Colorado Revised Statutes
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 39-1-108 (2026)
Payment of taxes - grantor and grantee
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
CO-LEGleg.colorado.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
As between the grantor and grantee of property other than property described in section 39-5-104.5, when the instrument of conveyance does not contain an express agreement as to which party shall pay the taxes that may be levied on the property conveyed in the year in which conveyed, if such conveyance is made after the thirty-first day of December and before the first day of July next following, the grantee shall pay such taxes; but if the conveyance is made after the thirtieth day of June and before the first day of January next following, the grantor shall pay such taxes.
Source: L. 64: R&RE, p. 677, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 137-1-8. L. 2020: Entire section amended, (HB 20-1077), ch. 80, p. 324, § 6, effective September 14.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 22
cases, 1993–2015 · leading case: Antolovich v. Brown Grp. Retail, Inc., 183 P.3d 582 (Colo. Ct. App. 2007).
Antolovich v. Brown Grp. Retail, Inc., 183 P.3d 582 (Colo. Ct. App. 2007). “425, § 39-1-108 at 1482. Finally, Colorado's constitutional requirement that the value of residential property be based on an appraisal using the market approach became effective on December 81, 1992.”
Cantina Grill, JV v. City & Cnty. of Denver Cnty. Bd. of Equalization Ex Rel. Kennedy, 2015 CO 15 (Colo. 2015). “In this case, we also granted review to consider whether the concessionaires' interests, if taxable, were properly valued under the posses-sory interest valuation provisions in section 39-1-108(17), C.R.S. (2014). 12 Relying on Vail Associates, the City and County of Denver…”
Andrew v. Teller Cnty. Bd. of Equalization, 284 P.3d 172 (Colo. Ct. App. 2012). “Finally, although taxpayer now argues that the assessor failed to give her proper notice of the reasons for the 2010 reclassification in violation of the requirements of section 39-1-108(5)(c), C.R.S.2011, she did not raise this issue before the BAA, and it cannot be raised for…”
Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners v. Vail Assocs., Inc., 19 P.3d 1263 (Colo. 2001). “We recognize: (1) that the legislature has a determinative role in adopting valuation provisions consistent with the constitution, and has exercised its authority in this regard by adopting section 39-1-108(17); and (2) the taxation of private possessory interests in federal…”
Qwest Corp. v. Colorado Div. of Prop. Taxation, 310 P.3d 113 (Colo. Ct. App. 2011). “IL Statutory Interpretation Qwest contends DPT can and should interpret the intangible property exemption, seetion 39-8-118, and the "cost cap" limitation on value, section 39-1-108(13), as applying to its property.”
Cantina Grill, JV v. City & Cnty. of Denver Cnty. Bd. of Equalization ex rel. Pumilla, 292 P.3d 1144 (Colo. Ct. App. 2012). “8 In 1996, the General Assembly adopted what is now section 39-1-108(17), C.R.S.2011, which provides for valuation of possessory interests in exempt properties, and declared that (1) "the valuation of possessory interests in exempt properties is uncertain and highly speculative"…”
Bachelor Gulch Operating Co. v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 316 P.3d 43 (Colo. Ct. App. 2013). “Thus, it contends that pursuant to article X, section 8(1)(a) of the Colorado Constitution and section 39-1-108(15), C.R.S. 2012, the Assessor was required to determine the actual value of each child parcel, giving appropriate consideration to the market, income, and cost…”
Jet Black, LLC v. Routt Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 165 P.3d 744 (Colo. Ct. App. 2006). “That is, the owner of each taxable parcel pays a portion of the total ad valorem tax imposed that the value of the parcel bears to the valuation of all of the taxable parcels within the boundaries of the taxing entity.”
Qwest Corp. v. Colorado Div. of Prop. Taxation, 304 P.3d 217 (Colo. 2013). “(2012), and the cost cap valuation method in section 39-1-108(18), C.R.S. (2012), to Petitioner Qwest Corporation's property.”
