dissenting.
I disagree not only with the majority's statutory construction but also with its assumption of essential facts I consider to be hotly contested. Because I believe the court of appeals correctly interpreted the statutory scheme to provide for a refund of erroneously levied taxes, irrespective of responsibility for overvaluation of the property in question, and because I believe that, in any event, HealthSouth has neither conceded nor been given an opportunity to dispute the authority, or even apparent authority, of any officers fraudulently overvaluing its assets, I respectfully dissent.
With regard to the question of interpretation, I believe the majority reads more into the statutory language than accepted rules of construction permit. The county clearly has legal authority to value and tax only property actually located within the county. §§ 89-1-103(5)(a), -105, C.R.S. (2010). The statute provides for the abatement of taxes levied erroneously or illegally, whether the error is in the nature of "erroneous valuation for assessment, irregularity in levying, clerical error, or overvaluation." § 39-10-114(1)(a){D(A), C.R.S. (2010). The statute also indisputably provides for the refund of erroneously or illegally levied taxes (albeit without interest), even if that erroneous or illegal levy results from errors or omissions on the part of the taxpayer itself, specifically including "error made by the taxpayer in completing personal property schedules." § 89-10-114(1)(b). Based on little more than its intuition about the kinds of errors more likely to be attributable to the county and those more likely to be attributable to the taxpayer, the majority declares a legislative intent to permit recovery for taxpayer error only if that error or omission can be classified as "clerical." 1
By contrast, I believe the statute should be applied as written, to permit a refund of taxes erroneously levied on any property not actually located in the county, regardless of the nature of the error resulting in overvaluation, as long as the statutory abatement process is complied with. Unlike the majority, I believe (as did the court of appeals) that the legislature made abundantly clear in its 1991 declaration that adding the word "overvaluation" to its litany of justifications for abatement was intended as a direct response *956to the demand of the court of appeals, see 5050 S. Broadway Corp. v. Arapahoe County Bd. of Comm'rs, 815 P.2d 966, 969 (Colo.App.1991), for "a more definitive statutory clarification" of a legislative desire to "allow a taxpayer to petition for an abatement or refund for essentially all errors in valuation." Ch. 809, see. 1, 1991 Colo. Sess. Laws 1962. Similarly, our own denial of refund in Property Tax Administrator v. Production Geophysical Services, Inc., 860 P.2d 514 (Colo.1998), was clearly dictated by the procedural default of the taxpayer in that case and implied absolutely nothing about the availability of recovery (or lack thereof) following a taxpayer's overvaluation of its own property. Even the dissenting voice on the court of appeals felt constrained to seek support from outside sources and general principles of equity, rather than imputing a limitation on abatement that simply cannot be found in the statute itself. See HealthSouth Corp. v. Boulder County Bd. of Comm'rs, 220 P.3d 966, 975-77 (Colo.App.2009) (Bernard, J., dissenting).
Although it is not entirely clear to me precisely what the majority intends by "clerical," I believe it is clear from the secant record in this case that HealthSouth has never admitted, nor has it been proven, that it intentionally over-reported the value of, or sought the imposition of taxes on, personal property it knew did not exist. Therefore, even if the statute could fairly be construed to withhold from taxpayers the refund of taxes levied erroneously only because of their own intentional overvaluation, I could not concur in the court's judgment in this case.
Because HealthSouth is a corporate person, by describing its acts as intentional, the majority presumably intends that the acts in question were authorized or intentionally committed by its authorized agents. Cf. Grease Monkey Int'l, Inc. v. Montoya, 904 P.2d 468, 475-76 (Colo.1995) (extending tort liability to corporation for chief executive's fraud where he was authorized to act without board approval, he acted within his apparent authority, and he made material misrepresentations to defraud investors). Although it was denied an evidentiary hearing to prove its contentions, HealthSouth has argued throughout that the fraudulent overstate ment of its assets was perpetrated by various of its officers, without authorization. The "admission" relied on by the majority consists of nothing more than a cover letter from the corporation's tax-preparer accompanying its petition for abatement, describing an attached complaint from a federal lawsuit, which was ultimately settled without admission of wrongdoing by the corporation. See S.E.C. v. HealthSouth Corp., CV-03-J-0615-S (N.D. Ala. June 22, 2005) (final judgment as to defendant HealthSouth Corporation).
Perhaps even more importantly, however, the record contains no suggestion whatsoever that HealthSouth (or any of its officers or agents) intentionally sought the imposition of taxes on personal property it knew did not exist. To the contrary, in an undisputed affidavit attached to HealthSouth's objection to dismissal, the tax-preparer who originally submitted the property schedules in question swore that she had no knowledge, information, or reason to believe that the information provided by her was not accurate, true, and correct. The majority's characterization notwithstanding, there has been no allegation that the corporation or its officers or agents sought the imposition of taxes on non-existent property in furtherance of a scheme to defraud third parties, much less to defraud Boulder County itself.
The majority clearly finds it offensive (as did the dissenting opinion in the court of appeals) that HealthSouth should be entitled to a refund of overpaid taxes under these cireumstances. It is less clear to me that corporate shareholders should be levied a fine by Boulder County for the misconduct of certain corporate officers, directed against third parties altogether. In any event, however, it is for the General Assembly to prescribe the regulatory process for the levy, collection, and abatement of taxes. I would not so lightly convert, by construction, a regulatory scheme designed to correct for overpaid taxes into an authorization for determining culpability and assigning blame.
Both because I do not believe the statutes at issue here are properly construed to limit *957taxpayer remedies as the majority has done, and because I do not believe the factual predicate for denying recovery to Health-South, even under the majority's construction, has been established in this case, I respectfully dissent.
. As an afterthought, the majority suggests that use of the word "error' in subsection 114(1)(b), in and of itself, necessarily implies a mistake by the taxpayer as distinguished from intentional over-reporting. Maj. op. at 954 n. 4. It is difficult to see how this conclusory assertion adds weight to the majority's argument. Standing alone, the term "error' is used just as naturally t0 refer to any inaccuracy or departure from the truth, without regard for the actor's awareness of or reason for making the error. In this context, the term is expressly used with regard to taxes levied "erroneously," to include any "erroneous valuation for assessment, irregularity in levying, clerical error, or- overvaluation." § 39-10-114(1)(a)(D)(A).