Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Arizona Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. v. State ex rel., Department of Revenue

Court of Appeals of Arizona, First Division

October 31, 2017

ARIZONA ELECTRIC POWER COOPERATIVE, INC., Plaintiff/Appellant,
v.
STATE OF ARIZONA, ex rel., DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, et al., Defendants/Appellees.

         Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. TX 2016-000932 The Honorable Christopher T. Whitten, Judge

          Mooney, Wright & Moore, PLLC, Mesa By Paul J. Mooney, Bart S. Wilhoit Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant

          Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix By Kenneth J. Love, Macaen F. Mahoney Counsel for Defendants/Appellees

          Judge Maria Elena Cruz delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop and Judge Diane M. Johnsen joined.

          OPINION

          CRUZ, Judge

         ¶1 In this centrally-valued property tax case, the Arizona Tax Court ruled that the complaint Arizona Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. ("AEPCO") filed to challenge the value assigned by the Arizona Department of Revenue ("Department") and the Arizona State Board of Equalization ("State Board") was untimely, and dismissed the action. For the following reasons, we affirm.

         FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         ¶2 The electric generation property at issue is located within Cochise County ("County"), which collects taxes imposed based on the Department's determination of value. Pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.") section 42-14156, the Department determined the value of AEPCO's property for tax year 2016 to be $148, 915, 000. Before the State Board, AEPCO requested a full cash value of $106, 030, 000, claiming the Department's proposed value failed to take into account proper obsolescence factors under A.R.S. § 42-14156(A)(4).

         ¶3 At the conclusion of a hearing on November 13, 2015, the State Board announced it was upholding the Department's valuation and set the full cash value of AEPCO's property at $148, 915, 000. The State Board then issued a written decision captioned "Findings of Fact, Decision and Conclusions of Law, " dated and mailed on November 13 (the "November 13 Findings"), which incorrectly listed the cash value of AEPCO's property as $188, 646, 735. Upon review of the November 13 Findings, counsel for the Department emailed George Shook, the State Board's acting chairman, noting the error, and AEPCO's property tax agent agreed there was a mistake. Shook advised both parties the State Board would issue an amended decision correcting the error.

         ¶4 Accordingly, on November 16, the State Board issued an "Amended Findings of Fact, Decision and Conclusions of Law" stating the correct value (the "November 16 Findings"). The same day, the State Board posted on its website a notice (the "November 16 Web Notice") that reflected the correct valuation number but incorrectly identified Maricopa County as the entity that valued the property, instead of the Department. The November 16 Web Notice also incorrectly listed a date of November 14, 2015, instead of November 16, 2015.

         ¶5 Although the November 16 Findings recited the correct valuation number, it contained a typographical error ("petition" was spelled "petiton"). Upon discovery of the misspelling in the November 16 Findings and the clerical error in the November 16 Web Notice, the State Board issued a second "Amended Findings of Fact, Decision and Conclusions of Law" on December 8, 2015 (the "December 8 Findings"), and posted a "Corrected" Web Notice to its website (the "December 7 Web Notice").

         ¶6 On February 3, 2016, AEPCO filed its complaint in tax court challenging the State Board decision. The Department and the County (collectively the "Defendants") moved to dismiss the complaint as untimely, arguing the sixty-day appeal window started running, at the latest, upon the mailing of the November 16 Findings. The tax court ruled the complaint was untimely and granted Defendants' motion to dismiss. AEPCO timely appealed.

         ¶7 This court has jurisdiction of the appeal pursuant to ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.