Utah Code
Utah Code § 59-2-201 (2026)
Assessment by commission -- Determination of value of mining property -- Determination of value of aircraft -- Notification of assessment -- Local assessment of property assessed by the unitary method -- Commission may consult with county
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
UT-LEGle.utah.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
By May 1 of each year, the following property, unless otherwise exempt under the Utah Constitution or under Part 11, Exemptions, shall be assessed by the commission at 100% of fair market value, as valued on January 1, in accordance with this chapter:
except as provided in Subsection (2), all property that operates as a unit across county lines, if the values must be apportioned among more than one county or state;
all property of public utilities;
subject to Subsection (1)(b), all mobile flight equipment of an airline, air charter service, and air contract service;
all geothermal fluids and geothermal resources;
all mines and mining claims except in cases, as determined by the commission, where the mining claims are used for other than mining purposes, in which case the value of mining claims used for other than mining purposes shall be assessed by the assessor of the county in which the mining claims are located; and
all machinery used in mining, all property or surface improvements upon or appurtenant to mines or mining claims. For the purposes of assessment and taxation, all processing plants, mills, reduction works, and smelters that are primarily used by the owner of a mine or mining claim for processing, reducing, or smelting minerals taken from a mine or mining claim shall be considered appurtenant to that mine or mining claim, regardless of actual location.
For purposes of Subsection (1)(a)(iii), if the operating property of an airline, air charter service, or air contract service includes an aircraft, the commission shall assess the aircraft only if the aircraft operates under 14 C.F.R. Part 121, with a maximum takeoff weight exceeding 35,000 pounds.
Except as provided in Subsection (1)(a)(iii), property in the state owned by an airline, air charter service, or air contract service shall be assessed by the local county assessor.
The commission may not assess property owned by a telecommunications service provider.
The commission shall assess and collect property tax on state-assessed commercial vehicles at the time of original registration or annual renewal.
The commission shall assess and collect property tax annually on state-assessed commercial vehicles that are registered pursuant to Section 41-1a-222 or 41-1a-228.
State-assessed commercial vehicles brought into the state that are required to be registered in Utah shall, as a condition of registration, be subject to ad valorem tax unless all property taxes or fees imposed by the state of origin have been paid for the current calendar year.
Real property, improvements, equipment, fixtures, or other personal property in this state owned by the company shall be assessed separately by the local county assessor.
The commission shall adjust the value of state-assessed commercial vehicles as necessary to comply with 49 U.S.C. Sec. 14502, and the commission shall direct the county assessor to apply the same adjustment to any personal property, real property, or improvements owned by the company and used directly and exclusively in their commercial vehicle activities.
The method for determining the fair market value of productive mining property is the capitalized net revenue method or any other valuation method the commission believes, or the taxpayer demonstrates to the commission's satisfaction, to be reasonably determinative of the fair market value of the mining property.
The commission shall determine the rate of capitalization applicable to mines, consistent with a fair rate of return expected by an investor in light of that industry's current market, financial, and economic conditions.
In no event may the fair market value of the mining property be less than the fair market value of the land, improvements, and tangible personal property upon or appurtenant to the mining property.
As used in this Subsection (4), "aircraft pricing guide" means a nationally recognized publication that assigns value estimates for individual commercial aircraft that are:
identified by year, make, and model; and
in average condition typical for the aircraft's type and vintage.
Except as provided in Subsection (4)(d), the commission shall use an aircraft pricing guide to determine the fair market value of aircraft assessed under this part.
The commission shall use the Airliner Price Guide as the aircraft pricing guide, except that:
if the Airliner Price Guide is no longer published or the commission determines that another aircraft pricing guide more reasonably reflects the fair market value of aircraft, the commission, after consulting with the airlines operating in the state, shall select an alternative aircraft pricing guide;
if an aircraft is not listed in the Airliner Price Guide, the commission shall use the Aircraft Bluebook Price Digest as the aircraft pricing guide; and
if the Aircraft Bluebook Price Digest is no longer published or the commission determines that another aircraft pricing guide more reasonably reflects the fair market value of aircraft, the commission, after consulting with the airlines operating in the state, shall select an alternative aircraft pricing guide.
The commission shall make a fleet adjustment in accordance with Subsection (4)(c)(ii) or (iii) to assess the fair market value of a fleet of aircraft or a fleet of the same aircraft type that is used as part of the mobile flight equipment of an airline, air charter service, or air contract service.
If the aircraft pricing guide provides for a fleet adjustment to determine the fair market value of the fleet of aircraft or the fleet of the same aircraft type, the commission shall make the fleet adjustment in the manner provided in the aircraft pricing guide.
If the aircraft pricing guide does not provide for a fleet adjustment to determine the fair market value of the fleet of aircraft or the fleet of the same aircraft type, the commission shall make the adjustment the commission determines most reasonably reflects the fair market value of the fleet of aircraft or fleet of the same aircraft type.
