disposition of the issues, we need not address
the parties' remaining contentions.
The BAA's order is affirmed.
JUDGE TAUBMAN and JUDGE J. JONES concur.
13
a)
U
O
0
0
v -
m
R
U LO
J to
J
m
F
7N0
12
01 Fc U
0-
<x
Coco o0
<0
00. J
O (7
= w
U
W
N
Q)
N
Nm CO
Q O
Q CO
C k•-•
O J
= U Z
O CD
Cl) O CD
r /�l
PETITION FOR ABATEMENT OR REFUND OF TAXES
Please submit in duplicate copies and answer all questions.
County Name Weld
PETITIONER: Complete Section I on this side only
Section I:
Date: November 5,2008
Month Day Year
Petitioner's Name: Echostar Satellite LLC, dba: Dish Network
Petitioner's mailing address: PO Box 6623
Englewood
ul Datei2eceivgd� e-.
S iAi1TE �SRsyessasear.CorrltAis₹loners' Date Stamp
P
2009HAR 18 PH 2:07
CEI it
NOV 05 2008
WELD COUNTY ASSESSC '
CO 80155 ;I,REELEY )LORAr
City or Town
State Zip Code
SCHEDULE OR PARCEL NUMBER(S) PROPERTY ADDRESS OR LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
Please see attached schedule
Please see attached schedule
Petitioner states that the taxes assessed against the above property for property tax year 2007 is
incorrect for the following reasons: (Briefly describe the circumstances surrounding the incorrect value or tax.
(The petitioner's estimate of actual value must be included.) Attach additional sheets if necessary.
Echostar Satellite is claiming a personal property exemption on set top boxes and LNBFs having a per item cost of $250 or
less as defined by the consumable personal property exemption (C.R.S 39-3-119). This position was upheld by the
Colorado Board of Assessment Appeals, docket no: 44034, on November 3, 2005 (copy of order attached). The order was
affirmed by the Colorado Court of Appeals, announced August 23, 2007 (copy attached). The attached schedule outlines
the Assessor's value by account and provides the Petitioner's value per account after $250 exemption is applied.
565,769
Petitioner's estimate of actual value $
Value
cud to
Year
Petitioner requests an abatement or refund of the appropriate taxes associated with a reduction in value.
I declare, under penalty of perjury in the second degree, that this petition, together with any accompanying exhibits
or statements, has been examined by me, and to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, is true, correct
and complete../ J,. 4e �2 dam , a k><„
By _
Petitioner's Signature
Agent's Signature'
720-514-5371
Daytime Phone Number (11-5371
Daytime Phone Number j
*Letter of agency must be attached when petition is submitted.
Every petition for abatement or refund filed pursuant to section 39-10-114, C.R.S., shall be acted upon pursuant to
the provisions of this section by the board of county commissioners or the assessor, as appropriate, within six
months of the date of filing such petition. 39-1-113(1.7), C.R.S.
Section II: Assessor's Use Only
2007
Tax Year
Assessed Value Tax
Original 516 , 940 $41,301.91
Corrected 164,072 13,108.87
Abate/Refund 352,868 $28,193.04
Multiple accounts Mill Levy
varies. See attached for
details by account.
1,
A
(FOR ASSESSORS AND COUNTY COMMISSIONERS USE ONLY)
RESOLUTION OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Resolution No.
Section I: In accordance with 39-1-113(1.5), C.R.S., the commissioners of County authorize
the assessor to review petitions for abatement or refund and to settle by written mutual agreement any such
petition for abatement or refund in an amount of one thousand dollars or less per tract, parcel, or lot of land or per
schedule of personal property.
The assessor and petitioner mutually agree to an assessed value and tax abatement/refund of:
Tax Year
Assessed Value Tax
Original
Corrected
Abate/Refund
PLEASE NOTE: THE TOTAL TAX AMOUNT DOES NOT INCLUDE ACCRUED INTEREST, PENALTIES, AND
FEES ASSOCIATED WITH LATE AND/OR DELINQUENT TAX PAYMENTS, IF APPLICABLE. PLEASE
CONTACT YOUR COUNTY TREASURER FOR FULL PAYMENT INFORMATION.
Petitioner's Signature
Date
Assessors or Deputy Assessor's Signature
If Section I is not complete and/or if petition is for more than $1,000, Section II must be completed. Submit an
original petition and a copy to the Division of Property Taxation.
Date
Assessor's recommendation:
r Approved in part $
No • . -st filed in .Roe 7 (If a protest was filed, please attach a copy of NOD.)
