Katrina Rauthe v. Department of Revenue

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

BEFORE THE STATE TAX APPEAL BOARD
~ OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

OF THE STATE OF MONTANA,

)
KATRINA RAUTHE, ) DOCKET NO,: EPT-2012-2
)
Appellant, )
) FACTUAL BACKGROUND,
-vs- ) CONCLUSIONS OF LAW,
) ORDER and OPPORTUNITY
THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE — ) FORJUDICIAL REVIEW
)
)
)

Respondent.

StatementofCase _ |
Katrina Rauthe (T'axpayet) appealed a final decision of the Department
of Revenue (DOR) denying Extended Property ‘I'ax Assistance Program
(PTAP) on her residential property in Flathead County, Montana. On July 24,
2012, DOR denied the Taxpayer’s application for property tax assistance
because she failed to provide evidence of total household income on or before

the April 15, 2012 deadline specified in administrative rule.

Issue

The issue before this Board is whether the Department of Revenue
properly denied property tax assistance when calculating the Taxpayet’s

property taxes.

Summary
Kattina Rauthe is the Taxpayer in this proceeding and, therefore, has

the burden of proof, Based on a preponderance of the evidence, the Board

upholds the final decision of the Department of Revenue.

-1-

TER ee ree ETT Te POR Ta

Background and Evidence Presented

Due, proper and sufficient notice was given of this matter. The matter
was heard on the record without objection from either party. |

The subject property is a residential dwelling within the city limits of
Somers, Montana, with the following legal description: |

Lot 44, South Eighty 1 Addition to the City of Somers,
Section 23, ‘Township 27, Range 21, County of Flathead,
State of Montana. (Appeal Form.)

For tax yeat 2012, the Taxpayer applied for property tax assistance on
her property. The DOR received the application on May 1, 2012,
approximately 15 days past the deadline date. The value assessed on the
property is not at issue in the case.

Taxpayer did not include the required income documentation with the
application, The DOR determined the ‘Taxpayer did not qualify for
ptoperty tax assistance because her application failed to provide evidence
of total household income on or before April 15, 2012. (DOR letter of
denial dated July 24, 2012 and DOR answer dated September 20, 2012.)
The Taxpayer indicated on her application for the Extended Property
Tax Assistance Program that her husband had died on August 9, 2009.
(DOR Exh. A) |

Mts. Rauthe indicated that she was under the erroneous impression that
her daughter had mailed in the original application for extended property
tax assistance. (DOR Exh. A.) -

‘The DOR has the ability to accept late submissions under certain
extenuating circumstances. These include if the applicant was
hospitalized, or subject to physical illness, infirmity or mental illness that

existed in the period Jan. 1 to April 15; and this ailment would prevent

' the timely filing of the application.

It is the position of the DOR that the passing of Mrs, Rauthe’s husband
in 2009 is not an exception to the requitement to submit the application
prior to April 15 for calendar year 2012. (Affidavit of Linda Sather.)
Linda Sather, for the DOR, also stated that even if the DOR had used
Ms. Rauthe’s income without the supporting tax return, her property
value did not increase by 30 percent, as required by § 15-6-193 (5) (b),
MCA. (Affidavit of Linda Sather.)

Principles of Law
The State Tax Appeal Board has jurisdiction over this matter. (§15-2-
302, MCA,
Property qualifying under the extended ptoperty tax assistafice program
is taxed at the rate of its taxable market value multiplied by a percentage
figure based on the income for the preceding calendar year of the owner
ot owners who occupied the property as theit primary residence. (§15-6-
193(5)(b),
By statute, for total household income greater than $25,000 but less than
or equal to $50,000, the percentage increase in taxable value between the
prior cycle and this cycle must be greater than 30% before the property
can qualify for the extended property tax assistance program. (§15-6-
193(5) (b), MCA.) |
In order to receive the tax adjustment, the property owner must, by
April 15, annually complete and forward an application to the
Department of Revenue. (ARM 42.19.406 (4).)
The state tax appeal board must give an administrative rule full effect
unless the board finds a rule atbitrary, capricious, or otherwise unlawful.

(§15-2-301(4), MCA.)

Finding of Fact and Conclusions of Law
In this instance, the Taxpayer requests that she be allowed to qualify for

extended property tax relief, even though she filed her application late, did not
provide income information, and her property value did not inctease
sufficiently to quality for extended property tax relief. We can find no reason
under the statute or regulations to allow for extended property tax relief in this

matter.

The ‘Taxpayer claims she thought her daughter had submitted the
original application, but was in error. Additionally, the Taxpayer cites the death
of her. husband as a reason for the appeal. Unfortunately, neither explanation
qualify as a cause for an allowance for the past date submission of the
application. Even if the DOR had received her application in a timely manner,
the Taxpayer failed to provide documented income information accompanying

the application.

The parcel in question did increase in taxable value but did not reach the
30% threshold as required for relief, when considering Ms. Rauthe’s income
(which she subsequently provided.) Even if the Taxpayer had submitted a
complete application within the deadline, the parcel does not qualify for
EPTAP.

We find that the Taxpayer provided no evidence that the administrative
tule or governing statute is in some manner unlawful, or that the DOR
incorrectly applied statutes or administrative rule which govern EPTAP
administration. As a result, this Board concludes the evidence presented by the

DOR supported the correct application of the EPTAP statutes.

administration. As a result, this Board concludes the evidence presented by the
DOR supported the correct application of the EPT.AP statutes.
ORDER
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED by the State Tax Appeal Board of the
State of Montana that the Taxpayer’s appeal is denied and the decision of the

Department of Keven affirmed.
Dated this cen day of November, 2012.

BY ORDER OF THE
STATE TAX Ws, BOARD ep

Ai. owgl

KAREN E. POWELL, Chairwoman ~

(SEAL) Ducwette Scho s ae
SAMANTHA SANCHEZ, Menfoér

ae WA, by Site

KELEM FLAHERTY-SETTLE, Member

Notice: You ate entitled to judicial review of this Order in accordance
with Section 15- 2-303(2), MCA. Judicial review may be obtained by filing a
petition in district court within 60 days following the service of this Ordet.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Jot
1 day of

The undersigned hereby certifies that on this
November, 2012, the foregoing Order of the Board was served on the parties
heteto by depositing a copy thereof in the U.S. Mails, postage prepaid, addressed

to the parties as follows:

Katrina Rauthe bs Mail, Postage Prepaid
305 South 80 Drive __ Hand Delivered

Somers, Montana 59932 ___ E-mail

Amanda Myers __ US, Mail, Postage Prepaid
Office of Legal Affairs __ Hand Delivered
Depattment of Revenue __ E-mail

Mitchell Building i interoffice

Helena, Montana 59620

DONNA EUBANK

Paralegal