PATTERSON JR v STATE DEPT OF

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 13418 I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O M N A A F F OTN 197 6 J O H N F. PATTERSON, J R . , a s T r u s t e e o f t h e E s t a t e o f John F. P a t t e r s o n , e t a l . , P l a i n t i f f s and Respondents, THE STATE O MONTANA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, F and WILLIAM A.GBOFF, A c t i n g D i r e c t o r T h e r e o f , and DOUGLAS W. CAMPBET,T,, C U T ASSESSOR FOR MISSOULA O NY COUNTY, Defendants and A p p e l l a n t s . Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e F o u r t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable J a c k L. Green, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record: For Appellants : R a n d a l l Swanberg a r g u e d , G r e a t F a l l s , Montana R e Bruce McGinnis, Helena, Montana F o r Respondents: Turnage and McNeil, P o l s o n , Montana J e a n A. Turnage a r g u e d , P o l s o n , Montana Boone, K a r l b e r g and Haddon, M i s s o u l a , Montana Sam Haddon a r g u e d , M i s s o u l a , Montana F o r b.micus C u r i a e : Cure, B o r e r and Lynch, G r e a t F a l l s , Montana O r i n Cure a r g u e d , G r e a t F a l l s , Montana Thomas C l a r y a r g u e d , G r e a t F a l l s , Montana R o b e r t P. Goff a r g u e d , G r e a t F a l l s , Montana R i c h a r d McCann, B i l l i n g s , Montana Submitted: Decided : Filed : DEC 6 - 1916 September 8, 1976 DEC 6 -I m Mr. Justice Frank I. Haswell delivered the Opinion of the Court. The Montana Department of Revenue and two tax officials appeal from a judgment of the district court, Missoula County, holding the current statewide property appraisal program unconstitutional and illegal and permanently enjoining its implementation and use in Missoula County. The background of the present controversy will furnish an overview of the situation on appeal and place the issues in perspective. Prior to the effective date of the new Montana Constitution on July 1, 1973, the process of appraisal, assessment and taxation of real property in Montana was largely in the hands of county officials subject to supervision, appeal and equalization by the State Board of Equalization, Although property valuations were by law subject to a continuous process of keeping valuations current, there was a considerable variation in performance among the 56 counties in Montana in keeping appraisal valuations up-to-date. Some idea of this situation statewide can be gleaned from these cases: Yellowstone Pipeline Co. v. State Board of Equalization, 138 Mont. 603, 358 P.2d 55; State Board of Equalization v. Vanderwood, 146 Mont. 276, 405 P.2d 652. When the 1972 Montana Constitution became effective, the State Department of Revenue assumed jurisdiction over the property taxation system in Montana pursuant to Art,VIII, Section 3, 1972 Montana Constitution and implementing legislation. Between July 1, 1973 and July 1, 1975 the Department of Revenue was engaged in information gathering, standardizing appraisal procedures, hiring and training appraisal staffs in the various counties, and similar activities as well as reappraising property. In early 1975 the Montana Legislature enacted a statute directing the Department of Revenue to administer and supervise a program for the revaluation of all taxable property in Montana at least every 5 years; to promulgate a comprehensive written plan of rotation fixing the order of revaluation in each county on the basis of the last revaluation of taxable property in each county prior to July 1, 1974 to adjust disparities between counties; and to provide that all property in each county be revalued at least every 5 years or that 20% thereof be revalued each year. Section 1, Ch. 294, Laws of 1975, codified as section 84-429.14, R.C.M. 1947. The legislation also provided that the same method of appraisal and assessment be used in each county so that at the end of each cyclical revaluation program comparable property with similar market values would have substantially equal taxable values. Section 2, Ch. 294, Laws of 1975, codified as section 84-429.15, R.C.M. 1947. In April 1975, this Court held the Department of Revenue's implementation of a county-financed reappraisal of property in Lewis and Clark County by a private appraisal firm was unconstitutional in violation of equal protection, due process and uniformity requirements. Larson v. State Department of Revenue, 166 Mont. 449, 534 P.2d 854. The thrust of Larson was that the State Department of Revenue had no statewide plan of reappraisal and accordingly implementation of the county-financed plan