Legal Opinion · Dissent

County Board of Equalization v. State Tax Commission Ex Rel. Sunkist Service Co.

Utah Supreme Court

Decided March 19, 1990No. 870261Published

1DissentHowe, Associate Chief Justice

I dissent. After reading and analyzing the cases on this subject, I conclude that the better-reasoned cases support the rule that where the legislature has made no provision to protect good faith purchasers of real property from liability for back assessments on omitted improvements, the court will not interpret an “omitted or escaped property” statute, such as our Utah Code Ann. § 59-5-17 (1974) (now Utah Code Ann. § 59-2-309(1) (1989 Supp.)), to allow the assessor to pick up omitted improvements — when the land on which they are affixed was on the tax rolls and the taxes originally assessed…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Korash v. MillsSupreme Court of Florida · 1972
  2. State v. Mortgage-Bond Co. of New YorkSupreme Court of Alabama · 1932
  3. Davidson v. Franklin Avenue Investment Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1915
  4. People Ex Rel. McDonough v. Birtman Electric Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1934
  5. Leyh v. GlassSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1973

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API