No. 13273
I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE O M N A A F OTN
THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE OF THE STATE O MONTANA, F
Appellant,
PACIFIC P W R AND LIGHT COMPANY, O E
Respondent.
Appeal from: District Court o f t h e F i r s t J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable P e t e r G. Meloy, Judge p r e s i d i n g .
Counsel of Record:
For A p p e l l a n t :
Robert A. Poore argued, B u t t e , Montana R. Bruce McGinnis a r g u e d , Helena, Montana
For Respondent:
Murphy, Robinson, Heckathorn and P h i l l i p s , K a l i s p e l l , Montana Douglas D Dasinger argued, Ka l i s p e l l , Montana . Mark H. Peterman a r g u e d , P o r t l a n d , Oregon
Submitted: October 21, 1976
Decided : DEC 2 9 1976 Mr. Justice Frank I. Haswell delivered the Opinion of the Court.
This appeal involves the validity of the Montana Department
of Revenue's method of assessment of taxes on the Montana property
of an interstate electric utility. The state tax appeal board
and the district court held the method of assessment invalid,
reduced the assessment, and a 1974 tax reduction of approximately
$100,000 resulted. We reverse.
By way of overview, the general method of assessment
by the Department of Revenue (DOR) was the unitary method of
assessment. DOR used a formula calculated to value the utility's
operating property in Montana on the basis of its value as a part of the utility's total interstate electric generating and trans- the mission system. The validity of/method of assessment by use
of this formula is the underlying issue on appeal.
Pursuant to statute, Pacific Power & Light Company (Utility)
submitted its annual statement of earnings, stock, and debt information to DOR for use in assessing its Montana properties.
DOR assessed the Utility based on information contained in the
statement using the "unitary" method of assessment employed in valuing the property of interstate corporations and systems. A
three-factor formula of stock and debt, cost of plant, and
capitalization of income was employed. Each of the factors was
used to ascertain a TOTAL system value. These were as follows:
----. - INDICATOR OF VALUE ---. TOTAL UTILITY -- SYSTEM VALUE Stock and debt $1,076,198, 551 Plant at Cost $1,347,395, 000
Income (Capitalized at 8.25% over 2 years) $ 857,201,842 , Each of t h e s e i n d i c a t o r s was weighted by a percentage r e f l e c t i n g
D O R I S e v a l u a t i o n of i t s r e l a t i v e importance i n t h e o v e r a l l s t r u c t u r e
of t h e U t i l i t y ' s e l e c t r i c system. Stock and d e b t was a s s i g n e d
a weight of 10%; p l a n t a t 50%; and income a t 40%. These v a l u e s ,
when t o t a l e d , r e s u l t e d i n a composite e s t i m a t e d t o t a l v a l u e f o r
t h e U t i l i t y ' s e n t i r e i n t e r s t a t e e l e c t r i c g e n e r a t i n g and t r a n s m i s s i o n
system of $1,124,198,092.
The n e x t s t e p i n t h e assessment procedure involved a l l o c a -
t i o n of a proper p o r t i o n of t h i s system v a l u e t o t h e p h y s i c a l p l a n t
l o c a t e d i n Montana. DOR c a l c u l a t e d t h e r a t i o of t h e c o s t of t h e
Montana p l a n t t o t h e t o t a l p l a n t and o b t a i n e d a percentage of 1.60%.
The v a l u e of t h e two water p l a n t s of t h e U t i l i t y i n Montana were
excluded on t h e b a s i s they were n o t a continuous p a r t of t h e opera-
t i o n of t h e i n t e r s t a t e e l e c t r i c system and a c c o r d i n g l y were taxed
a t t h e county l e v e l . DOR a l s o computed t h e r a t i o of Montana p l a n t
t o t o t a l p l a n t on a revenue producing b a s i s and determined Montana
produced 2.37% of t o t a l system revenue. These two r a t i o s were
averaged and r e s u l t e d i n a f i n a l r a t i o of 2% r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e
p o r t i o n of t o t a l system value of Montana o p e r a t i n g p r o p e r t i e s . The
weighted e s t i m a t e of t o t a l system v a l u e was m u l t i p l i e d by t h i s 2%
f i g u r e t o o b t a i n t h e v a l u e of Montana p r o p e r t y of $22,4839962.