The commission may use an alternative method for valuing aircraft of an airline, air charter service, or air contract service if the commission:
has clear and convincing evidence that the aircraft values reflected in the aircraft pricing guide do not reasonably reflect fair market value of the aircraft; and
cannot identify an alternative aircraft pricing guide from which the commission may determine aircraft value.
Immediately following the assessment, the commission shall send, by certified mail, notice of the assessment to the owner or operator of the assessed property and the assessor of the county in which the property is located.
The commission may consult with a county in valuing property in accordance with this part.
The local county assessor shall separately assess property that is assessed by the unitary method if the commission determines that the property:
is not necessary to the conduct of the business; and
does not contribute to the income of the business.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1990–2023 · leading case: Kennecott Corp. v. Utah State Tax Comm'n, 858 P.2d 1381 (Utah 1993).
Kennecott Corp. v. Utah State Tax Comm'n, 858 P.2d 1381 (Utah 1993). “The Commission found that (1) the Division val *1385 ued Kennecott’s property according to the capitalized net revenue method pursuant to Utah Code Ann. § 59-2-201 (2), 15 (2) the capitalized net revenue method is exclusive to the assessment of mining properties and is the only…”
Beaver Cnty. v. Utah State Tax Comm'n, 916 P.2d 344 (Utah 1996). “See Utah Code Ann. § 59-2-201 (1). According to the Counties, the use of an annual average stock price violated the mandate because, as PacifiCorp’s stock rose steadily in value throughout 1991, the Commission, in effect, valued Pacifi-Corp’s utility operations as of July 1,…”
Cache Cnty. v. Prop. Tax Div. of the Utah State Tax Comm'n, 922 P.2d 758 (Utah 1996). “XIII, § 3; Utah Code Ann. § 59-2-201 (1). According to the record, the challengers are mistaken.”
Beaver Cnty. v. Utah State Tax Comm'n, 919 P.2d 547 (Utah 1996). “See Utah Code Ann. § 59-2-201 (1). According to the Counties, the use of average annual stock prices violated that mandate because as Union Pacific's stock rose steadily in price throughout 1989, the Commission, in effect, valued Union Pacific's railroad operations as of July 1,…”
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Utah State Tax Comm'n, 847 P.2d 418 (Utah Ct. App. 1993). “In both cases, the Commission held that the refineries were subject to central assessment under Utah Code Ann. § 59-2-201 (l)(d) (1989) 2 because they were “appurtenant to mines” (i.”
Salt Lake Cnty v. State of Utah, 2020 UT 27 (Utah 2020). “¶5 First, the legislature enacted Utah Code section 59-2-201(4) (Valuation law). The Valuation law provides that the value of an aircraft is based on the Airliner Price Guide, an airline industry pricing publication.”
Beaver Cnty. v. Prop. Tax Div. of the Utah State Tax Comm'n, 2006 UT 6 (Utah 2006). “The *1190 Property Tax Division (the "Division") of the Utah State Tax Commission (the "Commission") is charged under Utah Code section 59-2-201 (2004) with the responsibility of centrally assessing PacifiCorp's state property tax liability.”
Beaver Cnty. v. WilTel, Inc., 2000 UT 29 (Utah 2000). “The Commission centrally assessed WilTel for 1995 under Utah Code Ann. § 59-2-201 (l)(a) because it “[o]perates as a unit across county lines.”
CIG Expl., Inc. v. Utah State Tax Comm'n, 897 P.2d 1214 (Utah 1995). “Specifically, section 59-2-201(1), under which the Uintah County property in question was assessed, provides in relevant part: (1) By May 1 of each year the following property shall be assessed by the commission at 100% of fair market value, as valued on January 1, in accordance…”
Kennecott Copper Corp. v. Salt Lake Cnty., 799 P.2d 1156 (Utah 1990). “Utah Code Ann. § 59-2-201 (Supp.1990). 3 .”
Salt Lake City Corp. v. Prop. Tax Div. of the Utah State Tax Comm'n, 1999 UT 41 (Utah 1999). “The Property Tax Division of the State Tax Commission is responsible for centrally assessing airline property pursuant to Utah Code Ann. § 59-2-201 (l)(c) (Supp.1998).”
A-Fab Eng'g v. Prop. Tax Div. of the Utah State Tax Comm'n, 2019 UT App 87 (Utah Ct. App. 2019). “A-Fab argues that the Assessments are "illegal and void" because A-Fab is not a mining company, (citing Utah Code Ann. § 59-2-201 (1)(vi) (LexisNexis 2018) 7 (authorizing the Commission to assess and tax "all machinery used in mining .”