CTS Investments, LLC v. Garfield Cnty. Bd. of Equalization, 342 P.3d 451 (Colo. Ct. App. 2013). “" § 39-1-108(14)(b), C.R.S. 2012; Craddock, 850 P.”
Tenney v. Bd. of Assessment Appeals, 856 P.2d 89 (Colo. Ct. App. 1993). “They rely upon § 39-1-108, C.R.S. (1982 Repl.Vol. 16B), which provides that, in the absence of an express agreement as to the payment of taxes between a buyer and seller, a buyer of taxable property before July 1st is liable for all of the taxes on the property for that tax year.”
Steamboat Ski & Resort Corp. v. Routt Cnty. Bd. of Equalization, 23 P.3d 1258 (Colo. Ct. App. 2001). “Finally, we decline to address taxpayer's arguments concerning the comparable sales requirements of § 39-1-108(8), C.R.S. 2000. Taxpayer did not raise any questions concerning these statutory requirements in the proceedings before the BAA, and we may not address that issue for…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 39-1-108(13) — 2 cases
Qwest Corp. v. Colorado Div. of Prop. Taxation, 310 P.3d 113 (Colo. Ct. App. 2011). “IL Statutory Interpretation Qwest contends DPT can and should interpret the intangible property exemption, seetion 39-8-118, and the "cost cap" limitation on value, section 39-1-108(13), as applying to its property.”
Xerox Corp. v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 87 P.3d 189 (Colo. Ct. App. 2003).
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 39-1-108(14)(a) — 1 case
Fid. Castle Pines, Ltd. v. State, 948 P.2d 26 (Colo. Ct. App. 1997).
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 39-1-108(14)(b) — 1 case
CTS Investments, LLC v. Garfield Cnty. Bd. of Equalization, 342 P.3d 451 (Colo. Ct. App. 2013). “" § 39-1-108(14)(b), C.R.S. 2012; Craddock, 850 P.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 39-1-108(15) — 1 case
Bachelor Gulch Operating Co. v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 316 P.3d 43 (Colo. Ct. App. 2013). “Thus, it contends that pursuant to article X, section 8(1)(a) of the Colorado Constitution and section 39-1-108(15), C.R.S. 2012, the Assessor was required to determine the actual value of each child parcel, giving appropriate consideration to the market, income, and cost…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 39-1-108(17) — 3 cases
Cantina Grill, JV v. City & Cnty. of Denver Cnty. Bd. of Equalization Ex Rel. Kennedy, 2015 CO 15 (Colo. 2015). “In this case, we also granted review to consider whether the concessionaires' interests, if taxable, were properly valued under the posses-sory interest valuation provisions in section 39-1-108(17), C.R.S. (2014). 12 Relying on Vail Associates, the City and County of Denver…”
Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners v. Vail Assocs., Inc., 19 P.3d 1263 (Colo. 2001). “We recognize: (1) that the legislature has a determinative role in adopting valuation provisions consistent with the constitution, and has exercised its authority in this regard by adopting section 39-1-108(17); and (2) the taxation of private possessory interests in federal…”
Cantina Grill, JV v. City & Cnty. of Denver Cnty. Bd. of Equalization ex rel. Pumilla, 292 P.3d 1144 (Colo. Ct. App. 2012). “8 In 1996, the General Assembly adopted what is now section 39-1-108(17), C.R.S.2011, which provides for valuation of possessory interests in exempt properties, and declared that (1) "the valuation of possessory interests in exempt properties is uncertain and highly speculative"…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 39-1-108(17)(a) — 2 cases
Cantina Grill, JV v. City & Cnty. of Denver Cnty. Bd. of Equalization ex rel. Pumilla, 292 P.3d 1144 (Colo. Ct. App. 2012). “8 In 1996, the General Assembly adopted what is now section 39-1-108(17), C.R.S.2011, which provides for valuation of possessory interests in exempt properties, and declared that (1) "the valuation of possessory interests in exempt properties is uncertain and highly speculative"…”
