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

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 39-5-122 (2026)

Taxpayer's remedies to correct errors

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CO-LEGleg.colorado.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1) (a) On or before May 1 of each year, the assessor shall give public notice in at least one issue of a newspaper published in the assessor's county that, beginning on the first working day after notices of adjusted valuation are mailed to taxpayers, the assessor will sit to hear all objections and protests concerning valuations of taxable real property determined by the assessor for the current year; that, for a taxpayer's objection and protest to be heard, notice must be given to the assessor; and that such notice must be postmarked, delivered, or given in person by June 8. The notice must also state that objections and protests concerning valuations of taxable personal property determined by the assessor for the current year will be heard commencing June 15; that, for a taxpayer's objection and protest to be heard, notice must be given to the assessor; and that such notice must be postmarked or physically delivered by June 30. If there is no such newspaper, then such notice must be conspicuously posted in the offices of the assessor, the treasurer, and the county clerk and recorder and in at least two other public places in the county seat. The assessor shall send news releases containing such notice to radio stations, television stations, and newspapers of general circulation in the county.

(b) Repealed.

(2) If any person is of the opinion that his or her property has been valued too high, has been twice valued, or is exempt by law from taxation or that property has been erroneously assessed to such person, he or she may appear before the assessor and object, complete the form mailed with his or her notice of valuation pursuant to section 39-5-121 (1) or (1.5), or file a written letter of objection and protest by mail with the assessor's office before the last day specified in the notice, stating in general terms the reason for the objection and protest. Reasons for the objection and protest may include, but shall not be limited to, the installation and operation of surface equipment relating to oil and gas wells on agricultural land. Any change or adjustment of any ratio of valuation for assessment shall not constitute grounds for an objection. If the form initiating an appeal or the written letter of objection and protest is filed by mail, it shall be presumed that it was received as of the day it was postmarked. If the form initiating an appeal or the written letter of objection and protest is hand-delivered, the date it was received by the assessor shall be stamped on the form or letter. As stated in the public notice given by the assessor pursuant to subsection (1) of this section, the taxpayer's notification to the assessor of his or her objection and protest to the adjustment in valuation must be delivered, postmarked, or given in person by June 8 in the case of real property. In the case of personal property, the notice must be postmarked or physically delivered by June 30. All such forms and letters received from protesters shall be presumed to be on time unless the assessor can present evidence to show otherwise. The county shall not prescribe the written form of objection and protest to be used. The protester shall have the opportunity on the days specified in the public notice to present his or her objection in writing or protest in person and be heard, whether or not there has been a change in valuation of such property from the previous year and whether or not any change is the result of a determination by the assessor for the current year or by the state board of equalization for the previous year. If the assessor finds any valuation to be erroneous or otherwise improper, the assessor shall correct the error. If the assessor declines to change any valuation that the assessor has determined, the assessor shall state his or her reasons in writing on the form described in section 39-8-106, shall insert the information otherwise required by the form, and shall mail two copies of the completed form to the person presenting the objection and protest so denied on or before the last regular working day of the assessor in June in the case of real property and on or before July 10 in the case of personal property; except that, if a county has made an election pursuant to section 39-5-122.7 (1), the assessor shall mail the copies on or before August 15 in the case of both real and personal property.

(2.5) If the property that is the subject of an objection and protest is rent-producing commercial real property located in a county that has made an election pursuant to section 39-5- 122.7 (1), then, on or before July 15, the taxpayer shall provide to the assessor the information described in section 39-8-107 (5)(a)(I).

(3) Any person whose objection and protest has been denied in writing by the assessor may appeal to the county board of equalization in the manner provided in article 8 of this title.

(4) The assessor shall continue his hearings from day to day until all objections and protests have been heard, but all such hearings shall be concluded by June 1 in the case of real property and July 5 in the case of personal property.

(5) (a) Any written statement given by any assessor which consists only of a denial of any objection and protest or which consists of a statement referring to compliance by the county with the requirements of valuation for assessment study shall not be sufficient to satisfy the requirements of subsection (2) of this section concerning the statement of reasons why an objection and protest is denied.

(b) Any information presented by the taxpayer regarding the value of his property shall be considered by the assessor in determining whether an adjustment in value is warranted.

(6) If, during the appeal process described in this section, the assessor discovers any error that impacts the valuation of a class or subclass of property, then, pursuant to section 39-8- 102 (1), the assessor shall recommend to the county board of equalization an adjustment to the valuation of the class or subclass of property to correct the error.

