Colorado Revised Statutes

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 39-8-108 (2026)

Decision - review - opportunity to submit case to arbitration

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CO-LEGleg.colorado.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1) If the county board of equalization grants a petition, in whole or in part, the assessor shall adjust the valuation accordingly; but, if the petition is denied, in whole or in part, the petitioner may appeal the valuation set by the assessor or, if the valuation is adjusted as a result of a decision of the county board of equalization, the adjusted valuation to the board of assessment appeals or to the district court of the county wherein the petitioner's property is located for a trial de novo, or the petitioner may submit the case to arbitration pursuant to the provisions of section 39-8-108.5. Such appeal or submission to arbitration shall be taken no later than thirty days after the date such denial was mailed pursuant to section 39-8-107 (2). Any decision rendered by the county board of equalization shall state that the petitioner has the right to appeal the decision of the county board to the board of assessment appeals or to the district court of the county wherein the petitioner's property is located or to submit the case to arbitration and, to preserve such right, the time by which such appeal or submission to arbitration must be made. Any request by a taxpayer for a hearing before the board of assessment appeals shall be accompanied by a nonrefundable filing fee in an amount specified in section 39-2-125 (1)(h). In addition, any request by a taxpayer for a hearing before the board of assessment appeals shall be stamped with the date on which such request was received by the board. All such requests shall be presumed to be on time unless the board can present evidence to show otherwise.

(2) If the petitioner has appealed to the board of assessment appeals and the decision of the board of assessment appeals is against the petitioner, the petitioner may petition the court of appeals for judicial review according to the Colorado appellate rules and the provisions of section 24-4-106 (11), C.R.S. If the decision of the board is against the respondent, the respondent, upon the recommendation of the board that it either is a matter of statewide concern or has resulted in a significant decrease in the total valuation of the respondent county, may petition the court of appeals for judicial review according to the Colorado appellate rules and the provisions of section 24-4-106 (11), C.R.S. In addition, on and after June 7, 1989, if the decision of the board is against the respondent, the respondent may petition the court of appeals for judicial review of alleged procedural errors or errors of law within thirty days of such decision when the respondent alleges procedural errors or errors of law by the board of assessment appeals. If the board does not recommend its decision to be a matter of statewide concern or to have resulted in a significant decrease in the total valuation of the respondent county, the respondent may petition the court of appeals for judicial review of such questions within thirty days of such decision. Any decision issued by the board of assessment appeals shall inform the petitioner or respondent, as may be appropriate, of the right to petition the court of appeals for judicial review.

(3) If the decision of the county board of equalization has been appealed to the district court, the decision of the court shall be subject to appellate review according to the Colorado appellate rules and the provisions of section 24-4-106 (9), C.R.S.

(4) If the taxpayer submits his case to arbitration pursuant to the provisions of section 39-8-108.5, the decision reached under such process shall be final and not subject to review.

(5) In any appeal authorized by this section or by section 39-5-122, 39-5-122.7, or 39- 10-114:

(a) Repealed. (a.5) The valuation may not be adjusted to a value of more than five percent above the valuation set by the county board of equalization pursuant to section 39-8-107, except as specifically permitted pursuant to section 39-5-125;

(b) The assessor's valuation of similar property similarly situated shall be credible evidence;

(c) The respondent may not rely on any confidential information which is not available for review by the taxpayer unless such confidential data is presented in such a manner that the source cannot be identified;

(d) Upon request, the respondent shall make available to the taxpayer two working days prior to any appeal hearing data supporting the assessor's valuation. Such request shall be accompanied by data supporting the taxpayer's valuation. Nothing in this paragraph (d) shall be construed to prohibit the introduction at such appeal hearing of any data discovered as a result of the exchange of data required by this paragraph (d); and

(e) In using the market approach to determine the value of residential real property, if the assessor has knowledge of the conversion from one residential use to a different residential use, such conversion shall create a rebuttable presumption that the sale of such property is not a comparable sale for purposes of establishing the value of a property having a similar prior residential use.

(6) In any appeal or submission to arbitration authorized by this section, there shall be no presumption in favor of any pending valuation.

Source: L. 64: R&RE, p. 713, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 137-8-6. L. 70: p. 386, § 23. L. 77:

(2) amended, p. 1736, § 19, effective June 20. L. 83: (2) amended, p. 2087, § 5, effective October 13. L. 85: Entire section amended and (2) amended, pp. 1228, 1230, §§ 2, 1, effective July 1. L. 88: (1) and (2) amended, (3) R&RE, and (4) added, pp. 1302, 1303, §§ 11, 12, effective April 29. L. 89: (1) and (2) amended, p. 1458, § 17, effective June 7. L. 90: (2) amended and (5) added, pp. 1694, 1700, §§ 13, 31, effective June 9. L. 92: (1), (2), and (5)(d) amended, p. 2210, § 8, effective June 3. L. 96: (1), (2), and (5)(a) amended and (6) added, p. 723, § 7, effective May 22. L. 2002: IP(5) amended and (5)(e) added, p. 843, § 4, effective August 7. L. 2003: (1) amended, p. 1467, § 4, effective July 1. L. 2021: (5)(a) repealed, (HB 21- 1083), ch. 25, p. 112, § 1, effective April 7. L. 2022: (5)(a.5) added, (HB 22-1416), ch. 158, p. 1000, § 6, effective August 10.