Cantina Grill, JV v. City & Cnty. of Denver Cnty. Bd. of Equalization Ex Rel. Kennedy, 2015 CO 15 (Colo. 2015). “In this case, we also granted review to consider whether the concessionaires' interests, if taxable, were properly valued under the posses-sory interest valuation provisions in section 39-1-108(17), C.R.S. (2014). 12 Relying on Vail Associates, the City and County of Denver…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 39-1-108(17)(a)(ID)(A) — 1 case
Cantina Grill, JV v. City & Cnty. of Denver Cnty. Bd. of Equalization Ex Rel. Kennedy, 2015 CO 15 (Colo. 2015). “In this case, we also granted review to consider whether the concessionaires' interests, if taxable, were properly valued under the posses-sory interest valuation provisions in section 39-1-108(17), C.R.S. (2014). 12 Relying on Vail Associates, the City and County of Denver…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 39-1-108(17)(a)(II)(A) — 2 cases
Cantina Grill, JV v. City & Cnty. of Denver Cnty. Bd. of Equalization Ex Rel. Kennedy, 2015 CO 15 (Colo. 2015). “In this case, we also granted review to consider whether the concessionaires' interests, if taxable, were properly valued under the posses-sory interest valuation provisions in section 39-1-108(17), C.R.S. (2014). 12 Relying on Vail Associates, the City and County of Denver…”
Cantina Grill, JV v. City & Cnty. of Denver Cnty. Bd. of Equalization ex rel. Pumilla, 292 P.3d 1144 (Colo. Ct. App. 2012). “8 In 1996, the General Assembly adopted what is now section 39-1-108(17), C.R.S.2011, which provides for valuation of possessory interests in exempt properties, and declared that (1) "the valuation of possessory interests in exempt properties is uncertain and highly speculative"…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 39-1-108(17)(a)(II)(B) — 1 case
Cantina Grill, JV v. City & Cnty. of Denver Cnty. Bd. of Equalization Ex Rel. Kennedy, 2015 CO 15 (Colo. 2015). “In this case, we also granted review to consider whether the concessionaires' interests, if taxable, were properly valued under the posses-sory interest valuation provisions in section 39-1-108(17), C.R.S. (2014). 12 Relying on Vail Associates, the City and County of Denver…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 39-1-108(17)(a)(IID)(A) — 1 case
Cantina Grill, JV v. City & Cnty. of Denver Cnty. Bd. of Equalization ex rel. Pumilla, 292 P.3d 1144 (Colo. Ct. App. 2012). “8 In 1996, the General Assembly adopted what is now section 39-1-108(17), C.R.S.2011, which provides for valuation of possessory interests in exempt properties, and declared that (1) "the valuation of possessory interests in exempt properties is uncertain and highly speculative"…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 39-1-108(17)(a)(III) — 1 case
Cantina Grill, JV v. City & Cnty. of Denver Cnty. Bd. of Equalization Ex Rel. Kennedy, 2015 CO 15 (Colo. 2015). “In this case, we also granted review to consider whether the concessionaires' interests, if taxable, were properly valued under the posses-sory interest valuation provisions in section 39-1-108(17), C.R.S. (2014). 12 Relying on Vail Associates, the City and County of Denver…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 39-1-108(18) — 1 case
Qwest Corp. v. Colorado Div. of Prop. Taxation, 304 P.3d 217 (Colo. 2013). “(2012), and the cost cap valuation method in section 39-1-108(18), C.R.S. (2012), to Petitioner Qwest Corporation's property.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 39-1-108(183) — 1 case
Qwest Corp. v. Colorado Div. of Prop. Taxation, 310 P.3d 113 (Colo. Ct. App. 2011). “IL Statutory Interpretation Qwest contends DPT can and should interpret the intangible property exemption, seetion 39-8-118, and the "cost cap" limitation on value, section 39-1-108(13), as applying to its property.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 39-1-108(2) — 1 case
Kidder v. Chaffee Cnty. Bd. of Equalization, 312 P.3d 1181 (Colo. Ct. App. 2011).