Denied for the following reason(s):
c� >„• ,P 6 oad c'i .0 JOu, 7/ 7X Gv&r4A cjy3R..A
Wa9
Assessor's or Deputy Assessor's Signature
Section III: WHEREAS, The County o missioners of County, State of Colorado, at a duly
and lawfully called regular meeting held on / / 2007 , at which meeting there were present the following
mo day yr
members:
with notice of such meeting and an opportunity to be present having been given to the taxpayer and the Assessor
of said County and Assessor (being present/not present) and
Name
petitioner (being present/not present), and WHEREAS, The said
Name
County Commissioners have carefully considered the within petition, and are fully advised in relation thereto, NOW
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board (agrees/does not agree) with the recommendation of the assessor
and the petition be (approved/denied) and an abatement/refund be (approved/denied) for property tax year
. The taxes to be abated or refunded are $ which represents an assessed value of
Chairperson of the Board of County Commissioners' Signature
I, , County Clerk and Ex -officio Clerk of the Board of County
Commissioners in and for the aforementioned county, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing order is truly
copied from the record of the proceedings of the Board of County Commissioners.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said County
at this day of
Time Date Month Year
County Clerk's or Deputy County Clerk's Signature
ACTION OF THE PROPERTY TAX ADMINISTRATOR
Denver, Colorado
M nth D y Year
e Board of County Commissioners, relative to the within petition, is hereby
Approved in part $ ' Denied for the following reason(s):
Secrets s Signature
O'.1USR1... BATE\FORMREV1-2000
Prope 7' inistrato. Signature
O 0)
E
W (0
r N
O
O
N
2007 Tax
Difference
- $109.57 1
(O
(O
co
EA
- $558.921
(D
I-
W
O
W
S
O)
CO
4
N-
CO
S
O
N
r
r
O
N
(A
- 5781.251
0)
O
U)
M
O
EA
V
O
O)
V
O
S
-$166.071
-$6,823.291
W
CO
O
N
- $262.071
N
T
N-
CO
N.
S
V'
U)
M
CO
6i
-$131.841
- $154.121
-$232.031
O
CO
V
E9
O
T-
co
O
U)
Ni
I -$745.931
(O
O
(D
EA
r
N-
co
00
FA
1 -$356.761
V
U)
r
S
CO
O
(O
(D
EA
(D
(O
V
N-
V
N
(A
N
U)
V
(O
U)
(O
EA
V
V
N
U)
E?
I -$21.99!
CO
O
CO
0)
V-
CO
N
2007 New
Tax
co
W
O
U)
EA
V
CO
(O
f)
c)
h
O)
U)
N
S
$423.041
$406.771
$935.091
$363.171
$481.471
$487.97!
$77.16!
$3,172.67!
! $4.77!
! $121.85!
0)
CO
(D
r
CO
S
(D
Q)
(O
EA
I $61.35!
(D
(O
N-
En
I $107.95
(0
N
EA
I $235.27
I $347.00
N
V
N
CO
S
$40.13
I $165.82
O
cO
M
to
$77.01
[ $1,150.77!
O
V
N
U)
O
M
(»
V
O)
O
N-
49
(0
O
r
Es
N-
co
N
O
T-
M
E»
Petitioners New
2007 Assd
W
N
N-
N
N
N
CD
O
N-
N
5,488
U)
CO
r
V
(O
O
C
CO
(D
N
V
O
V
r
U)
5,645!
(D
CO
r
r
CO
CO
0)
vt
(D
(O
CO
O
co
r
O)
(D
N-
CON
N-
U)
N-
(D
U)
O)
N--
Cr)
r
v-
! 1,426
CO
O)
W
O)
N
CO
N-
O)
M
T-
U)
V
528
(O
00
0)
N
N
843
12,678
00
r
N
r
O
(O
N
r
164,072
Petitioners New
2007 Actual
2515
7671
N
co
CO
O)
V
N
0)
CO
r
Cr)
W
V
(O
r
07
CO
V
V
147181
19793
194651
r
0)
0
V
144787!
CO
N
N
O
O
U)
V
30237
N
CO
N
3296
4126
CO
O)
y7
1.
O
r
10341
13718
CO
U)
N
N
CO
r
(O
O)
N
0
245
co
0
0)
N
43716
135234
co
V
r
CO
U)
M
V
565767
2007 Tax
$160.45
$53.00
$818.65
$1,332.80
co
r
W
N
r
381
$1,144.421
$1,516.571
$1,537.011
co
N
M
Cr
N
EA
co
W
U)
Cr)
O)
CD(» E»
U)
U)
5
$383.92
$2,574.01
$195.51
0)
M
0)
69
$225.78
$339.97
CO
0)
(O
e
$741.36
$1,092 93
CO
O
N
O
Vi
V
O
(D
N
vi
N.
