Colo. Rev. Stat. » Title 39
Colorado Revised Statutes

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 39-3-135 (2024)

Taxation of exempt property - taxes not to become lien

✓ C.R.S. 2024: the 2025 and 2026 sessions are not included
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CO-LEGleg.colorado.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(Repealed)

Source: L. 89: Entire article R&RE, p. 1480, § 1, effective April 23. L. 96: Entire section repealed, p. 1851, § 3, effective June 5.

Editor's note: Before its repeal, this section was similar to former § 39-3-112 as it existed prior to 1989.

39-3-136. Legislative declaration - taxation of exempt property - possessory interests. (Repealed)

Source: L. 96: Entire section added, p. 1849, § 1, effective June 5. L. 2002: (2) amended, p. 1032, § 68, effective June 1; entire section repealed, p. 1009, § 6, effective August 7.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1992–2015 · leading case: Mesa Verde Co. v. Montezuma Cnty. Bd. of Equalization, 898 P.2d 1 (Colo. 1995).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Mesa Verde Co. v. Montezuma Cnty. Bd. of Equalization, 898 P.2d 1 (Colo. 1995). · cites it 191× “The Fresno statute survived constitutional scrutiny precisely because it avoided the fatal flaw of C.R.S. 39-3-135. Fresno affirms that C.R.”
Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners v. Vail Assocs., Inc., 19 P.3d 1263 (Colo. 2001). · cites it 7× “The legislature recodified this section as section 39-3-185 and amended it several times to provide exemptions from taxation for certain private possessory interests, See § 39-3-135, 16B C.R.S. (1998 Supp.). These amendments, constituting the General Assembly's first attempts to…”
Vail Assocs., Inc. v. Eagle Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 983 P.2d 49 (Colo. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 20× “325, § 39-3-135 at 1480, *52 which, with certain exceptions, allowed the taxation of possessory interests.”
Mesa Verde Co. v. Montezuma Cnty. Bd. of Equalization, 831 P.2d 482 (Colo. 1992). · cites it 11× “The appellants, the Montezuma County Board of Equalization (the Board) and the Montezuma County Assessor (the Assessor), appeal the judgment of the District Court for Montezuma County declaring that four parcels of land (the property) located within the boundaries of Mesa Verde…”
Guest Mansions, Inc. v. Arapahoe Cnty. Bd. of Equalization, 899 P.2d 944 (Colo. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 12× “The fundamental issue on appeal is whether Guest Mansions, as the lessee of the hotel and associated real property, is subject to property taxation pursuant to § 39-3-135, C.R.S. (1994 ReplVol. 16B), known as the “Possessory Interest Statute.”
Cantina Grill, JV v. City & Cnty. of Denver Cnty. Bd. of Equalization Ex Rel. Kennedy, 2015 CO 15, 344 P.3d 870. · cites it 2× “2d at 6–7 (citing § 39-3-135(4)(c), C.R.S. (1994)). Despite this provision, the Montezuma County Assessor assessed Mesa Verde Company’s use of, and possessory interest in, federal land for its concession at Mesa Verde National Park.”
Southard v. Bd. of Equalization, 996 P.2d 208 (Colo. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 2× “325, § 39-3-135(1) at 1480, which, until 1996, provided: (1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, when any real property which is exempt from taxation for any reason is leased .”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 39-3-135(1): 5 cases
Mesa Verde Co. v. Montezuma Cnty. Bd. of Equalization, 898 P.2d 1 (Colo. 1995). “The Fresno statute survived constitutional scrutiny precisely because it avoided the fatal flaw of C.R.S. 39-3-135. Fresno affirms that C.R.”
Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners v. Vail Assocs., Inc., 19 P.3d 1263 (Colo. 2001). “The legislature recodified this section as section 39-3-185 and amended it several times to provide exemptions from taxation for certain private possessory interests, See § 39-3-135, 16B C.R.S. (1998 Supp.). These amendments, constituting the General Assembly's first attempts to…”
Mesa Verde Co. v. Montezuma Cnty. Bd. of Equalization, 831 P.2d 482 (Colo. 1992). “The appellants, the Montezuma County Board of Equalization (the Board) and the Montezuma County Assessor (the Assessor), appeal the judgment of the District Court for Montezuma County declaring that four parcels of land (the property) located within the boundaries of Mesa Verde…”
Guest Mansions, Inc. v. Arapahoe Cnty. Bd. of Equalization, 899 P.2d 944 (Colo. Ct. App. 1995). “The fundamental issue on appeal is whether Guest Mansions, as the lessee of the hotel and associated real property, is subject to property taxation pursuant to § 39-3-135, C.R.S. (1994 ReplVol. 16B), known as the “Possessory Interest Statute.”
Southard v. Bd. of Equalization, 996 P.2d 208 (Colo. Ct. App. 1999). “325, § 39-3-135(1) at 1480, which, until 1996, provided: (1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, when any real property which is exempt from taxation for any reason is leased .”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 39-3-135(4)(a): 1 case
Mesa Verde Co. v. Montezuma Cnty. Bd. of Equalization, 898 P.2d 1 (Colo. 1995). “The Fresno statute survived constitutional scrutiny precisely because it avoided the fatal flaw of C.R.S. 39-3-135. Fresno affirms that C.R.”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 39-3-135(4)(c): 4 cases
Mesa Verde Co. v. Montezuma Cnty. Bd. of Equalization, 898 P.2d 1 (Colo. 1995). “The Fresno statute survived constitutional scrutiny precisely because it avoided the fatal flaw of C.R.S. 39-3-135. Fresno affirms that C.R.”
Cantina Grill, JV v. City & Cnty. of Denver Cnty. Bd. of Equalization Ex Rel. Kennedy, 2015 CO 15, 344 P.3d 870. “2d at 6–7 (citing § 39-3-135(4)(c), C.R.S. (1994)). Despite this provision, the Montezuma County Assessor assessed Mesa Verde Company’s use of, and possessory interest in, federal land for its concession at Mesa Verde National Park.”
Guest Mansions, Inc. v. Arapahoe Cnty. Bd. of Equalization, 899 P.2d 944 (Colo. Ct. App. 1995). “The fundamental issue on appeal is whether Guest Mansions, as the lessee of the hotel and associated real property, is subject to property taxation pursuant to § 39-3-135, C.R.S. (1994 ReplVol. 16B), known as the “Possessory Interest Statute.”
Mesa Verde Co. v. Montezuma Cnty. Bd. of Equalization, 831 P.2d 482 (Colo. 1992). “The appellants, the Montezuma County Board of Equalization (the Board) and the Montezuma County Assessor (the Assessor), appeal the judgment of the District Court for Montezuma County declaring that four parcels of land (the property) located within the boundaries of Mesa Verde…”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 39-3-135(4)(e): 2 cases
Mesa Verde Co. v. Montezuma Cnty. Bd. of Equalization, 898 P.2d 1 (Colo. 1995). “The Fresno statute survived constitutional scrutiny precisely because it avoided the fatal flaw of C.R.S. 39-3-135. Fresno affirms that C.R.”
Guest Mansions, Inc. v. Arapahoe Cnty. Bd. of Equalization, 899 P.2d 944 (Colo. Ct. App. 1995). “The fundamental issue on appeal is whether Guest Mansions, as the lessee of the hotel and associated real property, is subject to property taxation pursuant to § 39-3-135, C.R.S. (1994 ReplVol. 16B), known as the “Possessory Interest Statute.”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 39-3-135(6): 1 case
Mesa Verde Co. v. Montezuma Cnty. Bd. of Equalization, 898 P.2d 1 (Colo. 1995). “The Fresno statute survived constitutional scrutiny precisely because it avoided the fatal flaw of C.R.S. 39-3-135. Fresno affirms that C.R.”
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.