Source: L. 64: R&RE, p. 703, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 137-5-22. L. 73: p. 1441, § 1. L. 76: (1), (2), and (4) amended, p. 762, § 24, effective January 1, 1977. L. 77: (2) amended, p. 1735, § 16, effective June 20. L. 81: (1), (2), and (4) amended, p. 1833, § 9, effective June 12. L. 84: (2) amended, p. 1000, § 1, effective March 5. L. 88: (1), (2), and (4) amended, p. 1300, § 6, effective April 29; (2) amended, p. 1287, § 18, effective May 23. L. 89: (1) and (2) amended, p. 1455, § 10, effective June 7. L. 90: (1), (2), and (4) amended and (5) added, p. 1691, § 9, effective January 1, 1991. L. 92: (2) amended, pp. 2209, 2213, §§ 5, 11, effective June 3. L. 98:

(2) amended, p. 468, § 2, effective July 1. L. 2002: (1) and (2) amended, p. 42, § 2, effective August 7. L. 2005: (2) amended, p. 390, § 1, effective April 27. L. 2008: (1) and (2) amended, p. 949, § 4, effective August 5. L. 2013: (1) amended, (HB 13-1113), ch. 11, p. 28, § 2, effective March 8. L. 2019: (2) amended and (2.5) added, (HB 19-1175), ch. 43, p. 147, § 1, effective March 21. L. 2020: (1)(a) amended and (1)(b) repealed, (SB 20-136), ch. 70, p. 292, § 34, effective September 14. L. 2021: (2) amended, (SB 21-293), ch. 301, p. 1812, § 12, effective June 23. L. 2022: (1)(a) and (2) amended and (6) added, (HB 22-1416), ch. 158, p. 998, § 4, effective August 10.

Editor's note: Amendments to subsection (2) by sections 5 and 11 of Senate Bill 92-50 were harmonized.

Cross references: For the legislative declaration in SB 20-136, see section 1 of chapter 70, Session Laws of Colorado 2020.

39-5-122.1. Appeal from illegal increase in valuation of property resulting from order of state board. (Repealed) Source: L. 77: Entire section added, p. 1736, § 17, effective June 20; entire section repealed, p. 1736, § 17, effective January 1, 1978.