U)
N
N
U)
EA
M
r
r
EA
r
O
co
V
N
69
M
V
U)
N
(O
CO
E»
N
O
(0
O
CD
to
O
CO
M
N
N
V)
r
r
N
CO
S
2007 Mill Levy
O)
U)
N-
0)
(0
O
O
0.0757181
CO
N.
O)
U)
0)
0
O
0.077085
V
O
CO
N
O
O
0.0778231
0.0850871
W
(o
CO
W
O
O
(D
V
V
CO
00
O
O
0.0650341
r
(D
U)
U)
N-
O
O
0.072123
U)
W
r
M
O
06000000
O
(O
r
CO
W
O
N
0
CO
r
CO
0
V
CO
V
(D
0
0)
CO
CO
O)
U)
0
(0
V--
if)
N-
0
U)
r
CO
W
(0
0
U)
V
CO
N-
0
0.087225
0.07185
0.075953
0.055534
0.050612
O
1-
CO
0)
O
0
N
r
N.
O
0)
O
0
0.077832
0.077832
CO
co
N
0
CO
O
O
ASSDVAL
23001
O
O
N-
O
M
U)
00
17290
150701
O
CO
00
N.
CO
134501
O
CO
O
CO
r
O
co
N-
r
r-
O
yr
r
CO
r 132290!
O
r
N
O
N_
'7
27630
O
O
CO
N
O
O
CO
3770
O
0)
fl
V
O
O
r
9450
12530
1420
0
N-
(O
r
0
V
O)
0
N
N
0
(O
(0
N
39940
O
N
co
N
O
O
V
--I
Q
OD
r
yr
N
M
N
(O
0)
U)
N
(D
CO
N
co
0)
CO
CO
N
O)
r
N
CO
(D
N
U)
O)CO
O
CO
N
CO
O
O
r
CO
CO
CO
O
O)
V
N
V
I-
U)
CO
CO
V
N
M
N-
N-
(O
U)
r
O)
CO
CO
r
N.
CO
4
N
O
O)
Q)
O)
co
CO
r
1 1782536
Account #
U)
0
CO
U)
V-
N
(0(0(0(0(0(0(0(0(000
CL
U)
0
N
(D
r
N
0_0_
U)
0
CO
CO
r
N
U)
0
U)
(O
r
N
dd0_O.
U)
0
(D
(O
N
N
U)
0
N-
CO
N
N
U)
0
W
(D
r
N
LO
0
0)
(O
N
N
0_
U)
0
O
N.
r
N
CL
IP3277105 I
U)
O
N
N-
N
N
M
CL
U)
O
CO
N-
N-
N
CO
CL
IP3277405I
U)
O
U)
N
N-
N
co
as
U)
O
(D
N.
N.
N
co
1P3277705
U)
O
N
n
N-
N
(")
0
U)
O
0)
N
N
N
co
0
U)
O
O
CO
N-
N
co
0
P3278105
U)
0
CO
CO
N.
N
co(0(0(0(0(0(0(0
CLaadaaad
U7
0
V
CO
N
N
U)
0
U)
CO
N
N
U)
0
(O
CO
r
N
U)
0
r
CO
r-
N
U)
0
co
CO
F-
N
U)
0
O
CO
N
N
U)
0
O
0)
N
N
IP3279105
(0
O
r
U)
Cr)
U)
co
0
Petitioner's Actual Value 1
00
O
N
7671
N
co
CO
m
V
N
W
O
r
m
O
V
O
r
MOM
co
V
r
V
r
N-
dr
r
O
0-
m
r
O
CO
,(1-
O
r
r
m
0
y
144,7871
CO
N
N
4,5091
30,237))
N
r
CO
N
O
T
N
Cr;
O
N
r
a
O
r
t3)
47
r
0
r
r
0
CO
O
r
13,7181
CO
O
0
r
N
N
CO
r
O
O
NN
o
r
N
V
CO
O
m
N
43,716
1 - 135,2341
CO
V
r
M
N
CO
t
1,782,536'1 565,7691
Petition for Abatement - Weld County
Assessor's Actual Value
0
N
0)
IC
0
0
r
a
N
r
ON
V
m
N
CO
O
m
O
N
CO
W
O
130,542
46,372
N
CO
CO
N
O
61,327
0)
CO
CO
N
r
456,172
m
r
Various, Business Personal Property -Hudson 14,207
Various, Business Personal Property -Johnstown 95,266
Various, Business Personal Property-Keenesburg 8,230
Various, Business Personal ProEerty_Kersey 10,384
Various, Business Personal Property -La Salle 13,001
15,487
O
CO
CO
32,582
O
N
NM
M
r
O
V
N
V
r
O
CO
M
V
N
co
CO
n
n
O
0
r
m
137,733
O
n
O
co
N
N
0
m
m
CI
0
CO
r
Echostar Satellite Corp dba: Dish Network
2007 Personal Property
Property Address or Legal Descriptionof Property
Various, Business Personal Property -Ault
Various, Business Personal Property -Berthoud
Various, Business Personal Property -Brighton
Various, Business Personal Property-Dacono I
Various, Business Personal Property -Eaton
Various, Business Personal Property -Erie
Various, Business Personal Property -Evans
Various, Business Personal Property -Firestone
Various, Business Personal Property -Ft Lupton
Various, Business Personal Property -Frederick
Various, Business Personal Property_Gilcrest
Various, Business Personal Property -Greeley
Various, Business Personal Property -Grover
,Various, Business Personal Property-Lochbuie
,Various, Business Personal Property -Longmont
I Various, Business Personal Property -Mead
Various, Business Personal Property -Milliken