T h i s v a l u e was e q u a l i z e d a t 44%, t h e percentage f i g u r e used i n
e q u a l i z a t i o n of computations of e l e c t r i c a l u t i l i t y p r o p e r t y , f o r
a t o t a l a s s e s s e d v a l u e of $9,892,943.
The U t i l i t y o b j e c t e d t o t h e foregoing assessment on t h e
ground t h a t i t r e s u l t e d i n imposition by Montana of a p r o p e r t y
t a x on g e n e r a t i n g f a c i l i t i e s l o c a t e d o u t s i d e t h e s t a t e . I t argued
t h i s made i t s system unique and by reason t h e r e o f , DORIS method
of assessment was i l l e g a l and i n e q u i t a b l e . The U t i l i t y contended
t h e h i s t o r i c c o s t of Montana's p o r t i o n of t h e system must b e u t i l i z e d i n computing t h e c o s t o f p l a n t i n d i c a t o r . The u t i l i t y ' s a s s e r -
t i o n was t h a t a f i g u r e of $23,118,600 was a proper f i g u r e f o r
c o s t of p l a n t t o be "weighted" by 50% t o g i v e a t o t a l Montana
p l a n t v a l u e of $11,5591300. T o t a l i n g of t h e a l t e r n a t e p l a n t
c o s t w i t h t h e o t h e r two f i g u r e s ( s t o c k and d e b t ; c a p i t a l i z e d income)
computed i n t h e same manner a s DORY y i e l d s a t o t a l v a l u a t i o n of
$19,127,710. T h i s f i g u r e , "when equalized" a t 44% g i v e s a t o t a l
a s s e s s e d v a l u e of $8,416,192, a s s e r t e d by t h e U t i l i t y t o b e t h e
correct figure.
The U t i l i t y a l s o o b j e c t e d t o D O R ' s computation o f t h e
a l l o c a t i o n f a c t o r used t o determine t h e percentage of t o t a l system
v a l u e i n Montana. I t claimed t h e only proper elements f o r com-
p a r i s o n were i n - s t a t e system c o s t compared t o t o t a l system c o s t .
The U t i l i t y claimed any a t t e m p t t o compare revenue produced i n
Montana t o t o t a l system revenue would r e s u l t i n t a x a t i o n of o u t -
o f - s t a t e p r o p e r t i e s because a l l i t s g e n e r a t i n g f a c i l i t i e s were
l o c a t e d o u t s i d e Montana.
A h e a r i n g b e f o r e DOR was h e l d a t t h e ' U t i l i t y l s r e q u e s t
and r e s u l t e d i n a r e f u s a l t o a l t e r D O R ' s assessment. The U t i l i t y
appealed D O R 1 s d e c i s i o n t o t h e s t a t e t a x appeal board (STAB) and
a m a j o r i t y of STAB determined t h e U t i l i t y ' s methodology and f i n a l
assessment computations t o b e c o r r e c t . The p e r t i n e n t f i n d i n g s of
f a c t of t h e m a j o r i t y were:
"The Department of Revenue used a reasonable approach t o a l l o c a t e system s t o c k and debt v a l u e t o Montana.
"The Department of Revenue had information a v a i l a b l e t o show t h e a c t u a l h i s t o r i c c o s t of p l a n t i n Montana, b u t they s u b s t i t u t e d a n a l l o c a t e d v a l u e of p l a n t t h a t r e s u l t e d i n a f i c t i t i o u s amount t h a t was i n excess of t h e a c t u a l c o s t of p l a n t . "The Department of Revenue plant cost values and the corrected values are as follows:
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
No. 13273
I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE O M N A A F OTN
THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE OF THE STATE O MONTANA, F
Appellant,
PACIFIC P W R AND LIGHT COMPANY, O E
Respondent.
Appeal from: District Court o f t h e F i r s t J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable P e t e r G. Meloy, Judge p r e s i d i n g .
