HomeMy WebLinkAbout830973.tiff BEFORE THE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
DOCKET NO. 84-29
EXCERPT FROM TAPE NO. 84-29
IN RE: BOARD OF EQUALIZATION APPEAL
by WILLIAM EGNER, dba COLORADO QUORUM CLUB
JULY 29 , 1984
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
NORMAN CARLSON, CHAIRMAN
JACQUELINE JOHNSON, PRO TEM
GENE R. BRANTNER - Excused
CHUCK CARLSON
JOHN T. MARTIN
ALSO PRESENT:
THOMAS O. DAVID, WELD COUNTY ATTORNEY
HERBERT HANSEN, WELD COUNTY ASSESSOR
BOBBIE HAAS, DEPARTMENT OF WELD COUNTY ASSESSOR
TOMMIE ANTUNA, ACTING CLERK TO THE BOARD
PETITIONER WILLIAM EGNER, PRESENT
830973
h q
a / `71/ &
WILLIAM EGNER: My name is William Egner, the person in
care of, listed on the Colorado Quorum Club and I am the only
person involved. Would you like to excuse yourself since we' re
personally acquainted or does that . . .
CHAIRMAN N. CARLSON: That' s immaterial. I know a lot of
people in Weld County and that' s, if they're not related, or I
have no monetary return . . .
WILLIAM EGNER: Okay, just so there ' s no showing of
impropriety.
CHAIRMAN N. CARLSON: it' s not a conflict of interest.
WILLIAM EGNER: First thing I 'd like to say is--everything
on here underlined is a violation of Colorado law as stated in
the statute books. So just throw it away. I ' ll start at the
beginning.
CHAIRMAN N. CARLSON: Mr. David, would you like to comment
on that?
WILLIAM EGNER: In the statute itself from the current book
with the current, with the current rule. Starting with 39-101 ,
now by the way, the only reason I 'm here is to contest the
legality of this thing. I 'm not contesting any facts because
there is an affidavit in effect which states the facts that the
Colorado Quorum Club owns nothing, affidavit is admissible in
any Court of law as statement of fact, unless it is specifically
challenged for its truthfulness by the person against who it' s
directed. So, consequently, it stands as facts since it hasn' t
been challenged. Okay, we' ll start with the law. The
such of the three approaches specified in Section 39-103 ,
39-1-103 5a, as are applicable to the appraisal of such
property. Again, actual value.
Now, there ' s a section that' s been repealed, but the case law
listed under that states some specific things which are
appropriate. The head, the head note of the case and the lien
itself for tax liens which used to be that the tax assessed will
be a lien against the property. It says, the lien embraces only
specific property levied upon.
Now, it further shows that these people don' t know what they' re
doing, we have the duties of the Assessor, Section 39 starts
with 5-101 . The Assessor shall list all taxable real and
personal property located within his property, his county on the
assessment date. And, -there' s a case here, Barton-Burton
Company vs. Board of County Commissioners; it says County
Assessors have specific duties to perform in conformity with
legislative directions and in performing such duties they must
comply with the general admonition of Article 10 , Section 3 , of
Colorado Constitution. With the ultimate goal of securing just
and equalized valuations. And that, like I said, Barton-Burton
Company vs. Board of Commissioners, 1-52 Colorado 382 . Now we go
on through this and the rest of the sections in there tell the
Assessor specifically how he is to do his job, which by the way,
the Assessor was notified of last year in my brief to the Board
of Assessment Appeals in Denver and they seem to be ignoring
that also.
statutes or any of the other Colorado statutes mandate providing
the information, the actions of the Assessor in this matter are
clearly without any statutory foundation in law. The Assessor
in this case is attempting to force petition or to provide
information which the law does not mandate providing. And
levying a penalty when I do not. He is attempting to extort
information.
The authority for the assessment of a tax on specific
identifiable property and the necessity therefore is further
explained by the statutes that deal with the collection of the
tax assessed and the procedures to be used if the person who
allegedly owes the tax refuses to pay the tax assessed. And we
go to 39-10-111 . And it says that any time after the first day
of October, the Treasurer shall enforce collection of delinquent
taxes on personal property by distraining, seizing and selling
such property. It has to be specifically identified or it can' t
be seized. And that is a supreme court case of the State of
Colorado, Chicago Bazaar Company vs. McNichols, 13 Colorado
Appeals 154 , 56 Pacific 672 from 1859 , never been overturned. Go
to 39-10-113 , removal or transfer of personal property,
collection of taxes. Whenever the Treasurer, or the Assessor
notifies the Treasurer, of the valuation of any taxable personal
property as provided in 39-5-110 , subsection 2 , which property
the Assessor believes might be removed from the County, the
Treasurer shall proceed to collect the taxes on such property,
distraining, seizing and selling the same, etc. How is anybody
consists. And then they go to these other sections that say it
specifically that the information is to be provided voluntarily
and one of them is 39-5-115 . At any time prior or subsequent to
April 15 of each year the Assessor may request any person known
or believed to own taxable property located in his County to
furnish such information or make available for examination such
records as may be required by him to determine the actual value
of such property request. 39-5-116 , again, request. One is led
to believe that the information is required until we read
39-5-115 , it becomes perfectly clear that congress did not
intend that we should be mandated to provide any information.
So we go to a definition and an examination of the word shall,
and . . .
COMMISSIONER C. CARLSON: Mr. Chairman, I don' t think we
have to go into this , we've been spending all afternoon trying •
to work with these people and we've got some more to go yet and
we don't need to sit here and try to go to school with you. I
think this is getting ridiculous, .I think you' re getting clear
out of hand, I don' t think we need to go any further.
WILLIAM EGNER: I agree, the whole thing has been out of
hand since the beginning.
CHAIRMAN N. CARLSON: What are you trying . . .
(Inaudible)
CHAIRMAN N. CARLSON: what are you trying to tell us Bill?
(Inaudible)
WILLIAM EGNER: That' s right. I stated the fact the
Colorado Quorum Club owns nothing.
CHAIRMAN N. CARLSON: The problem, the problem Bill , is
that you have not let the Assessor' s Office know that you didn't
own any property and you refused to . . .
WILLIAM EGNER: I followed the law specifically as the law
is stated in the code book as I have read it to you. The
Assessor has no authority to demand the information or to levy a
penalty for not providing same.
COMMISSIONER C. CARLSON: Mr. Chairman, question on the
table.
WILLIAM EGNER: You have no authority to demand the
information.
COMMISSIONER C. CARLSON: Lets get this thing out of hand.
WILLIAM EGNER: (Inaudible) I have tried to give you the
law . . .
CHAIRMAN N. CARLSON: Question has been called for, all in
favor say aye. (All Commissioners voted aye) Opposed nay, so
carried.
WILLIAM EGNER: See you in court gentlemen.
Hello