resulted in an unconstitutional and disproportionate tax burden on Lewis and Clark County taxpayers as compared to taxpayers of other counties. . t 3 - In early June 1975 the Department of Revenue distributed a document known as the "Montana Appraisal Plan" which is the focal point of this appeal. It purported to be a general and uniform statewide plan for a 5 year cyclical revaluation of all taxable property in Montana in compliance with Ch. 294, Laws of 1975 and in conformity with our decision in Larson. It was noticed for hearing, a hearing was held, and the plan as adopted as a rule of the Department of Revenue, purportedly pursuant to the provisions of the Montana Administrative Procedure Act, section 82-4201, et.seq., R.C.M. 1947. The instant case was filed in the district court of Missoula County in April 1975 by a number of individual taxpayers and a taxpayers' association from Missoula County against the Department of Revenue, its director, and the Missoula County assessor. In general, this action challenges the constitutionality and legality of the Montana Appraisal Plan, its implementing legislation and the property appraisal program in Missoula County. It seeks both declaratory and injunctive relief. At the time the complaint was filed, the district court issued a temporary restraining order preventing the use of the reappraisals on the 1975 tax rolls. After hearing, an injunction pendente lite was issued to the same end resulting in the use of 1974 assessment roll valuations for 1975 taxes. Approximately 20 similar actions were filed in the district courts of other Montana counties. Injunctive relief during the pendency of the actions was granted in some cases and denied in others preventing uniformity of application of the "Montana Appraisal Plan" and its revaluations on a statewide basis. Faced with this t h e Governor of Montana d i r e c t e d t h e Department of Revenue t o use t h e same a p p r a i s a l s i n t h e t a x year 1975 a s were used i n t h e 1974 t a x year. T r i a l of t h e i n s t a n t case was commenced on January 26, 1976, i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t of Missoula County before t h e Hon. Jack L. Green, d i s t r i c t judge, s i t t i n g without a j u r y . O May 20, 1976, n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t entered f i n d i n g s of f a c t , conclusions of law, and judgment. The g i s t of t h e judgment was t h a t t h e Montana Appraisal Plan was never l e g a l l y adopted and i s void; t h a t t h e a p p r a i s a l program c a r r i e d on by t h e Department of Revenue i n Missoula County v i o l a t e d t h e taxpayers' r i g h t s t o uniformity of t a x a t i o n and denied them due process and equal p r o t e c t i o n of t h e laws under t h e Montana and United S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n s ; and permanently enjoined t h e use of t h e r e a p p r a i s a l s and implementat i o n of t h e r e a p p r a i s a l program i n Missoula County. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t s of Flathead and Cascade Counties i n s i m i l a r s u i t s have held t h e Montana Appraisal Plan and t h e r e v a l u a t i o n program of t h e Department of Revenue thereunder constitutional. The Department of Revenue has appealed from t h e judgment of t h e Missoula County d i s t r i c t c o u r t i n t h e i n s t a n t case. Various taxpayers and taxpayer groups have appeared a s amicus c u r i a e by b r i e f and o r a l argument i n t h i s appeal. The underlying i s s u e s on appea1,as we understand them, can be summarized i n t h i s manner: 1) I s t h e Montana Appraisal Plan and i t s implementing legislation constitutional? 2) Was t h e Montana Appraisal Plan l e g a l l y adopted? 3) I s t h e Department of Revenue proceeding l e g a l l y and c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y under t h e Montana Appraisal Plan? Directing our attention to the first issue, we note that the basic attack of respondent taxpayers on the constitutionality of the Montana Appraisal Plan and its implementing legislation is that it does not provide a general and uniform statewide plan of revaluation of all taxable property in the state, but on the contrary is simply 56 separate county plans, each of which is different from the others, resulting in an unreasonable, discriminatory and disproportionate tax burden upon the taxpayers of Missoula County and the state of Montana. The taxpayers also contend there is no provision for the appraisal of timberlands in the pbnwhich are required to be appraised at full value. Additionally, they claim the property classifications in the