Printable Format74-2426. Orders of board rendered in accordance with Kansas administrative procedure act; petition for reconsideration; costs; bond, when required; judicial review; service by electronic means. (a) Orders of the state board of tax appeals on any appeal, in any proceeding under the tax protest, tax grievance or tax exemption statutes or in any other original proceeding before the board shall be rendered and served in accordance with the provisions of the Kansas administrative procedure act. Notwithstanding the provisions of K.S.A. 77-526(g), and amendments thereto, a written summary decision shall be rendered by the board and served within 14 days after the matter was fully submitted to the board unless this period is waived or extended with the written consent of all parties or for good cause shown. Any aggrieved party, within 21 days after service of the board's decision, may request a full and complete opinion be issued by the board in which the board explains its decision. Except as provided in subsection (c)(4), this full opinion shall be served by the board within 90 days of being requested. If the board has not rendered a summary decision or a full and complete opinion within the time periods described in this subsection, and such period has not been waived by the parties nor can the board show good cause for the delay, then the board shall refund any filing fees paid by the taxpayer. Service of orders, decisions and opinions shall be made in accordance with K.S.A. 77-531, and amendments thereto.
(b) Final orders of the board shall be subject to review pursuant to subsection (c) except that the aggrieved party may first file a petition for reconsideration of a full and complete opinion with the board in accordance with the provisions of K.S.A. 77-529, and amendments thereto.
(c) Any action of the board pursuant to this section is subject to review in accordance with the Kansas judicial review act, except that:
(1) The parties to the action for judicial review shall be the same parties as appeared before the board in the administrative proceedings before the board. The board shall not be a party to any action for judicial review of an action of the board.
(2) There is no right to review of any order issued by the board in a no-fund warrant proceeding pursuant to K.S.A. 12-110a, 12-1662 et seq., 19-2752a, 79-2938, 79-2939 and 79-2951, and amendments thereto, and statutes of a similar character.
(3) In addition to the cost of the preparation of the transcript, the appellant shall pay to the state board of tax appeals the other costs of certifying the record to the reviewing court. Such payment shall be made prior to the transmission of the agency record to the reviewing court.
(4) Appeal of an order of the board shall be to the court of appeals as provided in subsection (c)(4)(A), unless a taxpayer who is a party to the order requests review in district court pursuant to subsection (c)(4)(B).
(A) Any aggrieved party may file a petition for review of the board's order in the court of appeals. For purposes of such an appeal, the board's order shall become final only after the issuance of a full and complete opinion pursuant to subsection (a).
(B) At the election of a taxpayer, any summary decision or full and complete opinion of the board of tax appeals issued after June 30, 2014, may be appealed by filing a petition for review in the district court. Any appeal to the district court shall be a trial de novo. Notwithstanding K.S.A. 77-619, and amendments thereto, the trial de novo shall include an evidentiary hearing at which issues of law and fact shall be determined anew. With regard to any matter properly submitted to the district court relating to the determination of valuation of residential property or real property used for commercial and industrial purposes for taxation purposes or the determination of classification of property for assessment purposes, the county appraiser shall have the duty to initiate the production of evidence to demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, the validity and correctness of such determination. District court review of orders issued by the board relating to the valuation or assessment of property for ad valorem tax purposes or relating to the tax protest shall be conducted by the court of the county in which the property is located, or, if located in more than one county, the court of any county in which any portion of the property is located.
(C) If a taxpayer requests review of a summary decision or full and complete opinion in district court pursuant to subsection (c)(4)(B), the taxpayer shall provide notice to the board as well as the parties. Upon receipt of the notice, the board's jurisdiction shall terminate, notwithstanding any prior request for a full and complete opinion under subsection (a), and the board shall not issue such opinion.
(d) If review of an order of the state board of tax appeals to the court of appeals relating to excise, income or estate taxes, is sought by a person other than the director of taxation, such person shall give bond for costs at the time the petition is filed. The bond shall be in the amount of 125% of the amount of taxes assessed or a lesser amount approved by the court of appeals and shall be conditioned on the petitioner's prosecution of the review without delay and payment of all costs assessed against the petitioner.
(e) Notwithstanding any provisions of K.S.A. 77-531, and amendments thereto, to the contrary, the state board of tax appeals shall serve an order or notice upon the party and the party's attorney of record, if any, by transmitting a copy of the order or notice to the person by electronic means, if such person requested and consented to service by electronic means. For purposes of this subsection, service by electronic means is complete upon transmission.
