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: September 8, 1976
Decided : DEC 6 -I
m
Filed : DEC 6 - 1916
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 im-
plementation 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, assess-
ment 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 dispari-
ties 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 unconsti-
tutional in violation of equal protection, due process and uni-
formity 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 re-
sulted 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 implementa-
t 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. Addi-
tionally, 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, R.
C.M. 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 revalua-
t 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,/classifica-
tion 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 imple-
menting 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, con-
structive 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 timber-
lands. The short answer to this is that the Plan in fact con-
tains 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 dif-
ferently, it is true, with the land itself given a value as
grazing land and the growing timber valued according to access-
ibility, 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 Adminis-
t 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 ' incorpor-
a 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 considera-
t 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
t h e Administrative Procedure Act, R.C.M. 1947,
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 Adminis-
t 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 imple-
-
ments, 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
requirements of an agency. * * *." (Emphasis added).
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 legis-
lature. 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 pro-
posals, 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