Plan fail to treat all taxable properties of similar nature and-usethe same. As a result, the taxpayers assert that the plan and its implementing legislation do not conform to the legal requirement of uniformity of taxation and violate the due process and equal protection clauses of the Montana Constitution (Art. 11, Sections 4 and 17, 1972 Montana Constitution) and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Initially, we note the provisions of Art. VIII, Section 3, 1972 Montana Constitution: "The state shall appraise, assess, and equalize the valuation of all property which is to be taxed in the manner provided by law." The manner of appraisal of property for tax purposes is set out in section 84-429.12, R.C.M. 1947: "It is hereby made the duty of the state department of revenue to implement the provisions of this act by providing" "2. For a g e n e r a l and uniform method of a p p r a i s i n g c i t y and town l o t s . "3. For a g e n e r a l and uniform method of a p p r a i s i n g r u r a l and urban improvements. "4. For a general and uniform method of a p p r a i s i n g timberlands ." P r i o r t o 1975 Montana s t a t u t e s required t h a t a l l t a x a b l e property ( o t h e r than a g r i c u l t u r a l lands) be assessed a t f u l l cash value. Section 84-401, R.C.M. 1947. The 1975 l e g i s l a t u r e amended t h i s s t a t u t e t o provide f o r assessment of a l l property f o r t a x purposes ( o t h e r than a g r i c u l t u r a l lands) a t 40% of f u l l cash value. The 1975 l e g i s l a t u r e a l s o enacted s e c t i o n 84-429.14, C.M. R. 1947, providing: "The department of revenue s h a l l administer and supervise a program f o r t h e r e v a l u a t i o n of a l l t a x a b l e property within t h e s t a t e of Montana a t l e a s t every f i v e (5) years. A comprehensive w r i t t e n plan of r o t a t i o n s h a l l be promulgated by t h e department of revenue f i x i n g t h e o r d e r of r e v a l u a t i o n of property i n each county on t h e b a s i s of t h e l a s t r e v a l u a t i o n of taxable property i n each county p r i o r t o J u l y 1, 1974, i n o r d e r t o a d j u s t t h e d i s p a r i t i e s t h e r e i n between t h e counties. The plan of r o t a t i o n so adopted s h a l l provide t h a t a l l property i n each county s h a l l be revalued a t l e a s t every f i v e (5) years o r t h a t no l e s s than twenty per cent (20%) of t h e property i n each county s h a l l be revalued i n each year. The department of revenue s h a l l f u r n i s h a copy of t h e plan and a l l amendments t h e r e t o t o each county a s s e s s o r and t h e board of county commissioners i n each county." The 1975 l e g i s l a t u r e i n t h e same b i l l enacted s e c t i o n 84-429.15, providing: he same method of a p p r a i s a l and assessment s h a l l be used i n each county of t h e s t a t e t o t h e end t h a t comparable property with s i m i l a r t r u e market values and s u b j e c t t o t a x a t i o n i n Montana s h a l l have s u b s t a n t i a l l y equal t a x a b l e values a t t h e end of each c y c l i c a l revaluat i o n program hereinbefore provided." According to the Department of Revenue, the Montana Appraisal Plan was promulgated pursuant to sections 84-429.14 and 84-429.15 and in compliance to our decision in Larson. In general the Elan classifies property for tax purposes in eleven categories and provides a schedule for reappraisal of such and property in each county by year, percentage amount,/classification in each year of the 5 year cycle so that at the end of the cycle all property in the entire state will have been reappraised. The Plan provides a separate schedule and rotation of reappraisal in each county with property most remotely appraised timewise deemed the most deviant from current value and scheduled for reappraisal first. The Plan provides that all property is to be appraised by a uniform method based on a designated appraisal manual. We hold that the Montana Appraisal Plan and its implementing legislation is constitutional. Initially we recognize that violation of statutory uniformity requirements generally results in violation of constitutional equal protection and due process requirements. Larson v. State Department of Revenue, supra. However, we find no violation of statutory uniformity requirements in the plan. All like property is appraised by a uniform standard under the Plan according to uniform valuation procedures set forth in the same designated appraisal manual. The appraisal rotation is fixed by a uniform rule requiring the property that has gone longest since appraisal