Editor's note: Amendments to subsection (2) by House Bill 85-1106 and Senate Bill 85- 85 were harmonized.

Cross references: For right to judicial review under the "State Administrative Procedure Act", see § 24-4-106.

39-8-108.5. Arbitration of property valuations - arbitrators - qualifications - procedures. (1) (a) In order to give taxpayers an alternative to pursuing an appeal of the county board of equalization's decision through either the board of assessment appeals or the district court, an arbitration process shall be established. The board of county commissioners shall develop a list of persons who shall be qualified to act as arbitrators of property valuation disputes. Such list shall be kept in the office of the county clerk and recorder.

(b) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (1)(c) of this section, persons on the list maintained pursuant to subsection (1)(a) of this section must be, in addition to any other qualifications deemed necessary by the board, experienced in the area of property taxation and licensed or certificated pursuant to part 6 of article 10 of title 12.

(c) No person shall act as an arbitrator of property valuation disputes in any county during any property tax year in which such person represents or has represented any taxpayer in any matter relating to the protest and appeal of property valuation or to the abatement or refund of property taxes.

(2) (a) Within thirty days of the county board of equalization's decision, any taxpayer who plans to pursue arbitration shall notify the board of his intent. The taxpayer and the county board of equalization shall select an arbitrator from the list prepared pursuant to subsection (1) of this section within forty-five days of the county board of equalization's decision or within thirty days from the date the list of arbitrators is made available in any given year, whichever is later. In the absence of agreement by the taxpayer and the county board of equalization within said specified time period, the district court of the county in which the property is located shall select an arbitrator from said list.

(b) If a taxpayer acts pursuant to paragraph (a) of this subsection (2), the county board of equalization shall be required to participate in arbitration and to accept the arbitrator selected.

(3) (a) Arbitration hearings shall be at a time and place set by the arbitrator with the mutual consent of the taxpayer and the county board of equalization. The arbitration hearing shall be held within sixty days from the date the arbitrator was selected.

(b) Procedure at arbitration hearings shall be informal, and strict rules of evidence shall not be applied except as necessitated in the opinion of the arbitrator by the requirements of justice. All questions of law and fact shall be determined by the arbitrator. (b.5) The taxpayer shall produce information to support his contention that the property should be valued differently. The assessor shall produce information to support the basis and amount of his valuation of the property. Both the information of the assessor and the information of the taxpayer shall be considered by the arbitrator in making his decision.

(c) The arbitrator may issue or cause to be issued subpoenas for the attendance of witnesses and for the production of books, records, documents, and other evidence and shall have the power to administer oaths. Subpoenas so issued shall be served and, upon application to the district court by the taxpayer or the county board of equalization or the arbitrator, enforced in the manner provided by law for the service and enforcement of subpoenas in civil actions.

(d) The taxpayer and the county board of equalization shall be entitled to attend, personally or with counsel, and participate in the proceedings. Such participation may include the filing of briefs and affidavits. Upon agreement of both parties, the proceedings may be confidential and closed to the public.

(e) No record of the proceedings is required.

(f) The arbitrator's decision shall be made in accordance with applicable Colorado property tax laws. The arbitrator's decision shall be in writing and signed by the arbitrator.

(g) The arbitrator shall deliver a copy of his decision to the parties personally or by registered mail within ten days of the hearing. Such decision shall be final and not subject to review.

(4) An arbitrator shall be immune from civil liability arising from participation as an arbitrator and for all communications, findings, opinions, and conclusions made in the course of his duties under this section.

(5) (a) An arbitrator's expenses and fees shall not exceed one hundred fifty dollars per case concerning residential real property. For cases concerning any taxable property other than residential real property, an arbitrator's expenses and fees shall be an amount agreed upon by the taxpayer and the county board of equalization.

(b) The arbitrator's fees and expenses, not including counsel fees, incurred in the conduct of the arbitration shall be paid as provided in the decision.

(6) Any decision of the county board of equalization regarding a 1987 property valuation which has been appealed to either the board of assessment appeals or the district court and which has not been heard or adjudicated may be submitted to arbitration pursuant to this section at the request of the taxpayer.