(Various, Business Personal Property -Nunn
;Various, Business Personal Property -Pierce
Various, Business Personal Property -Platteville
Various, Business Personal Property-Raymer
Various, Business Personal Property -Severance
Various, Business Personal Property -Windsor
Various, Business Personal Property-Misc Unincorp Weld
Various, Business Personal Property-Misc Locations
Various, Business Personal Property -Garden City
N
O
h
Account Number 1
0
0
Or
r
N
M
a
0
0000
CO
r
N
CO
aaaCL'
0
N
O
r
N
CO
0
M
O
r
N
CO
0
NCO
O
r
N
CO
0
000000
CO
N
N
CO
aaa
0
C--
O
r
N
0)
0
CO
CO
r
N
CO
0
m
O
N
N
M
a
LOU)
O
n
N
N
CO
as
r
N-
N.
N
M
P3277205
O
00
CO
N-
N
NN
CO
as
O
V
N-
r
M
P3277505
P3277605 -'
P3277705
P3277805
0
0
al
r
r
N
M
aaaa
0
0
O
O
N
N
M
0
0
r
O
r
N
M
0
0
CO
O
n
N
CO
P3278405
P3278505
0
0
O
O
r
N
CO
as
0
0
N.
O
r
N
CO
0
0
O
CO
r
N
CO
a
0
0
O
CO
N
N
CO
a
0
0
O
CO
N
N
M
a
0
0
r
CD
C--
N
M
as
0
0
N-
O,
W
O
M
CO
O
N
BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS.
STATE OF COLORADO
1313 Sherman Street, Room 315
Denver, Colorado 80203
Petitioner:
ECHOSTAR SATELLITE, L.L.C.,
v.
Respondent:
ARAPAHOE COUNTY BOARD OF
EQUALIZATION.
rllocl:et No. 44034
ORDER
..J
THIS MATTER was heard by the Board of Assessment Appeals on October 4. 2005,
Sondra W. Mercier, Karen E. Hart, and Lyle D. Hansen presiding. Petitioner was represented by
Alan Poe, Esq.. Respondent was represented by Geor;jc Rosenberg. Esq. Petitioner is protesting the.
2004 valuation of the subject property, contending that the property is exempt pursuant to §39-3-119
CRS_ and Colo. Const., art. X, §3(l)(c).
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
The subject property is described as follows:
Arapahoe County Schedule Nos. 27394-59414-001 through 27394-59414-012
The subject property consists of set top boxes or receivers (Boxes) and low -noise block
filters (LNBFs). The Boxes and LNBFs are located at hundreds of service addresses of EchoStar's
customers in Arapahoe County. The Boxes and LNBFs are leased to consumers in Arapahoe County
for utilization in television signal reception by individual end users.
FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. Petitioner contended that if each Box and each LNBF, or each Box and LNBF
combined, constitutes one "item" under the guideline established by tax law, then the Boxes and
LNBFs are exempt as the items are held for consumption by a business.
44034
Petitioner presented the following in support of its argument:
a. EchoStar purchases the Boxes and I.NBI's separately.
b. The Boxes and L.NBFs are produced by different manufacturers.
c. EchoStar purchases the individual items from manufacturers at different times of
the year.
d. Each Box and LNBF performs an individual function.
e. Each Box and I,NB1 is ready for installation with no assembly necessary.
f. Each Box and 1.N BF is recorded in EchoStar's accounting system as a separate
asset.
g. Each Box and L.N13F could be used with a television signal provider other than
EchoStar.
h. Each Box and 1-N131' is leased to one consumer.
i. Each Box and LNBF is considered to be a system in its individual perturmancc.
j. The acquisition cost of each Box and LNBF is less than $250.00.