and is deemed to be most deviant from current values to be appraised first. All property in the state is required to be appraised by the end of the 5 year cycle. Respondent taxpayers apparently contend t h a t t h e P l a n i s not general and uniform because i t c o n s i s t s of 56 s e p a r a t e county p l a n s , each d i f f e r e n t from any o t h e r , r a t h e r than one homogeneous statewide plan. They p o i n t o u t i n each county t h e r e i s a d i f f e r e n t r e a p p r a i s a l schedule, d i f f e r e n t c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s of property i n d i f f e r e n t amounts a r e reappraised i n each year of t h e 5 year c y c l e i n each county, and t h e sequence of r e a p p r a i s a l v a r i e s from county t o county. However, they overlook t h e f a c t t h a t each county p r e s e n t s a d i f f e r e n t s i t u a t i o n with r e s p e c t t o recency of t h e l a s t a p p r a i s a l , t h e type of property t h a t has gone t h e longest s i n c e a p p r a i s a l , and t h e amount and c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of t h e property most deviant from c u r r e n t values. Where, a s h e r e , a uniform r u l e i s provided f o r statewide a p p l i c a t i o n t o determine t h e r e a p p r a i s a l r o t a t i o n , t h e type and amount of property t o be reappraised i n each year i n each county t h e r e i s no v i o l a t i o n of uniformity requirements. I t must be recognized t h a t i n any c y c l i c a l r e v a l u a t i o n plan temporary d i s p a r i t i e s w i t h i n t h e c y c l e between i n d i v i d u a l property v a l u a t i o n s both within t h e county and between c o u n t i e s a r e inevitable. Nonetheless such c y c l i c a l plans have been uniformly upheld a g a i n s t uniformity and equal p r o t e c t i o n a t t a c k s under s t a t e and f e d e r a l c o n s t i t u t i o n a l provisions i n t h e absence of i n t e n t i o n a l , systematic, a r b i t r a r y o r f r a u d u l e n t d i s c r i m i n a t i o n . Recanzone v. Nevada Tax Commission (1976), Nev. - 9 550 P.2d 401 and cases c i t e d t h e r e i n ; Anno. 76 ALR2d 1077. A major contention of t h e taxpayers focuses on t h e f a c t t h a t those p r o p e r t i e s reappraised i n t h e f i r s t year of t h e 5 year cycle and placed on t h e t a x r o l l s then w i l l pay a higher and d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e s h a r e of taxes i n comparison t o those p r o p e r t i e s reappraised i n t h e l a s t year of t h e c y c l e . This i s undoubtedly true in any cyclical reappraisal plan. However, as long as a taxpayer's property is not overvalued in the reappraisal process, he cannot secure a d u c t i o n in his own appraisal on the ground that another taxpayer's property is underappraised. The placing of revaluations on the tax rolls annually and sequentially as the reappraisals are completed is generally held not to offend constitutional equal protection and uniformity requirements in the absence of intentional and systematic discrimination, constructive fraud, or arbitrary action. Hillock v. Bade (1974), 22 Ariz.App. 46, 523 P.2d 97; Morrison v. Rutherford (1973), 83 Wash. App. 153, 516 P.2d 1036; Carkonen v. Williams (1969), 76 Wash.2d 617, 458 P.2d 280; Skinner v. .NewMexico State Tax Commission (1959), 66 N.M. 221, 345 P.2d 750; Rogan v. County Commissioners of Calvert Cdunty (1950), 194 Md. 299, 71 A.2d 47. Respondent taxpayers also assert that the Plan is defective because it contains no provision for the appraisal of timberlands. The short answer to this is that the Plan in fact contains provisions for reappraisal of "timber" and the Montana Administrative Code contains detailed appraisal procedures for timberlands according to use, accessibility, and other factors. MAC 42-2.22(1) - 52230 et seq. Further objection is made that timberlands are not assessed at full cash value, i.e. that timberlands are underassessed. Timberlands are assessed differently, it is true, with the land itself given a value as grazing land and the growing timber valued according to accessibility, logging costs, lumber prices and other factors. We find nothing constitutionally objectionable in this method of assessment. The evidence here falls far short of establishing an intentional and systematic discrimination, constructive fraud, or arbitrary action in the appraisal methods and procedures for valuing timberlands. - 10 - F i n a l l y , respondent taxpayers contend t h e property c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s i n t h e Plan do n o t t r e a t a l l taxable