Counsel of Record:
For A p p e l l a n t :
Robert A. Poore argued, B u t t e , Montana R. Bruce McGinnis a r g u e d , Helena, Montana
For Respondent:
Murphy, Robinson, Heckathorn and P h i l l i p s , K a l i s p e l l , Montana Douglas D Dasinger argued, Ka l i s p e l l , Montana . Mark H. Peterman a r g u e d , P o r t l a n d , Oregon
Submitted: October 21, 1976
Decided : DEC 2 9 1976 Mr. Justice Frank I. Haswell delivered the Opinion of the Court.
This appeal involves the validity of the Montana Department
of Revenue's method of assessment of taxes on the Montana property
of an interstate electric utility. The state tax appeal board
and the district court held the method of assessment invalid,
reduced the assessment, and a 1974 tax reduction of approximately
$100,000 resulted. We reverse.
By way of overview, the general method of assessment
by the Department of Revenue (DOR) was the unitary method of
assessment. DOR used a formula calculated to value the utility's
operating property in Montana on the basis of its value as a part of the utility's total interstate electric generating and trans- the mission system. The validity of/method of assessment by use
of this formula is the underlying issue on appeal.
Pursuant to statute, Pacific Power & Light Company (Utility)
submitted its annual statement of earnings, stock, and debt information to DOR for use in assessing its Montana properties.
DOR assessed the Utility based on information contained in the
statement using the "unitary" method of assessment employed in valuing the property of interstate corporations and systems. A
three-factor formula of stock and debt, cost of plant, and
capitalization of income was employed. Each of the factors was
used to ascertain a TOTAL system value. These were as follows:
----. - INDICATOR OF VALUE ---. TOTAL UTILITY -- SYSTEM VALUE Stock and debt $1,076,198, 551 Plant at Cost $1,347,395, 000
Income (Capitalized at 8.25% over 2 years) $ 857,201,842 , Each of t h e s e i n d i c a t o r s was weighted by a percentage r e f l e c t i n g
D O R I S e v a l u a t i o n of i t s r e l a t i v e importance i n t h e o v e r a l l s t r u c t u r e
of t h e U t i l i t y ' s e l e c t r i c system. Stock and d e b t was a s s i g n e d
a weight of 10%; p l a n t a t 50%; and income a t 40%. These v a l u e s ,
when t o t a l e d , r e s u l t e d i n a composite e s t i m a t e d t o t a l v a l u e f o r
t h e U t i l i t y ' s e n t i r e i n t e r s t a t e e l e c t r i c g e n e r a t i n g and t r a n s m i s s i o n
system of $1,124,198,092.
The n e x t s t e p i n t h e assessment procedure involved a l l o c a -
t i o n of a proper p o r t i o n of t h i s system v a l u e t o t h e p h y s i c a l p l a n t
l o c a t e d i n Montana. DOR c a l c u l a t e d t h e r a t i o of t h e c o s t of t h e
Montana p l a n t t o t h e t o t a l p l a n t and o b t a i n e d a percentage of 1.60%.
The v a l u e of t h e two water p l a n t s of t h e U t i l i t y i n Montana were
excluded on t h e b a s i s they were n o t a continuous p a r t of t h e opera-
t i o n of t h e i n t e r s t a t e e l e c t r i c system and a c c o r d i n g l y were taxed
a t t h e county l e v e l . DOR a l s o computed t h e r a t i o of Montana p l a n t
t o t o t a l p l a n t on a revenue producing b a s i s and determined Montana
produced 2.37% of t o t a l system revenue. These two r a t i o s were
averaged and r e s u l t e d i n a f i n a l r a t i o of 2% r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e
p o r t i o n of t o t a l system value of Montana o p e r a t i n g p r o p e r t i e s . The
weighted e s t i m a t e of t o t a l system v a l u e was m u l t i p l i e d by t h i s 2%
f i g u r e t o o b t a i n t h e v a l u e of Montana p r o p e r t y of $22,4839962.