Petitionerexempt.
requested reclassification of ttii', subject property to
Respondent contended that the subject property is taxable based on the following:
a. The Boxes and ',NW s are not individual "items." they are components ()fa larger
system.
b. The Boxes and 1_NBi:s cannot provide a television signal to an iiidiyiii'' user
without being connected to the total EchoStar system.
5. Respondent assigned an actual value of 5806,242.00 to the subject property for tax
year 2004; however, the parties stipulated to an actual value of $708,262.00 in the event the Board
determined that the subject property \vas not exempt.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
l . Petitioner presented sufficient probative evidence and testimony to prove that the
subject property should be classified as exempt for tax year 2004.
�. Although the Boxes and t-NBFs function together, each item performs a unique
operation. The items are produced by different manufacturers, purchased separately and recorded as
separate assets. Each item is capable of functioning with non-EchoStar signal providers. When an
EchoStar customer relocates, the LNBF stays in its ori,inal location while the Box moves with the
customer. As such, the Board concluded that the Boxes and LNBF's are individual "items" and not
part of a larger system.
3. Pursuant to §39-3-119 C.R.S., "inventories or merchandise and materials and
supplies that are held for consumption by any business or are held primarily for sale shall be exempt
from the
=1734
levy and collection of property tax.- The subject property clearly meets the statutory guidelines for
exemption.
?. Volume `,. of the Assessors Reference Library indicates thai. in order for personal
property to be considered consumable. the item must fall under one of two criteria:
a. The item must have an economic lif: of one (I) year or less.
b. The item of personal property has an economic life exceeding one year, but has an
acquisition cost, inclusive of installation cost, sales tax, and freight expense to the
point of use. of $250 or less.
The subject property has an economic lice exceeding one year, but an acquisition cost
of less than $250.00. The subject property meets the criteria for "consumable.' personal property as
established by the Property Tax Administrator.
4. The Board declares this matter to be of'statewide concern.
ORDER:
Respondent is ordered to reclassify the subject personal property to exempt.
The Arapahoe ) i r is directed to change his records accordingly.
County Assessor � � y
APPEAL:
Petitioner may petition the Court of Appeals for judicial review within 45 days from the (ate
of this decision.
If Respondent alleges procedural errors or errors of law by this Board, Respondent may
petition the Court of appeals for judicial review within 30 days from the date of this decision.
3
DATED and MAILED this 2 day oP\overniher'_001,-
BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS
cjijititt_ c) /I .
Sondra W. Mercier
Karen E. F-Iart
,4,21-.0-
I/vie D. Hansen
This decision was put on the record
NOV 032005
I hereby certify that this is a talc
and correct copy of the decision of
the Board of Assessment Appeals
Penny. Lowenthal
COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS
Court of Appeals No.: 05CA2584
Colorado State Board of Assessment Appeals No. 44034
EchoStar Satellite, L.L.C.,
Petitioner -Appellee,
and
Colorado State Board of Assessment Appeals,
Appellee,
v.
Arapahoe County Board of Equalization,
Respondent -Appellant,
and
Jo Ann Groff, Property Tax Administrator for the State of Colorado,
Intervenor -Appellant.
ORDER AFFIRMED
Division I
Opinion by: JUDGE MARQUEZ
Taubman and J. Jones, J.J., concur
Announced: August 23, 2007
Holland & Hart, LLP, Allan Poe, Musu V. Brooks, Greenwood Village, Colorado,
for Petitioner -Appellee
John W. Suthers, Attorney General, Lisa Brenner Freimann, Assistant Attorney
General, Denver, Colorado, for Appellee
Kathryn L. Schroeder, County Attorney, George Rosenberg, Assistant County
Attorney, Littleton, Colorado, for Respondent -Appellant
John W. Suthers, Attorney General, Robert H. Dodd, Jr., Assistant Attorney
General, Denver, Colorado, for Intervenor -Appellant
In this property tax case, respondent, the Arapahoe County
Board of Equalization (BOE), and intervenor, the Property Tax
Administrator (PTA), appeal from an order of the Board of
Assessment Appeals (BAA) that reclassified certain personal
property owned by petitioner, EchoStar Satellite, L.L.C. (EchoStar),
as exempt for the 2004 tax year. We affirm.