Utah Code § 59-2-201(1): 5 cases
Kennecott Corp. v. Utah State Tax Comm'n, 858 P.2d 1381 (Utah 1993). “The Commission found that (1) the Division val *1385 ued Kennecott’s property according to the capitalized net revenue method pursuant to Utah Code Ann. § 59-2-201 (2), 15 (2) the capitalized net revenue method is exclusive to the assessment of mining properties and is the only…”
Beaver Cnty. v. Utah State Tax Comm'n, 916 P.2d 344 (Utah 1996). “See Utah Code Ann. § 59-2-201 (1). According to the Counties, the use of an annual average stock price violated the mandate because, as PacifiCorp’s stock rose steadily in value throughout 1991, the Commission, in effect, valued Pacifi-Corp’s utility operations as of July 1,…”
Beaver Cnty. v. Utah State Tax Comm'n, 919 P.2d 547 (Utah 1996). “See Utah Code Ann. § 59-2-201 (1). According to the Counties, the use of average annual stock prices violated that mandate because as Union Pacific's stock rose steadily in price throughout 1989, the Commission, in effect, valued Union Pacific's railroad operations as of July 1,…”
Cache Cnty. v. Prop. Tax Div. of the Utah State Tax Comm'n, 922 P.2d 758 (Utah 1996). “XIII, § 3; Utah Code Ann. § 59-2-201 (1). According to the record, the challengers are mistaken.”
CIG Expl., Inc. v. Utah State Tax Comm'n, 897 P.2d 1214 (Utah 1995). “Specifically, section 59-2-201(1), under which the Uintah County property in question was assessed, provides in relevant part: (1) By May 1 of each year the following property shall be assessed by the commission at 100% of fair market value, as valued on January 1, in accordance…”
Utah Code § 59-2-201(1)(a)(v): 1 case
Black Iron, LLC (Bankr. D. Utah 2023).
Utah Code § 59-2-201(2): 1 case
Kennecott Corp. v. Utah State Tax Comm'n, 858 P.2d 1381 (Utah 1993). “The Commission found that (1) the Division val *1385 ued Kennecott’s property according to the capitalized net revenue method pursuant to Utah Code Ann. § 59-2-201 (2), 15 (2) the capitalized net revenue method is exclusive to the assessment of mining properties and is the only…”
Utah Code § 59-2-201(3): 1 case
Black Iron, LLC (Bankr. D. Utah 2023).
Utah Code § 59-2-201(4): 1 case
Salt Lake Cnty v. State of Utah, 2020 UT 27 (Utah 2020). “¶5 First, the legislature enacted Utah Code section 59-2-201(4) (Valuation law). The Valuation law provides that the value of an aircraft is based on the Airliner Price Guide, an airline industry pricing publication.”
Utah Code § 59-2-201(4)(b)(ii): 1 case
Salt Lake Cnty v. State of Utah, 2020 UT 27 (Utah 2020). “¶5 First, the legislature enacted Utah Code section 59-2-201(4) (Valuation law). The Valuation law provides that the value of an aircraft is based on the Airliner Price Guide, an airline industry pricing publication.”
Utah Code § 59-2-201(4)(c): 1 case
Salt Lake Cnty v. State of Utah, 2020 UT 27 (Utah 2020). “¶5 First, the legislature enacted Utah Code section 59-2-201(4) (Valuation law). The Valuation law provides that the value of an aircraft is based on the Airliner Price Guide, an airline industry pricing publication.”
Utah Code § 59-2-201(4)(d): 1 case
Salt Lake Cnty v. State of Utah, 2020 UT 27 (Utah 2020). “¶5 First, the legislature enacted Utah Code section 59-2-201(4) (Valuation law). The Valuation law provides that the value of an aircraft is based on the Airliner Price Guide, an airline industry pricing publication.”
Utah Code § 59-2-201(5): 1 case
Union Pac. R.R. v. Utah State Tax Comm'n (D. Utah 2020).
Utah Code § 59-2-201(l)(a): 1 case
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Utah State Tax Comm'n, 847 P.2d 418 (Utah Ct. App. 1993). “In both cases, the Commission held that the refineries were subject to central assessment under Utah Code Ann. § 59-2-201 (l)(d) (1989) 2 because they were “appurtenant to mines” (i.”
Utah Code § 59-2-201(l)(d): 1 case
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Utah State Tax Comm'n, 847 P.2d 418 (Utah Ct. App. 1993). “In both cases, the Commission held that the refineries were subject to central assessment under Utah Code Ann. § 59-2-201 (l)(d) (1989) 2 because they were “appurtenant to mines” (i.”
Utah Code § 59-2-201(l)(e): 1 case
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Utah State Tax Comm'n, 847 P.2d 418 (Utah Ct. App. 1993). “In both cases, the Commission held that the refineries were subject to central assessment under Utah Code Ann. § 59-2-201 (l)(d) (1989) 2 because they were “appurtenant to mines” (i.”
Utah Code § 59-2-201(l)(f): 1 case
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Utah State Tax Comm'n, 847 P.2d 418 (Utah Ct. App. 1993). “In both cases, the Commission held that the refineries were subject to central assessment under Utah Code Ann. § 59-2-201 (l)(d) (1989) 2 because they were “appurtenant to mines” (i.”
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.