T h i s v a l u e was e q u a l i z e d a t 44%, t h e percentage f i g u r e used i n
e q u a l i z a t i o n of computations of e l e c t r i c a l u t i l i t y p r o p e r t y , f o r
a t o t a l a s s e s s e d v a l u e of $9,892,943.
The U t i l i t y o b j e c t e d t o t h e foregoing assessment on t h e
ground t h a t i t r e s u l t e d i n imposition by Montana of a p r o p e r t y
t a x on g e n e r a t i n g f a c i l i t i e s l o c a t e d o u t s i d e t h e s t a t e . I t argued
t h i s made i t s system unique and by reason t h e r e o f , DORIS method
of assessment was i l l e g a l and i n e q u i t a b l e . The U t i l i t y contended
t h e h i s t o r i c c o s t of Montana's p o r t i o n of t h e system must b e u t i l i z e d i n computing t h e c o s t o f p l a n t i n d i c a t o r . The u t i l i t y ' s a s s e r -
t i o n was t h a t a f i g u r e of $23,118,600 was a proper f i g u r e f o r
c o s t of p l a n t t o be "weighted" by 50% t o g i v e a t o t a l Montana
p l a n t v a l u e of $11,5591300. T o t a l i n g of t h e a l t e r n a t e p l a n t
c o s t w i t h t h e o t h e r two f i g u r e s ( s t o c k and d e b t ; c a p i t a l i z e d income)
computed i n t h e same manner a s DORY y i e l d s a t o t a l v a l u a t i o n of
$19,127,710. T h i s f i g u r e , "when equalized" a t 44% g i v e s a t o t a l
a s s e s s e d v a l u e of $8,416,192, a s s e r t e d by t h e U t i l i t y t o b e t h e
correct figure.
The U t i l i t y a l s o o b j e c t e d t o D O R ' s computation o f t h e
a l l o c a t i o n f a c t o r used t o determine t h e percentage of t o t a l system
v a l u e i n Montana. I t claimed t h e only proper elements f o r com-
p a r i s o n were i n - s t a t e system c o s t compared t o t o t a l system c o s t .
The U t i l i t y claimed any a t t e m p t t o compare revenue produced i n
Montana t o t o t a l system revenue would r e s u l t i n t a x a t i o n of o u t -
o f - s t a t e p r o p e r t i e s because a l l i t s g e n e r a t i n g f a c i l i t i e s were
l o c a t e d o u t s i d e Montana.
A h e a r i n g b e f o r e DOR was h e l d a t t h e ' U t i l i t y l s r e q u e s t
and r e s u l t e d i n a r e f u s a l t o a l t e r D O R ' s assessment. The U t i l i t y
appealed D O R 1 s d e c i s i o n t o t h e s t a t e t a x appeal board (STAB) and
a m a j o r i t y of STAB determined t h e U t i l i t y ' s methodology and f i n a l
assessment computations t o b e c o r r e c t . The p e r t i n e n t f i n d i n g s of
f a c t of t h e m a j o r i t y were:
"The Department of Revenue used a reasonable approach t o a l l o c a t e system s t o c k and debt v a l u e t o Montana.
"The Department of Revenue had information a v a i l a b l e t o show t h e a c t u a l h i s t o r i c c o s t of p l a n t i n Montana, b u t they s u b s t i t u t e d a n a l l o c a t e d v a l u e of p l a n t t h a t r e s u l t e d i n a f i c t i t i o u s amount t h a t was i n excess of t h e a c t u a l c o s t of p l a n t . "The Department of Revenue plant cost values and the corrected values are as follows:
"The Department of Revenue computations: " System Montana Ratio
$1,335,568,826 $21,310,719 1.60%
"Whereas, the correct total of all properties should be:
"System Montana Ratio $1,372,463,365 $23,118,600 1.68%
"Difference :
- -- "System Montana -- - Ratio
$36,894,539 $1,807,881 .08%11 The STAB majority concluded:
"The unitary approach to value is a proper method to be utilized but in some instances must be modified to produce equitable results.