According to the parties' partial stipulation, the subject
property here consists of "set top boxes" (boxes) and "low -noise
block filters" (filters) owned by EchoStar that were located at
hundreds of service addresses of its customers in Arapahoe County
on January 1, 2004. EchoStar rented the boxes and filters to its
customers for their use with other equipment in obtaining television
signal reception.
At issue is whether this equipment qualified for the property
tax exemption authorized in constitutional and statutory provisions
for personal property held for consumption by a business, under
the applicable criteria for this exemption set forth in the reference
manuals published by the PTA. Contrary to the arguments of the
BOE and the VIA, we perceive no error in the BAA's ruling that the
subject property met the PTA's published criteria for this
1
exemption.
Under the Colorado Constitution, certain classes of personal
property, as defined by law, are exempt from property taxation,
including "inventories of merchandise and materials and supplies
which are held for consumption by a business or are held primarily
for sale." Colo. Const. art. X, § 3(1)(c). Such personal property is
similarly exempted from property taxation under § 39-3-119, C.R.S.
2006, which further requires the 11A to publish in the reference
manuals a definition or description of the types of personal property
that are "held for consumption by any business" and are thereby
exempt.
As to the 2004 tax year, the PTA's published criteria for the
"consumable" personal property exemption are set forth in 5
Assessors Reference Library § VII, at 7.12-7.13 (rev. Jan. 2004).
Under these provisions, an item of personal property must satisfy
one of two criteria to be classified as "consumable" and therefore
exempt. To qualify for this exemption, the "item must have an
economic life of (1) one year or less," or have "an economic life
exceeding one year," but have "an acquisition cost, inclusive of
installation cost, sales tax, and freight expense to the point of use,
2
of $250 or less."
After the BOE denied EchoStar's exemption claims regarding
the property at issue for the 2004 tax year, EchoStar appealed to
the BAA. In the BAA proceedings, EchoStar and the BOE stipulated
that the boxes and filters have an economic life exceeding one year,
but that each box and each filter, or a combination of one box and
one filter, had an acquisition cost to the point of use of
250 or less.
EchoStar asserted that the boxes and filters are exempt from
property tax under § 39-3-119 and Colo. Const. art. X, § 3(1)(c),
which, as noted, exempt inventories of merchandise and materials
and supplies that are held for consumption by a business or are
held primarily for sale. EchoStar contended that each box, filter, or
combination at a customer's address qualified for the "consumable"
personal property exemption under the second criterion of the MIA's
published guidelines. The BOE contended that the boxes and filters
were components of a larger system rather than individual items
under the guidelines and did not qualify for exemption under this
criterion because the cost of the total system in place and ready for
the end user exceeded
250.
Following a hearing, the BAA ruled that the boxes and filters
were individual "items" and not component parts of a larger system
for purposes of the second exemption criterion of the PTA's
published guidelines. Consistent with EchoStar's evidence, the
BAA found that the boxes and filters were produced by different
manufacturers, were purchased separately, and were recorded by
EchoStar as separate assets. The BAA further found that, although
the boxes and filters function together, each item performs a unique
operation, and that when a customer relocates, only the box moves
with the customer while the filter stays at its original location.
Consequently, the BAA ailed that the subject personal property
should be reclassified as exempt for the 2004 tax year. This appeal
followed.
I. Exemption Issues
The key issue on appeal is whether the second exemption
criterion of the PTA's published guidelines applies to exempt the
subject property under the circumstances here. EchoStar and the
BAA contend that the boxes and filters qualify for exemption under
this criterion as individual items of consumable equipment. The
BOE and the PTA contend that the boxes and filters do not qualify
for exemption under this criterion, arguing that they are merely
4
components of a larger and fully taxable system of personal
property. We agree with EchoStar and the BAA.
Although property tax exemptions generally are strictly
construed, each claim for tax exemption must be resolved on the
basis of its own facts under the applicable legal standards. See
Pilgrim Rest Baptist Church, Inc. v. Prop. Tax Adm'r, 971 P.2d 270,
272 (Colo. App. 1998); Nat'l Junior Coll. Athletic Ass'n v.
Huddleston, 939 P.2d 509, 511 (Colo. App. 1997).
The ultimate determination as to whether the subject personal
property qualified for a property tax exemption under the second
exemption criterion of the If _ A's published guidelines involves
mixed issues of law and fact. Consequently, under the applicable
standard of review, the BAA's exemption determination must be
sustained if it has a reasonable basis in law and is supported by
substantial evidence in the record as a whole. See § 24-4-106(7),
(11)(e), C.R.S. 2006; Pilgrim Rest Baptist Church, Inc. v. Prop. Tax
Adm'r, supra, 971 P.2d at 272; see also Family Tree Found. v. Prop.