Source: L. 88: Entire section added, p. 1303, § 13, effective April 29; (6) amended, p. 1274, § 11, effective May 29. L. 90: (3)(b.5) added and (3)(f) amended, p. 1697, § 23, effective June 9. L. 92: IP(1)(b) and (2)(a) amended and (1)(c) added, p. 2212, § 9, effective June 3. L. 2013: IP(1)(b) amended, (SB 13-155), ch. 392, p. 2284, § 16, effective July 1. L. 2014: (1)(b) amended, (SB 14-080), ch. 89, p. 336, § 1, effective August 6. L. 2019: (1)(b) amended, (HB 19- 1172), ch. 136, p. 1729, § 253, effective October 1.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 96 cases (15 in the last 5 years), 1976–2026 · leading case: Bd. of Assessment Appeals v. Sampson, 105 P.3d 198 (Colo. 2005).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Bd. of Assessment Appeals v. Sampson, 105 P.3d 198 (Colo. 2005). · cites it 10× “See § 39-8-108(1), C.R.S. (2004). Both the taxpayer and the assessor are parties to the district court or BAA proceeding and have the right to present evidence.”

Bd. of Assessment Appeals of State v. E.E. Sonnenberg & Sons, Inc., 797 P.2d 27 (Colo. 1990). · cites it 10× “In August 1985, when the taxpayer lodged its petition with the Board, § 39-8-108 provided that a taxpayer dissatisfied with the decision of a county board of equalization could appeal to the board of assessment appeals or to the district court.”

Bd. of Assessment Appeals v. Colorado Arlberg Club, 762 P.2d 146 (Colo. 1988). · cites it 10× “Still dissatisfied, the Club appealed to the Board of Assessment Appeals (the petitioner in this court) pursuant to section 39-8-108(1), 16B C.R.S. (1982). At the hearing before the Board, both the Club and the Grand County Board of Equalization presented evidence regarding the…”

Farny v. Bd. of Equalization of Dolores Cnty., 985 P.2d 106 (Colo. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 7× “Section 39-8-108(2), C.R.S.1998, the statute that governs appeals to this court from the BAA, differentiates between an appeal by a taxpayer and an appeal by a taxing authority.”

Gilpin Cnty. Bd. of Equalization v. Russell, 941 P.2d 257 (Colo. 1997). · cites it 6× “See § 39-8-108(1), 16B C.R.S. (1994 & 1996 Supp.”

Jefferson Cnty. Bd. of Equalization v. Gerganoff, 241 P.3d 932 (Colo. 2010). · cites it 4× “§ 39-8-108(1), C.R.S. (2010). The Board, comprised of licensed real estate appraisers experienced in property valuation and taxation, is a quasi-judicial tribunal within the Colorado Department of Local Affairs that hears property tax appeals from decisions of county boards of…”

Denver v. Bd. of Assessment Appeals, 748 P.2d 1306 (Colo. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 25× “Asserting that defendants failed to file their notice of appeal within the time required by § 39-8-108, C.R.S. (1986 Cum. Supp.), the City and County of Denver and the Winter Park Recreational Association (taxpayers) have moved to dismiss this appeal.”

Gyurman v. Weld Cnty. Bd. of Equalization, 851 P.2d 307 (Colo. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 3× “” See § 39-8-108(2), C.R.S. (1992 Cum.Supp.). Thus, we conclude that this court has jurisdiction over the merits of the BOE’s appeal.”

Bd. of Assessment Appeals v. Benbrook, 735 P.2d 860 (Colo. 1987). · cites it 9× “§ 39-8-108(1), 16B C.R.S. (1982). 8 If the decision of the board is against the taxpayer, the taxpayer may petition the district court of the county where his property is located for judicial review of the board’s decision.”

Robert A. Wyler/Pebble Creek Ranch v. Colorado Bd. of Assessment Appeals, 883 P.2d 597 (Colo. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 13× “On August 30, 1989, acting pursuant to § 39-8-108, C.R.S. (1993 Cum.Supp.), taxpayer appealed to the district court for a trial de novo.”

Resolution Trust Corp. v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 860 P.2d 1383 (Colo. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 4× “Those protests were denied, and the taxpayer appealed to the district court for a trial de novo pursuant to § 39-8-108, C.R.S. (1993 Cum.Supp.). The court found that the 27.”

Maurer v. Young Life, 779 P.2d 1317 (Colo. 1989). · cites it 6× “Before the district court, the Administrator also contended that section 39-8-108(2), 16B C.R.S. (1988 Supp.”

Show all 96 citing cases →

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 39-8-108(1) — 48 cases

Bd. of Assessment Appeals of State v. E.E. Sonnenberg & Sons, Inc., 797 P.2d 27 (Colo. 1990). “In August 1985, when the taxpayer lodged its petition with the Board, § 39-8-108 provided that a taxpayer dissatisfied with the decision of a county board of equalization could appeal to the board of assessment appeals or to the district court.”