p r o p e r t i e s of s i m i l a r n a t u r e and use t h e same. This i s simply a p a r t and p a r c e l of t h e i r previous argument t h a t t h e p l a n i s n o t a g e n e r a l and uniform statewide plan i n which p r o p e r t i e s of a s i m i l a r n a t u r e and use a r e n o t t r e a t e d t h e same. The p l a n c o n t a i n s various property c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s which a r e defined i n t h e P l a n and which a r e t o be applied on a statewide b a s i s . A uniform r u l e i s applied statewide which s a t i s f i e s uniformity and equal p r o t e c t i o n requirements and temporary i n e q u a l i t i e s w i t h i n t h e c y c l i c a l period do n o t render t h e Plan u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l f o r t h e reasons and under t h e a u t h o r i t i e s previously s e t f o r t h . The second i s s u e on appeal i s whether t h e Montana Appraisal Plan was l e g a l l y adopted. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t held i t was n o t . W agree. e The d i s t r i c t c o u r t entered two f i n d i n g s of f a c t on t h i s issue: "17. O o r about June 6 , 1975, DOR [Department of n Revenue] promulgated and d i s t r i b u t e d a document c a l l e d t h e 'Montana Appraisal P l a n ' . The 'Montana Appraisal Plan' was promulgated under l e g i s l a t i o n enacted by t h e Montana L e g i s l a t u r e i n 1975 having an e f f e c t i v e d a t e of J u l y 1, 1975. Notice of p u b l i c a t i o n of a hearing on t h e plan t o be held on J u l y 16, 1975, was c e r t i f i e d t o t h e S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e on June 13, 1975, and f i r s t published i n t h e Montana Administ r a t i v e R e g i s t e r on June 25, 1975. The p u b l i c hearing was held on J u l y 16, 1975. Oral and w r i t t e n p r o t e s t s t o t h e form and substance of t h e proposed 'Montana Appraisal Plan' were submitted a t t h e hearing. A s p e c i f i c request f o r a w r i t t e n statement'of t h e p r i n c i p a l reasons f o r and a g a i n s t ' t h e p l a n ' s adoption ' incorpora t i n g t h e r e i n i t s .reasons f o r o v e r r u l i n g t h e considerat i o n s urged a g a i n s t ' adoption of t h e plan was made under R.C.M. 1947, Section 82-4204. "18. O August 14, 1975, DOR gave n o t i c e of i t s n i n t e n t i o n t o adopt t h e plan a s an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r u l e of t h e DOR i n t h e form o r i g i n a l l y proposed. Notice of adoption of t h e plan was published i n t h e Montana Administrative R e g i s t e r on August 25, 1975. None of t h e persons appearing and p r o t e s t i n g t h e adoption of t h e plan were given a w r i t t e n statement f o r t h e r e j e c t i o n by DOR of i t s reasons f o r overruling t h e c o n s i d e r a t i o n s urged f o r r e j e c t i o n of t h e plan. The only e f f o r t made by t h e DOR f o r compliance with R.C.M. 1947, Section 82-4204, was a l e t t e r dated September 15, 1975, from W. A. Groff, D i r e c t o r of Revenue, t o t h e Administrative Code Cdmmittee i n Helena. This l e t t e r f a i l s t o comply with t h e requirements of R.C.M. 1947, Section 82-4204." On t h e b a s i s of t h e findings of f a c t , t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t entered i t s Conclusion of Law No. 3 : 3 The 'Montana Appraisal Plan' has n o t been adopted according t o law and under t h e terms of 1947, t h e Administrative Procedure Act, R.C.M. Sections 82-4201, e t seq., and i s without l e g a l f o r c e and e f f e c t a s a v a l i d r u l e of t h e Department of Revenue. " This same conclusion of law was entered a s paragraph number 3 i n t h e judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t . The Montana Appraisal Plan was s p e c i f i c a l l y promulgated pursuant t o an a c t of t h e l e g i s l a t u r e . The statement of i n t e n t contained i n t h e plan provides: "The Montana Appraisal Plan i s promulgated by t h e Department of Revenue i n compliance with Chapter 294, Laws of 1975. 