"The Department of Revenue adopted a fundamentally wrong principle of assessment when, knowing the actual historic cost of the subject plant, they substituted an allocated value of plant that exceeded the actual cost; thereby violating the requirement to determine the actual cash value for taxation of that portion of the plant and property situa ted in Montana .I ' Based on these conclusions, STAB ordered DOR to utilize the 1.68%
ratio and the "correct totals" set forth above.
STAB member Peterson dissented and submitted findings and conclusions in dissent, asserting the methodology employed by DOR to be correct. The pertinent part of the dissent was expressed in this language : "Market value is based on the concept of what a willing and informed buyer would pay a willing and informed seller. It is inconceivable that income would not be considered in such a hypothetical transaction. Therefore, when in- come is not considered in calculating the ratio of the s u b j e c t u t i l i t y company's property i n Montana i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e value of t h e system i n o t h e r s t a t e s which t h e company o p e r a t e s , t h e e f f e c t i s t o export value out of Montana. '1
DOR appealed t h e S A decision t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , Lewis T B
and Clark County, which upheld t h e S A d e c i s i o n . T B DOR appealed
t o t h i s Court.
A t i s s u e h e r e i s a determination of t h e proper method of
v a l u a t i o n of t h e U t i l i t y ' s Montana operating p r o p e r t i e s . Montana
has u t i l i z e d t h e 3 - f a c t o r , u n i t a r y assessment approach f o r
a p p r a i s a l of i n t e r s t a t e u t i l i t y property f o r many y e a r s . The
method has been approved by t h i s Court i n t h e p a s t a s a f a i r and
a p p r o p r i a t e way of determining t h e value of t h e Montana p o r t i o n of
an i n t e r s t a t e e n t i t y f o r property t a x a t i o n . Yellowstone Pipe Line
Co. v. S t a t e Board of Equalization, 138 Mont. 603, 358 P.2d 55;
Western A i r l i n e s , Inc. v. Michunovich, 149 Mont. 347, 350, 351,
1t I n d i s c u s s i n g t h e "unitary" o r going concern'' approach
i n Western A i r l i n e s , I n c . , we s t a t e d :
If* ** The ' u n i t a r y ' method r e p r e s e n t s an attempt t o r e a l i z e a f a i r assessment value on property which i s not h a b i t u a l l y loca ted i n any given s t a t e , b u t which i s used e x t e n s i v e l y i n i n t e r s t a t e commerce. The under- lying philosophy of t h e ' u n i t a r y ' method i s t h a t property so used forms a p a r t of an organic system and may be assessed i n terms of t h e economic c o n t r i b u t i o n which each compenent makes t o t h e e n t i r e system. This approach has been firmly e s t a b l i s h e d i n a s e r i e s of de- c i s i o n s of t h e Supreme Court of t h e United S t a t e s . *** "A good statement of t h e purpose and operation of t h e I u n i t a r y ' method i s found i n Pullman C o . v. Richardson, 261 U.S. 330, 338, 43 S.Ct. 366, 368, 67 L ed 682.