Bd. of Assessment Appeals v. Sampson, 105 P.3d 198 (Colo. 2005). “See § 39-8-108(1), C.R.S. (2004). Both the taxpayer and the assessor are parties to the district court or BAA proceeding and have the right to present evidence.”

Bd. of Assessment Appeals v. Colorado Arlberg Club, 762 P.2d 146 (Colo. 1988). “Still dissatisfied, the Club appealed to the Board of Assessment Appeals (the petitioner in this court) pursuant to section 39-8-108(1), 16B C.R.S. (1982). At the hearing before the Board, both the Club and the Grand County Board of Equalization presented evidence regarding the…”

Jefferson Cnty. Bd. of Equalization v. Gerganoff, 241 P.3d 932 (Colo. 2010). “§ 39-8-108(1), C.R.S. (2010). The Board, comprised of licensed real estate appraisers experienced in property valuation and taxation, is a quasi-judicial tribunal within the Colorado Department of Local Affairs that hears property tax appeals from decisions of county boards of…”

Washington Cnty. Bd. of Equalization v. Petron Dev. Co., 109 P.3d 146 (Colo. 2005).

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 39-8-108(2) — 47 cases

Farny v. Bd. of Equalization of Dolores Cnty., 985 P.2d 106 (Colo. Ct. App. 1999). “Section 39-8-108(2), C.R.S.1998, the statute that governs appeals to this court from the BAA, differentiates between an appeal by a taxpayer and an appeal by a taxing authority.”

Gyurman v. Weld Cnty. Bd. of Equalization, 851 P.2d 307 (Colo. Ct. App. 1993). “” See § 39-8-108(2), C.R.S. (1992 Cum.Supp.). Thus, we conclude that this court has jurisdiction over the merits of the BOE’s appeal.”

Maurer v. Young Life, 779 P.2d 1317 (Colo. 1989). “Before the district court, the Administrator also contended that section 39-8-108(2), 16B C.R.S. (1988 Supp.”

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 39-8-108(3) — 3 cases

Denver v. Bd. of Assessment Appeals, 748 P.2d 1306 (Colo. Ct. App. 1987). “Asserting that defendants failed to file their notice of appeal within the time required by § 39-8-108, C.R.S. (1986 Cum. Supp.), the City and County of Denver and the Winter Park Recreational Association (taxpayers) have moved to dismiss this appeal.”

Cantina Grill, JV v. City & Cnty. of Denver Cnty. Bd. of Equalization Ex Rel. Kennedy, 2015 CO 15 (Colo. 2015).

City & Cnty. of Denver v. Bd. of Assessment Appeals, 748 P.2d 1311 (Colo. Ct. App. 1987).

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 39-8-108(4) — 1 case

D.C. Burns Realty & Trust v. Jefferson Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 849 P.2d 900 (Colo. Ct. App. 1993).

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 39-8-108(5) — 4 cases

Telluride Co. v. San Miguel Cnty. Bd. of Equalization, 928 P.2d 1358 (Colo. Ct. App. 1996).

Hoffner v. Routt (Colo. Ct. App. 2024).

Telluride v. San Miguel Cty. Bd. of Equal., 928 P.2d 1358 (Colo. Ct. App. 1997).

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 39-8-108(5)(a) — 8 cases

Gilpin Cnty. Bd. of Equalization v. Russell, 941 P.2d 257 (Colo. 1997). “See § 39-8-108(1), 16B C.R.S. (1994 & 1996 Supp.”

City & Cnty. of Denver v. Bd. of Assessment Appeals, 947 P.2d 1373 (Colo. 1997).

Snyder Fam. Trust v. Adams Cnty. Bd. of Equalization, 835 P.2d 579 (Colo. Ct. App. 1992).

Telluride Co. v. San Miguel Cnty. Bd. of Equalization, 928 P.2d 1358 (Colo. Ct. App. 1996).

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 39-8-108(5)(b) — 1 case

Arapahoe Cnty. Bd. of Equalization v. Podoll, 935 P.2d 14 (Colo. 1997).

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 39-8-108(5)(d) — 1 case

Gilpin Cnty. Bd. of Equalization v. Russell, 941 P.2d 257 (Colo. 1997). “See § 39-8-108(1), 16B C.R.S. (1994 & 1996 Supp.”

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 39-8-108(6) — 2 cases

Sampson v. Teller Cnty. Bd. of Equalization, 80 P.3d 861 (Colo. Ct. App. 2003).

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 39-8-108(8) — 1 case

Cantina Grill, JV v. City & Cnty. of Denver Cnty. Bd. of Equalization Ex Rel. Kennedy, 2015 CO 15 (Colo. 2015).

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.