39-5-122.5. Taxpayer's remedies - property tax credit for incorrect valuations used for property tax levied in 1987 for collection in 1988. (Repealed) Source: L. 88: Entire section added, p. 1288, § 21, effective May 23. L. 94: (3) amended, p. 824, § 54, effective April 27. L. 97: Entire section repealed, p. 1032, § 71, effective August 6.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 69 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1976–2026 · leading case: Coquina Oil Corp. v. Larimer Cnty. Bd. of Equalization, 770 P.2d 1196 (Colo. 1989).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Coquina Oil Corp. v. Larimer Cnty. Bd. of Equalization, 770 P.2d 1196 (Colo. 1989). · cites it 98× “In April 1983, after the protest period under section 39-5-122, 16B C.R.S. (1982), had passed, Coquina discovered that its accountants had misstated the amount of revenue generated by the oil leases in 1981, which resulted in a $66,423.”
Bd. of Assessment Appeals v. Benbrook, 735 P.2d 860 (Colo. 1987). · cites it 49× “The court of appeals determined that despite the fact that the taxpayers were seeking only a partial refund of taxes paid instead of an abatement of the entire amounts paid, they could obtain relief under the abatement and refund provisions because the increase in the assessed…”
Gates Rubber Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization, 770 P.2d 1189 (Colo. 1989). · cites it 58× “We granted certiorari to determine the rate of interest a prevailing taxpayer is entitled to recover when following the protest and adjustment procedure in sections 39-5-122, 39-8-106, 39-8-108, and 39-8-109, 16B C.”
Amoco Prod. Co. v. Bd. of Assessment Appeals, 770 P.2d 1207 (Colo. 1989). · cites it 44× “Amoco did not discover its error within the time for protesting an assessment described in section 39-5-122, 16B C.R.S. (1982), and paid the tax when it was due.”
Jefferson Cnty. Bd. of Equalization v. Gerganoff, 241 P.3d 932 (Colo. 2010). · cites it 5× “§ 39-5-122, C.R.S. (2010). If the assessor denies the objection and protest, the taxpayer may then appeal to the county board of equalization.”
Prop. Tax Adm'r v. Prod. Geophysical Servs., Inc., 860 P.2d 514 (Colo. 1993). · cites it 15× “The taxpayers did not protest the valuation pursuant to section 39-5-122, 16B C.R.S. (1993 Supp.), but instead sought to have the amount of taxes reduced by following the abatement procedure set forth in section 39-10-114, 16B C.”
Bd. of Assessment Appeals v. Colorado Arlberg Club, 762 P.2d 146 (Colo. 1988). · cites it 6× “The Club protested pursuant to section 39-5-122(2), 16B C.R.S. (1982), and as a result of a property value review the assessor decreased the valuation for assessment to $545,790.”
Portofino Corp. v. Bd. of Assessment Appeals, 820 P.2d 1157 (Colo. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 15× “269, § 39-5-122 at 1300-1301. We agree with petitioner and reverse the Board’s order.”
Lucchesi v. State, 807 P.2d 1185 (Colo. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 9× “In this same 1988 legislative session, amendments were made to § 39-5-122, C.R.S. (1989 Cum.Supp.), which allows a taxpayer to protest an assessment made by a county assessor through administrative proceedings, and § 39-10-114, C.”
Washington Cnty. Bd. of Equalization v. Petron Dev. Co., 109 P.3d 146 (Colo. 2005). · cites it 4× “Petron protested the assessor’s valuations in accordance with section 39-5-122(2), C.R.S. (2004). The assessor denied the protest and Petron *149 appealed to the Washington County Board of Equalization (“Board”) pursuant to sections 39-5-122(3) and 39-8-106, C.”
Colorado Prop. Tax Adm'r v. CO 2, 2023 CO 8 (Colo. 2023). · cites it 8× “, § 39-5-122, C.R.S. (2022), and some specifically apply in the oil and gas context, see, e.”
Bd. of Assessment Appeals v. Sampson, 105 P.3d 198 (Colo. 2005). · cites it 2× “§ 39-5-122, C.R.S. (2004). If the assessor denies a taxpayer’s protest, the taxpayer may petition the county BOE.”
Show all 69 citing cases →
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 39-5-122(1) — 3 cases
Gilpin Cnty. Bd. of Equalization v. Russell, 941 P.2d 257 (Colo. 1997).
Dove Valley Bus. Park Assocs., Ltd. v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners of Arapahoe Cnty., 923 P.2d 242 (Colo. Ct. App. 1996).
Laredo Hous. Apts., Ltd. v. Bd. of Assessment Appeals, 675 P.2d 23 (Colo. Ct. App. 1983).
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 39-5-122(1)(a) — 1 case
MLS Props. LLC v. Weld Cnty. Bd. of Equalization (Colo. Ct. App. 2022).
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 39-5-122(2) — 33 cases
Prop. Tax Adm'r v. Prod. Geophysical Servs., Inc., 860 P.2d 514 (Colo. 1993). “The taxpayers did not protest the valuation pursuant to section 39-5-122, 16B C.R.S. (1993 Supp.), but instead sought to have the amount of taxes reduced by following the abatement procedure set forth in section 39-10-114, 16B C.”
Bd. of Assessment Appeals v. Colorado Arlberg Club, 762 P.2d 146 (Colo. 1988). “The Club protested pursuant to section 39-5-122(2), 16B C.R.S. (1982), and as a result of a property value review the assessor decreased the valuation for assessment to $545,790.”
San Miguel Cnty. Bd. of Equalization v. Telluride Co., 947 P.2d 1381 (Colo. 1997).
Washington Cnty. Bd. of Equalization v. Petron Dev. Co., 109 P.3d 146 (Colo. 2005). “Petron protested the assessor’s valuations in accordance with section 39-5-122(2), C.R.S. (2004). The assessor denied the protest and Petron *149 appealed to the Washington County Board of Equalization (“Board”) pursuant to sections 39-5-122(3) and 39-8-106, C.”
Bd. of Assessment Appeals v. Benbrook, 735 P.2d 860 (Colo. 1987). “The court of appeals determined that despite the fact that the taxpayers were seeking only a partial refund of taxes paid instead of an abatement of the entire amounts paid, they could obtain relief under the abatement and refund provisions because the increase in the assessed…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 39-5-122(3) — 18 cases
Bd. of Assessment Appeals v. Colorado Arlberg Club, 762 P.2d 146 (Colo. 1988). “The Club protested pursuant to section 39-5-122(2), 16B C.R.S. (1982), and as a result of a property value review the assessor decreased the valuation for assessment to $545,790.”
Jefferson Cnty. Bd. of Equalization v. Gerganoff, 241 P.3d 932 (Colo. 2010). “§ 39-5-122, C.R.S. (2010). If the assessor denies the objection and protest, the taxpayer may then appeal to the county board of equalization.”
Gates Rubber Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization, 770 P.2d 1189 (Colo. 1989). “We granted certiorari to determine the rate of interest a prevailing taxpayer is entitled to recover when following the protest and adjustment procedure in sections 39-5-122, 39-8-106, 39-8-108, and 39-8-109, 16B C.”
Gilpin Cnty. Bd. of Equalization v. Russell, 941 P.2d 257 (Colo. 1997).
Washington Cnty. Bd. of Equalization v. Petron Dev. Co., 109 P.3d 146 (Colo. 2005). “Petron protested the assessor’s valuations in accordance with section 39-5-122(2), C.R.S. (2004). The assessor denied the protest and Petron *149 appealed to the Washington County Board of Equalization (“Board”) pursuant to sections 39-5-122(3) and 39-8-106, C.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 39-5-122(4) — 1 case
Bd. of Assessment Appeals v. Benbrook, 735 P.2d 860 (Colo. 1987). “The court of appeals determined that despite the fact that the taxpayers were seeking only a partial refund of taxes paid instead of an abatement of the entire amounts paid, they could obtain relief under the abatement and refund provisions because the increase in the assessed…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 39-5-122(5)(b) — 2 cases
Gilpin Cnty. Bd. of Equalization v. Russell, 941 P.2d 257 (Colo. 1997).
Latsis v. Arapahoe (Colo. Ct. App. 2026).
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 39-5-122(8) — 1 case
City & Cnty. of Denver v. Bd. of Assessment Appeals, 947 P.2d 1373 (Colo. 1997).
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.