unit assessment rule in Colorado

2019The unit assessment rule “requires that all estates in a unit of real property be assessed together, and the real estate as an entirety be assessed to the owner of the fee ‘free of the ownerships of lesser estates such as leasehold interests.’” Id. at 358 (citation omitted). ¶ 31 The rule “typically operates to tax land and improvements together, without the additional separate taxation of lesser interests 12 therein, such as leaseholds, because taxation of the whole is presumed to include taxation of the derivative parts.” Vail Assocs., 19 P.3d at 1278 .

2019We conclude, as did the BAA, that the unit assessment rule does not apply. ¶ 30 The unit assessment rule is established by section 39-1-106, C.R.S. 2018, which provides, as pertinent here, “it shall make no difference that the use, possession, or ownership of any taxable property is qualified, limited, not the subject of alienation, or the subject of levy or distraint separately from the particular tax derivable therefrom.” City & Cty. of Denver, 848 P.2d at 359 .

2026Our supreme court has been clear: “When the fee owner is tax exempt, . . . the unit assessment rule . . . logically results in 15 the assessment of the private possessory interest in both the government lands and improvements thereon, resulting ultimately in one tax assessment covering both.” Id. at 1279 n.20. ¶ 36 Sheltair had a possessory interest in both the land and Improvements.

2019The unit assessment rule “requires that all estates in a unit of real property be assessed together, and the real estate as an entirety be assessed to the owner of the fee ‘free of the ownerships of lesser estates such as leasehold interests.’” Id. at 358 (citation omitted). ¶ 31 The rule “typically operates to tax land and improvements together, without the additional separate taxation of lesser interests 12 therein, such as leaseholds, because taxation of the whole is presumed to include taxation of the derivative parts.” Vail Assocs., 19 P.3d at 1278 .

2013See Radke, 138 Colo. At 207, 334 P.2d at 1087 ("A license is merely a permit or a privilege to do what otherwise would be unlawful.... speaking [a license] is not property or a property right[.]"). ' 142 The unit assessment rule does not apply to these memberships.

2001See United States v. Colorado, 627 F.2d at 219 .

1993Denver claims that this conclusion necessarily follows from the “unit assessment rule.” The unit assessment rule is a rule of property taxation which requires that all estates in a unit of real property be assessed together, and the real estate as an entirety be assessed to the owner of the fee “free of the ownerships of lesser estates such as leasehold interests.... ” Alliance Towers v. Stark City Bd. of Rev., 37 Ohio St.3d 16 , 523 N.E.2d 826, 832 (1988).

1993Denver claims that this conclusion necessarily follows from the “unit assessment rule.” The unit assessment rule is a rule of property taxation which requires that all estates in a unit of real property be assessed together, and the real estate as an entirety be assessed to the owner of the fee “free of the ownerships of lesser estates such as leasehold interests.... ” Alliance Towers v. Stark City Bd. of Rev., 37 Ohio St.3d 16 , 523 N.E.2d 826, 832 (1988).

1993See Merrick Holding Corp. v. Board of Assessors, 45 N.Y.2d 538 , 410 N.Y.S.2d 565, 568 , 382 N.E.2d 1341, 1344 (1978); Folsom v. County of Spokane, 111 Wash.2d 256 , 759 P.2d 1196, 1202 (1988) {Folsom II).

1993See Merrick Holding Corp. v. Board of Assessors, 45 N.Y.2d 538 , 410 N.Y.S.2d 565, 568 , 382 N.E.2d 1341, 1344 (1978); Folsom v. County of Spokane, 111 Wash.2d 256 , 759 P.2d 1196, 1202 (1988) {Folsom II).

1993See Merrick Holding Corp. v. Board of Assessors, 45 N.Y.2d 538 , 410 N.Y.S.2d 565, 568 , 382 N.E.2d 1341, 1344 (1978); Folsom v. County of Spokane, 111 Wash.2d 256 , 759 P.2d 1196, 1202 (1988) {Folsom II).

1993See Merrick Holding Corp. v. Board of Assessors, 45 N.Y.2d 538 , 410 N.Y.S.2d 565, 568 , 382 N.E.2d 1341, 1344 (1978); Folsom v. County of Spokane, 111 Wash.2d 256 , 759 P.2d 1196, 1202 (1988) {Folsom II).