'AN ACT TO PROVIDE A CYCLICAL P O R M F R THE REVALUATION O T X B E RGA O F A AL PROPERTY . Once t h i s l e g i s l a t i o n became e f f e c t i v e t h e Department of Revenue was required t o proceed under t h e Montana Administ r a t i v e Procedure Act, s e c t i o n 82-4201, e t seq, Under t h a t a c t i t was required t o adopt t h e Montana Appraisal Plan a s a r u l e of t h e Department of Revenue. Section 82-4202(2) of t h e Administrative Procedure Act d e f i n e s t h e r u l e s t h a t must be adopted by s t a t e agencies i n t h i s language: " ( 2 ) ' ~ u l e ' means each agency r e g u l a t i o n , standard o r statement of general a p p l i c a b i l i t y t h a t implements, i n t e r p r e t s , o r p r e s c r i b e s law o r p o l i c y o r describes t h e organization, procedures, o r p r a c t i c e (Emphasis added). requirements of an agency. - * * *." Under the Administrative Procedure Act prior to the adoption of any such rule, the agency is required to give notice of its intended action, publish the notice in the Montana Administrative Register, give notice by mail to interested persons, hold a public hearing, consider fully written and oral submissions respecting such proposed rule, and upon adoption of the rule to issue "a concise statement of the principal reasons for or against its adoption, incorporating therein its reasons for overruling the considerations urged against its adoption" to any interested person upon request. Section 82-4204(1) (a) and (b) . Thereafter the agency must refer the proposed rule to the administrative code cormnittee of the legislature. Section 82-4204 (1) (c) . The purpose of the public hearing is to provide taxpayer imput to the proposed Plan; to require the Department of Revenue to fully consider the objections to the Plan, alternative proposals, and amendments; and to state to the interested taxpayers the Department's reasons for rejecting the considerations urged by the taxpayers. The vice of the situation here is that these objectives became subordinated to bureaucratic justification of the Blan. Here, the taxpayers voiced many objections to the equities and fairness of the Plan as distinguished from its legality and constitutionality. For example, it was pointed out that by adopting a 3 year cycle rather than a 5 year cycle the inherent inequities of the Plan would be reduced; that continuation of the same order of reappraisal in each succeeding cycle perpetuates the inequities imposed upon those taxpayers whose property was first reappraised in the initial cycle; that-the length of the c y c l e precludes those taxpayers whose property was f i r s t r e appraised from t h e b e n e f i t s of reduced millage t h a t might l a t e r flow from a s u b s t a n t i a l i n c r e a s e i n t o t a l property v a l u a t i o n s i n t h e county; t h a t because of c e r t a i n f i x e d and mandatory statewide m i l l l e v i e s , t h e burden on those taxpayers whose property was f i r s t reappraised would be increased; t h a t t h e plan i s r e t r o a c t i v e i n operation because i t was implemented p r i o r t o i t s adoption; t h a t the Plan i s s o ambiguous and i n - complete i n designated r e s p e c t s t h a t a taxpayer of common understanding cannot t e l l whether t h e -Plan i s being followed o r t h e law i s being adhered t o ; t h a t t h e higher r e a p p r a i s a l s and increased v a l u a t i o n s under t h e Plan should be delayed u n t i l t h e l e g i s l a t u r e can a d j u s t t h e m i l l l e v i e s ; and many o t h e r s . There i s no evidence t h a t t h e s e taxpayer o b j e c t i o n s , a l t e r a t i v e s and c o n s i d e r a t i o n s were f u l l y considered by t h e Department of Revenue p r i o r t o adoption of t h e Plan a s required by s e c t i o n 82-4204(1)(b). I n d i c a t i o n s a r e t o t h e contrary. The evidence shows t h e Plan was put i n operation before compliance with t h e Administrative Procedure Act. The evidence shows t h e d i r e c t o r of t h e Department c h a r a c t e r i z e d t h e taxpayer o b j e c t i o n s (with t h e exception of placing t h e r e v a l u a t i o n s on t h e t a x r o l l s annually a s appraised) a s "of a n e g a t i v e n a t u r e d i r e c t e d a t property t a x i n general and n o t r e l e v a n t t o t h e plan." The evidence shows t h a t t h e #Plan a s i n i t i a l l y proposed by t h e agency was adopted i n t o t o without amendment, a l t e r a t i o n o r modification. W e hold t h e r e f o r e t h a t t h e Montana Appraisal Plan was never l e g a l l y adopted a s required by t h e Montana Administrative Procedure Act and i s void and without l e g a l f o r c e and e f f e c t a s a r u l e of t h e Department of Revenue. Accordingly, r e v a l u a t i o n s of property made thereunder cannot be placed on the tax rolls as a basis for taxation. Our ruling on the second issue renders consideration of the third issue unnecessary. The judgment of the district court of Missoula County is modified in conformity with this opinion and as so modified is affirmed. Justice / ' Chief Justice

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.