Tax Adm'r, 119 P.3d 581, 584 (Colo. App. 2005).
To the extent that the BOE challenges the limited factual
findings made by the BAA regarding the characteristics of the boxes
5
and filters, we reject these challenges. Because these factual
findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record as a
whole, they may not be disturbed on judicial review. See § 24-4-
106(7), (11)(e); Steamboat Ski & Resort Corp. v. Routt County Bd. of
Equalization, 23 P.3d 1258, 1260-61 (Colo. App. 2001). However,
courts must interpret the law and are not bound by an agency
interpretation that misconstrues it. See FirstBank-Longmont v. Bd.
of Equalization, 990 P.2d 1109, 1111-12 (Colo. App. 1999)
(rejecting BAA's interpretation of BAA's own procedural rule).
The PTA's published guidelines contain additional provisions
regarding the second criterion for the "consumable" personal
property exemption. Specifically, the applicable guidelines provide
that "(t]he S250 per item limitation applies to the acquisition cost of
the item as completely assembled for use in the business, not the
item's unassembled, individual component parts." 5 Assessors
Reference Library, supra, § VII, at 7.13 (emphasis added).
Thus, we first conclude that by use of the term "business," the
constitution, statute, and guidelines indicate that the costs are
costs to the business owner of the property, which is the entity to
be taxed.
6
The applicable guidelines also provide two examples. The first
example provides that the $250 threshold applies to "a complete
computer system in place and ready for the end user," rather than
the component parts of that system, such as the mouse, keyboard,
and monitor. In the second example, the guidelines provide that
the $250 threshold applies to "an entire theater seating system,"
and that the individual theater seats are unassembled individual
component parts of that system. 5 Assessors Reference Library
supra, § VII, at 7.13.
Here, the boxes and filters are separate pieces of equipment
that are owned by EchoStar and leased to EchoStar's customers for
ultimate use at the customers' locations, where they are used
together with other equipment for television signal reception by the
customers. As found by the BAA, EchoStar purchases the boxes
and filters separately from different manufacturers, and they are
recorded as separate assets by EchoStar. The undisputed
testimony of EchoStar's witnesses also indicates that the boxes and
filters have their own component parts, and that EchoStar
purchases the boxes and filters as completely assembled units
ready for installation at a customer's location.
7
These characteristics of the subject property support the
conclusion that the boxes and filters should be considered separate
items of equipment for purposes of applying the PTA's second
criterion for the "consumable" personal property exemption. The
boxes and filters individually satisfy the description of the type of
property exempted under the PTA's published guidelines, because
they are each acquired completely assembled for use in EchoStar's
business. See 5 Assessors Reference Library, supra, § VII, at 7.13.
Contrary to the arguments of the BOE and the PTA, we are not
persuaded that the examples in the PTA's published guidelines
indicate otherwise, because we find the "systems" described in
these examples are factually distinguishable and inapplicable to the
situation at issue in this case.
Relying on the examples in the published guidelines, the BOE
and the PTA also contend that the boxes and filters must be viewed
as individual component parts of a larger system for providing
satellite television service upon installation to individual customers,
and that the complete system in place and ready for use by each
customer exceeds the
250 threshold. However, unlike the
"systems" described in the published examples, the business in the
8
situation here owns the box and filter but does not own all the
component parts of the complete system asserted, and the
components owned by the business are required to be used with
other equipment owned by the customer at the customer's location.
At a minimum, the "system" asserted by the BOE and the PTA
as to an individual EchoStar customer would include not only the
box and filter leased by EchoStar, but also a satellite dish, cable,
and television set at the customer's location. There was undisputed
testimony at the hearing that the dish, cable, and television set are
owned by the customer upon installation.
Even acknowledging that an individual customer cannot use a
box and filter alone to receive the desired television signal reception,
we perceive no basis in the PTA's published guidelines for
aggregating the cost of all components of this "system," including
those not owned by EchoStar, for purposes of determining whether
EchoStar's equipment at the customer's location qualifies for
exemption under the PTA's second criterion.
Such an approach is not required by the published examples,
which do not involve ownership of components of a "system" by
different entities or off -site use of leased equipment with other
9
equipment. The BOE's witness, a representative of the PTA,
testified at the hearing that the published guidelines have not
addressed different ownership of components of a system.
Even though the boxes and filters are rented, the BAA also
found that the filters remain at their original installed location when
a customer relocates. If EchoStar sold the boxes and filters instead
of renting them, they would appear to qualify for a property tax
exemption when owned by EchoStar as inventories held for sale.
