HomeMy WebLinkAbout921282.tiff BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS
STATE OF COLORADO r. c9
Docket Number 18731
CLEF
r r,' �.'.
ORDER
GOLDEN ALUMINUM CO.,
Petitioner,
vs.
WELD COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS,
Respondent.
THIS MATTER was heard by the Board of Assessment Appeals on
October 5, 1992 , Don A. Holmes and Kenneth Bennett presiding.
Petitioner was represented by William A. McLain, Esq. Respondent
was represented by Cyndy Giauque, Esq.
FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. Subject property is described as follows:
PERSONAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1405 E 14TH ST,
FT LUPTON, CO (Weld County Schedule Number
0008993)
2 . Petitioner is requesting an abatement/refund of taxes on
the subject personal property for tax years 1989 and 1990.
3 . Respondent moved to dismiss the case, contending that the
Petitioner had not filed the abatement timely. The Board heard
argument from both parties and ruled that the appeal was timely
filed.
4. Petitioner's witness Jim Leatherwood discussed the
operation and process that takes place in the plant. The different
machinery was described and the purpose of the equipment was
explained.
5. The witness explained the repairs that were made to the
different pieces of equipment and discussed the life of the
equipment. It was indicated that the melting furnaces need to be
rebricked and other repairs made every two to four years. The
1
/� 921282
witness stated that the repairs will not extend the life of the
furnace. It was indicated that the chilling blocks are resurfaced
after four or five weeks. They can be resurfaced ten times, and
the life may be ten to twelve months.
6. When questioned by the Respondent, the witness stated the
chilling blocks would be sold for scrap. Other items were
discussed and it was indicated that some sow molds were additional
equipment rather than replacements. The witness indicated that
other equipment had been taken out of service, some sold, some cut
up and scrapped. A shredder was sold in 1990.
7. Petitioner's witness Ron Sandstrom indicated that repairs
for the equipment had been reported. This was added to the
original cost of the equipment and overstated the personal property
valuation.
8 . The witness indicated he had talked to the people in the
Assessor's Office and was informed that all of the costs for the
equipment were reported in a lump sum and they could not identify
the individual costs.
9 . Petitioner's witness stated that the list on pages 3 , 4
and 5 indicated the items that should be removed from the personal
property schedule except for eight sow molds purchased as
additional equipment. The witness stated that the 1989 value
should be reduced by $1,421, 077. 00, and the 1990 value should be
reduced by $2 , 867,573 . 00. It was indicated that the repairs are a
small percent of the original cost of the equipment.
10. Petitioner contends that the 1989 actual value of the
personal property should be $21, 693 , 316. 00, and the 1990 value
should be $19, 060, 913 . 00.
11. Respondent witness Michael Sampson indicated they had
received the 1989 personal property declaration. They worked with
the information the way it was turned in and after the Petitioner
received the notice of valuation for 1989 it was not protested.
The same procedure was handled for 1990 with the same results.
12 . Respondent witness stated that the assessment roll and
the information submitted by the Petitioner are the same figure.
It was indicated that no one in the Assessor's Office knew of any
changes made by the Petitioner.
13 . The witness stated that the abatement petition was
received in their office January 2, 1991.
14 . Respondent assigned an actual value of $21, 114, 393 . 00 to
the personal property for tax year 1989, and $21, 928, 486. 00 for
1990.
TV/Z18731
2
CONCLUSIONS:
1. Petitioner presented sufficient probative evidence and
testimony to prove that the tax year 1989 and 1990 valuations of
the subject personal property were incorrect.
2. After careful consideration of all evidence and testimony
submitted, the Board determined that the 1989 and 1990 valuations
were incorrect. The information submitted to the Assessor by the
Petitioner was in error. When submitting a depreciation schedule
used for federal tax purposes it may include repairs and other
short-lived items that were capitalized, and would not be properly
valued as personal property.
3 . The Board agreed that the repairs made to the equipment
were a small percentage of the original cost and would not extend
the life. The chilling blocks have a very short life and should be
depreciated accordingly. The Board did not deduct the chilling
blocks purchased in 1989. The shredder was a large item and had
not been used for some time, but was a piece of equipment that was
not sold until 1990. The Assessor was not notified of the sale in
1990 and it should remain on the rolls for all of 1990.
ORDER:
Respondent is ordered to cause an abatement/refund to
Petitioner based on a valuation for the personal property of
$21, 693 , 316. 00 for tax year 1989, and $19,905, 671. 00 for tax year
1990.
The Weld County Assessor is directed to change his records
accordingly.
APPEAL:
Petitioner may petition the Court of Appeals for judicial
review within 45 days from the date of this decision.
Also, 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.
TV/Z18731
3
DATED this j;:d day of November, 1992 .
BOARD F ASSESSMENT APPEALS
Don A. Holm
Kenneth Bennett
This decision was put on the record
NOV 0 5 1992 .
atoF C0(o
.490
TV/Z18731
te SEALen
a a'
p0 •
I hereby certify that this is a true �.c �?
and correct copy of the decision of "�jSSESSME�
the Board of Assessment Appeals.
Lint-co s(5,
MaryLomis
USSO PEhLS
M w
4 Dons Colorado
Hello