"'And, i f t h e property be p a r t of a system and have an augmented value by reason of a connected opera- t i o n of t h e whole, i t may be taxed according t o i t s value a s p a r t of t h e system, although t h e o t h e r p a r t s be o u t s i d e t h e s t a t e ; i n o t h e r words, t h e t a x may be yade t o cover t h e enhanced value whichcomes t o t h e p r o p e r t y i n t h e s t a t e through i t s organic r e l a t i o n t o the-system."' --- (Emphasis added.) The U t i l i t y urges t h i s Court t o hold t h e a c t u a l c o s t
of t h e physical p l a n t a s an appropria te measure of "value"
f o r assessment purposes and a s s e r t s t h e method u t i l i z e d by DOR
r e s u l t s i n an a r t i f i c i a l and contrived "value". Section 84-
401, R.C.M. 1947, r e q u i r e s assessment of property a t i t s " f u l l
cash value". Value does n o t equal c o s t . Western Union Telegraph
Co. v. Taggart, 163 U.S. 1, 16 S . C t . 1054, 41 L ed 49; Cleveland
&c Railway Co. v. Backus, 154 U.S. 439, 445, 14 S.Ct. 1122,
38 L ed 1041. I n Cleveland a d e c i s i o n involving s t a t e t a x a t i o n of
i n t e r s t a t e railway property, the United S t a t e s Supreme Court s a i d :
"* ** t h e value of property r e s u l t s from t h e use t o which i t i s put and v a r i e s with t h e p r o f i t a b l e n e s s of t h a t use, p r e s e n t and prospective, a c t u a l and a n t i c i - pated. There i s no pecuniary value o u t s i d e of t h a t which r e s u l t s from such use. The amount and p r o f i t a b l e c h a r a c t e r of such use determines t h e v a l u e , and i f t h e property i s taxed a t i t s a c t u a l cash value i t i s taxed upon something which i s c r e a t e d by t h e uses t o which i t i s put. ** *I1
The e l e c t r i c system property of t h e U t i l i t y i n Montana,
although only 1.6% of t h e t o t a l u t i l i t y system, provides 2.37%
of t h e t o t a l annual revenue of t h e U t i l i t y . Any measure of t h e
- value of t h i s property must include c o n s i d e r a t i o n of t h e use t o --.-
which t h e property i s put and t h e income c o n t r i b u t e d t o t h e
system. DOR, i n an e f f o r t t o a s s e s s t h i s value, averaged t h e
1.6% f i g u r e , representing t h e Montana share of t h e p h y s i c a l p l a n t
w i t h i n t h e t o t a l e l e c t r i c a l system, with t h e 2.37% f i g u r e repre-
senting t h e income provided by Montana through e f f e c t i v e , e f f i c i e n t
use of t h e p l a n t . This averaging yielded t h e 2% used a s an
a p p r o p r i a t e percentage of t o t a l value of t h e u t i l i t y ' s property
w i t h i n Montana. This r e f l e c t s a c o n s i d e r a t i o n of t h e worth o r value
of t h e Montana property a s a p a r t of an on-going, p r o f i t a b l e e n t e r -
p r i s e , t h e value of t h e p a r t s of which i s g r e a t e r when combined i n t o an i n t e g r a t e d u t i l i t y system. To accept t h e U t i l i t y ' s contention
t h a t a c t u a l c o s t i s c o n t r o l l i n g ( a s d i d STAB and t h e d i s t r i c t
c o u r t ) i s t o ignore t o t a l l y t h e "value" flowing from t h e operation
of t h e system. Again, i n Western A i r l i n e s , I n c . t h e Court s t a t e d : -
"Thus t h e ' u n i t a r y ' method determines not only t h e a p p r o p r i a t e share of t h e e n t i r e e n t e r p r i s e which may be taxed by each s t a t e but a l s o determines t h e 'en- hanced value' a t t r i b u r a b l e t o t h e equipment used by v i r t u e of i t s being a component p a r t of t h e system. The ' u n i t a r y ' method assumes t h a t t h e value of t h e e n t i r e system, a s a going concern, i s somewhat g r e a t e r than t h e t o t a l f a i r market value of i t s equipment."
See a l s o : Yellowstone Pipe Line Co. v. S t a t e Board of Equal.,
supra.
W f u r t h e r hold t h a t DOR c o r r e c t l y excluded t h e waterplant e
f a c i l i t i e s t h a t a r e taxed l o c a l l y by t h e counites where they a r e
located. These water p l a n t s a r e not properly a p a r t of t h e operating
i n t e r s t a t e e l e c t r i c a l system and a s such do not a f f e c t t h e valua-
t i o n s of i n t e r s t a t e p r o p e r t i e s d e a l t with i n t h i s opinion. The
exclusion of t h e s e p r o p e r t i e s r e q u i r e s a f f i r m a t i o n of t h e 1.60%
f i g u r e used by DORY r a t h e r than t h e 1.68% o f f e r e d a s an a l t e r n a -
t i v e by t h e U t i l i t y , i n applying t h e u n i t a r y assessment method.
The judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s reversed. The
assessment of DOR i s r e i n s t a t e d i n conformity with t h i s opinion. Hon. L. C. Gulbrandson, ~ i s t r i c t Judge, sitting for Justice Wesley Castles.