See § 39-3-119. We perceive no compelling reason under the
published guidelines for treating this equipment as exempt if sold
but taxable if leased.
Thus, absent any language in the PTA's published guidelines
further describing "systems" and "components" or requiring
aggregation of costs in similar circumstances for purposes of the
second criterion of the "consumable" personal property exemption,
we conclude that the BAA did not err in ruling that the subject
property qualified for this exemption. Because the BAA's exemption
determination has a reasonable basis in law and is supported by
substantial evidence in the record as a whole, it must be sustained
under the applicable standard of review. See § 24-4-106(7), (11)(e);
10
Family Tree Found. v. Prop_ Tax Adm'r, supra, 119 P.3d at 584;
Pilgrim Rest Baptist Church, Inc. v. Prop. Tax Adm'r, supra, 971
P.2d at 272.
Finally, we note the limited nature of our holding in this case.
Like the BAA, we must determine only how a particular set of facts
may relate to the III _ A's published guidelines regarding the
"consumable" personal property exemption for a particular tax year.
Contrary to the PTA's argument, we have no authority or intent "to
determine the scope of the `consumable' exemption" in any broader
factual context than the one before us. By statute, the PTA has the
responsibility to determine the Scope of the `consumable"
exemption by publishing appropriate guidelines in the reference
manuals. See § 39-3-119.
II. Evidentiary Ruling
We also reject the arguments of the BOE and the PTA that the
BAA erred in excluding a document offered by the BOE from
evidence. In our view, any error in this regard was harmless.
At the hearing, the BOE sought to introduce into evidence a
memorandum from the PTA dated June 1, 2004. This
memorandum was prepared in response to EchoStar's 2004 tax
II
•
year property tax challenges, and stated the PTA's position that
EchoStar's equipment should be viewed as component parts of a
larger telecommunications system for purposes of the $250
consumable personal property exemption.
The BAA sustained EchoStar's objection to this exhibit
because it was not submitted in advance of the hearing, as required
by the BAA's rules. See BAA Rule 11, 8 Code Colo. Regs. 1301-1.
Nevertheless, the BOE's witness was the author of this
memorandum, and the BAA permitted him to testify at length
regarding the same issues and the PTA's position.
Error may not be predicated on a ruling excluding evidence
unless a substantial right of a party is affected. CRE 103(a). Even
if we assume that the document should have been admitted into
evidence, we perceive no reversible error in the BAA's ruling
because in view of the testimony permitted on the matter, the BOE
was not prejudiced by its exclusion. See Goodwill Indus. v. Indus.
Claim Appeals Office, 862 P.2d 1042, 1045 (Colo. App. 1993)(in
hearing on unemployment claim, no reversible error in exclusion of
documents from evidence for failure to provide copies in advance of
hearing in view of testimony permitted); see also Rojhani v.
12
Meagher, 22 P.3d 554, 557 (Colo. App. 2000).
In view of this disposition of the issues, we need not address
the parties' remaining contentions.
The BAA's order is affirmed.
JUDGE TAUBMAN and JUDGE J. JONES concur.
13
Z aai
o
Q) o m
=�U`
=41•4\
WIWDe.
COLORADO
January 14, 2008
Echostar Satellite, LLC/dba Dish Network
PO Box 6623
Englewood, CO 80155
RE: SCHEDULE NUMBER - See attached lists
Dear Property Owner:
CLERK TO THE BOARD
PHONE (970) 336-7215, EXT. 4225
FAX: (970) 352-0242
P.O. BOX 758
GREELEY, COLORADO 80632
This is to advise you that the Weld County Board of Commissioners will hear your petitions for
abatement or refund of taxes on the properties described as: Various, Business Personal Property -
See attached lists. The meeting is scheduled for February 9, 2009, at 9:00 a.m., in the First Floor
Meeting Room, Weld County Centennial Center, 915 10th Street, Greeley, Colorado.
The Assessor is recommending that the Board approve your petitions. You are not required to be
present at this hearing, however, this is your opportunity to have your position heard, especially if
your position is opposed to the Assessor's recommendation. If you intend to submit any
documentation in support of your position for this hearing, all such documentation must be
submitted to the Office of the Clerk to the Board and to the Weld County Assessor's Office at least
seven calendar days prior to the meeting date in order for it to be considered at the scheduled
hearing.
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact Esther Gesick
at (970) 336-7215, extension 4226.
Sincerely,
7
c-(
Esther E. Gesick
Deputy Clerk to the Board
cc: Assessor
Hello