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 39-1-108(5) — 1 case
Padre Resort, Inc. v. Jefferson Cnty. Bd. of Equalization, 30 P.3d 813 (Colo. Ct. App. 2001).
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 39-1-108(5)(a) — 10 cases
Antolovich v. Brown Grp. Retail, Inc., 183 P.3d 582 (Colo. Ct. App. 2007). “425, § 39-1-108 at 1482. Finally, Colorado's constitutional requirement that the value of residential property be based on an appraisal using the market approach became effective on December 81, 1992.”
Jet Black, LLC v. Routt Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 165 P.3d 744 (Colo. Ct. App. 2006). “That is, the owner of each taxable parcel pays a portion of the total ad valorem tax imposed that the value of the parcel bears to the valuation of all of the taxable parcels within the boundaries of the taxing entity.”
Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners v. Vail Assocs., Inc., 19 P.3d 1263 (Colo. 2001). “We recognize: (1) that the legislature has a determinative role in adopting valuation provisions consistent with the constitution, and has exercised its authority in this regard by adopting section 39-1-108(17); and (2) the taxation of private possessory interests in federal…”
Bachelor Gulch Operating Co. v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 316 P.3d 43 (Colo. Ct. App. 2013). “Thus, it contends that pursuant to article X, section 8(1)(a) of the Colorado Constitution and section 39-1-108(15), C.R.S. 2012, the Assessor was required to determine the actual value of each child parcel, giving appropriate consideration to the market, income, and cost…”
CTS Investments, LLC v. Garfield Cnty. Bd. of Equalization, 342 P.3d 451 (Colo. Ct. App. 2013). “" § 39-1-108(14)(b), C.R.S. 2012; Craddock, 850 P.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 39-1-108(5)(c) — 2 cases
Andrew v. Teller Cnty. Bd. of Equalization, 284 P.3d 172 (Colo. Ct. App. 2012). “Finally, although taxpayer now argues that the assessor failed to give her proper notice of the reasons for the 2010 reclassification in violation of the requirements of section 39-1-108(5)(c), C.R.S.2011, she did not raise this issue before the BAA, and it cannot be raised for…”
C.P. Bedrock, LLC v. Denver Cnty. Bd. of Equalization, 259 P.3d 514 (Colo. Ct. App. 2011).
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 39-1-108(8) — 2 cases
Qwest Corp. v. Colorado Div. of Prop. Taxation, 310 P.3d 113 (Colo. Ct. App. 2011). “IL Statutory Interpretation Qwest contends DPT can and should interpret the intangible property exemption, seetion 39-8-118, and the "cost cap" limitation on value, section 39-1-108(13), as applying to its property.”
Steamboat Ski & Resort Corp. v. Routt Cnty. Bd. of Equalization, 23 P.3d 1258 (Colo. Ct. App. 2001). “Finally, we decline to address taxpayer's arguments concerning the comparable sales requirements of § 39-1-108(8), C.R.S. 2000. Taxpayer did not raise any questions concerning these statutory requirements in the proceedings before the BAA, and we may not address that issue for…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 39-1-108(8)(a)(D) — 1 case
CTS Investments, LLC v. Garfield Cnty. Bd. of Equalization, 342 P.3d 451 (Colo. Ct. App. 2013). “" § 39-1-108(14)(b), C.R.S. 2012; Craddock, 850 P.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 39-1-108(8)(a)(I) — 2 cases
Antolovich v. Brown Grp. Retail, Inc., 183 P.3d 582 (Colo. Ct. App. 2007). “425, § 39-1-108 at 1482. Finally, Colorado's constitutional requirement that the value of residential property be based on an appraisal using the market approach became effective on December 81, 1992.”
CTS Investments, LLC v. Garfield Cnty. Bd. of Equalization, 342 P.3d 451 (Colo. Ct. App. 2013). “" § 39-1-108(14)(b), C.R.S. 2012; Craddock, 850 P.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.