Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 79-5a04 (2026)

Same; valuation of real and personal property

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KS-LEGkslegislature.org JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

79-5a04. Same; valuation of real and personal property. The director of property valuation shall annually determine the fair market value of public utility property, both real and personal, tangible and intangible, of every public utility as defined in subsection (a) of K.S.A. 79-5a01 and amendments thereto.

As used in this section, "fair market value" means the amount in terms of money that a well informed buyer is justified in paying and a well informed seller is justified in accepting for property in an open and competitive market, assuming that the parties are acting without undue compulsion. For the purposes of this definition, it shall be assumed that consummation of a sale occurs as of January 1.

The division of property valuation in determining the fair market value of public utility property shall, where practicable, determine the unit valuation, allocated to Kansas, and in doing so shall use generally accepted appraisal procedures developed through the appraisal process and may consider, including but not by way of exclusion, the following factors:

(a) Original cost.

(b) Original cost less depreciation or reproduction cost less depreciation, or both, or replacement cost new less depreciation, except that where either method is used proper allowance and deduction shall be made for functional or economic obsolescence and for operation of nonprofitable facilities which necessitate regulatory body approval to eliminate.

(d) The utility operating income, capitalized in the manner and at such rate or rates as shall be just and reasonable.

(e) Such other information or evidence as to value as may be obtained that will enable the property valuation department to determine the fair market value of the property of such public utility.

The fair market value of affiliated properties separately assessed, or the nonoperating properties of such companies, or both, shall be ascertained and determined as nearly as possible and deducted from the total unit value of the properties of such companies if such properties are included in the unit value. Except for the property of any entity enumerated in subsection (b) of K.S.A. 79-5a01 and amendments thereto, and insofar as it is practicable to do so, the same method of evaluating the properties of the companies separately assessed or nonoperating properties, or both, shall be used as was used in determining the unit value of such companies. All property of any entity enumerated in subsection (b) of K.S.A. 79-5a01 and amendments thereto, shall be valued by the county or district appraiser in the same manner as provided by law for the valuation of the same type or class of property in the county.

History: L. 1969, ch. 434, § 4; L. 1971, ch. 295, § 1; L. 1973, ch. 390, § 1; L. 1981, ch. 375, § 2; L. 1982, ch. 395, § 2; L. 1983, ch. 314, § 2; July 1.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 16 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1971–2024 · leading case: In Re Tax Appeal of Colorado Interstate Gas Co., 79 P.3d 770 (Kan. 2003).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

In Re Tax Appeal of Colorado Interstate Gas Co., 79 P.3d 770 (Kan. 2003). · cites it 24× “The Taxpayer has the burden of proof to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the Director has riot appropriately valued and allocated the valuation as prescribed by K.S.A. 79-5a04. [[Image here]] “49. The Board finds that PVD used appropriate methodologies and came to a…”

In Re Tax Appeal of ANR Pipeline Co., 79 P.3d 751 (Kan. 2003). · cites it 14× “While BOTA did not articulate such a standard in this case, we held that it was not possible to conclude that BOTA disregarded the erroneous standard of review adopted in Colorado Interstate Gas. We, therefore, reversed and remanded to BOTA for further proceedings.”

In Re the Appeal of Colorado Interstate Gas Co., 14 P.3d 1099 (Kan. 2000). · cites it 11× “The majority determined that BOTA’s review was de novo but also found that it was required to defer to the judgment of the PVD unless the standards prescribed by K.S.A. 79-5a04 had been “intentionally and grossly disregarded.”

In Re Tax Appeal of W. Resources, Inc., 919 P.2d 1048 (Kan. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 7× “It argues that at least indirect taxation of intangibles is authorized by K.S.A. 79-5a04. This statute applies only the valuation of property owned by a “public utility” and provides in pertinent part: “The director of property valuation shall annually determine the fair market…”

Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Lennen, 552 F. Supp. 1031 (D. Kan. 1982). · cites it 2× “K.S.A. 79-5a04. Under this approach, a railroad is valued as a “going concern.”

N. Nat. Gas Co. v. Dwyer, 492 P.2d 147 (Kan. 1971). · cites it 2× “(K.S.A. 79-5a04 [L. 1969, ch. 434, § 4] effective January 1, 1970.”

Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Lennen, 531 F. Supp. 220 (D. Kan. 1981). · cites it 2× “See K.S.A. § 79-5a04. Under this approach, a railroad is valued as a “going concern.”

In Re the Appeal of Panhandle E. Pipe Line Co., 39 P.3d 21 (Kan. 2002). “There, we considered the taxpayer’s contention that BOTA improperly determined that the order of the Director of Property Valuation (PVD) was entitled to deference and “that its standard of review was to determine whether the PVD intentionally and grossly disregarded the…”

Burlington N. R.R. v. Lennen, 573 F. Supp. 1155 (D. Kan. 1982). · cites it 2× “” Specifically, K.S.A. 79-5a04 provides, in pertinent part: The division of property valuation in determining the fair market value of public utility property shall, where practicable, determine the unit valuation, allocated to Kansas, and in doing so shall use generally…”

Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners v. Dir. of Prop. Valuation, 861 P.2d 1348 (Kan. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 2× “” K.S.A. 79-5a04. The only mention of “county” involvement in the entire statutory scheme is that property of excluded entities shall be valued by the county or district appraiser, and the county clerk shall include such valuation in the tax base for the purpose of arriving at…”

In Re the Protest of United Ag Servs., Inc., 159 P.3d 1050 (Kan. Ct. App. 2007). “-, and (iv) the subject property was real estate of a public utility subject to separate valuation and assessment under K.S.A. 79-5a04. Although we conclude that BOTA erred in construing and applying K.”

In Re Tax Appeal of ANR Pipeline Co., 866 P.2d 1060 (Kan. 1994). “Pipeline property is valued by the unit valuation method and that valuation is apportioned to Kansas based on the percentage the pipeline company’s original cost in Kansas bears to the total original cost of the company.”

Show all 16 citing cases →

— K.S.A. § 79-5a04(a) — 1 case

In Re Tax Appeal of Colorado Interstate Gas Co., 79 P.3d 770 (Kan. 2003). “The Taxpayer has the burden of proof to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the Director has riot appropriately valued and allocated the valuation as prescribed by K.S.A. 79-5a04. [[Image here]] “49. The Board finds that PVD used appropriate methodologies and came to a…”

— K.S.A. § 79-5a04(e) — 1 case

Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners v. Dir. of Prop. Valuation, 861 P.2d 1348 (Kan. Ct. App. 1993). “” K.S.A. 79-5a04. The only mention of “county” involvement in the entire statutory scheme is that property of excluded entities shall be valued by the county or district appraiser, and the county clerk shall include such valuation in the tax base for the purpose of arriving at…”

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.