History: L. 1943, ch. 290, § 12; L. 1957, ch. 429, § 12; L. 1958, ch. 21, § 1 (Special Session); L. 1969, ch. 368, § 1; L. 1971, ch. 249, § 1; L. 1972, ch. 293, § 1; L. 1978, ch. 311, § 1; L. 1980, ch. 236, § 1; L. 1983, ch. 252, § 1; L. 1984, ch. 73, § 3; L. 1986, ch. 318, § 132; L. 1988, ch. 356, § 286; L. 1998, ch. 146, § 3; L. 2008, ch. 109, § 1; L. 2010, ch. 17, § 182; L. 2010, ch. 155, § 23; L. 2014, ch. 141, § 1; L. 2016, ch. 112, § 3; L. 2021, ch. 58, § 4; July 1.
Revisor's Note:
Section was also amended by L. 2010, ch. 44, § 30, but that version was repealed by L. 2010, ch. 155, § 26.
Law Review and Bar Journal References:
Director of revenue has no right of appeal, "Taxation," Leslie T. Tupy, 12 K.L.R. 333, 334 (1963).
"1969 Kansas Legislature—A Review of Enactment," Robert F. Bennett, 38 J.B.A.K. 89, 137 (1969).
"Kansas Property Taxpayer Remedies," Matthew J. Dowd, 11 W.L.J. 65, 67, 72 (1971).
"Survey of Kansas Law: Taxation," R. Chris Robe, 27 K.L.R. 313, 316 (1979).
"Survey of Kansas Law: Taxation," 29 K.L.R. 571, 575, 576, 577 (1981).
"Administrative Law: Findings of Fact, A Review of the Federal Administrative Procedure Act and Kansas Law," David W. Queen, 22 W.L.J. 58, 73 (1982).
"Survey of Kansas Law: Taxation," Sandra Craig McKenzie and Virginia Ratzlaff, 33 K.L.R. 71, 88 (1984).
"The Kansas Property Tax: Understanding and Surviving Reappraisal," P. John Brady, Brian T. Howes and Greg L. Musil, 57(3) J.K.B.A. 23, 27 (1988).
"Justifying Real Property Tax Exemptions in Kansas," James P. Buchele, 27 W.L.J. 252, 289 (1988).
"Kansas Property Classification and Reappraisal: The 1986 Constitutional Amendment and Statutory Modifications," Nancy Ogle, 29 W.L.J. 26, 55 (1989).
"Appellate Court Jurisdiction: An Update," Debra S. Byrd, 58 J.K.B.A. No. 1, 21, 23 (1989).
"Kansas Appellate Advocacy: An Inside View of Common-Sense Strategy," Patrick Hughes, 66 J.K.B.A. No. 2, 26 (1997).
Attorney General's Opinions:
State board of tax appeals; formal hearings; participation and representation of parties. 93-100.
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. Discussed; generally no appeal from administrative board's order. Anderson v. Hedges, 160 Kan. 665, 671, 165 P.2d 425.
2. Mentioned; contract construed; purchase price payments taxed as capital gain. Muntzel v. State Commission of Revenue & Taxation, 179 Kan. 775, 779, 298 P.2d 272.
3. Mentioned; "factor formula" accounting method (K.S.A. 79-3218) held applicable. Crawford Manufacturing Co. v. State Comm. of Revenue and Taxation, 180 Kan. 352, 355, 304 P.2d 504.
4. Applies only to matters appealed from director of revenue or director of property valuation; discussed, construed. City of Kansas City v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 187 Kan. 701, 702, 703, 704, 360 P.2d 29; Union Pacific Railroad Co. v. Sloan, 188 Kan. 231, 232, 233, 361 P.2d 889.
5. Section does not give director of revenue the right of appeal to the district court from a final order of the board of tax appeals; court without jurisdiction. Sprague Oil Service v. Fadely, 189 Kan. 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 367 P.2d 56.
6. Where state board of equalization approves assessment it is essential party to action to enjoin tax collection. Builders, Inc. v. Board of County Commissioners, 191 Kan. 379, 383, 385, 381 P.2d 527.
7. Cited in determining action commenced under K.S.A. 79-2005. Cities Service Oil Co. v. Kronewitter, 199 Kan. 228, 233, 428 P.2d 804.
8. Appeal from final order of state board of tax appeals to district court properly taken; late filing penalty imposed by K.S.A. 79-332 upheld. Walkemeyer v. Stevens County Oil & Gas Co., 205 Kan. 486, 488, 489, 493, 470 P.2d 730.
9. Mentioned as being distinct and different remedy from K.S.A. 79-2005. Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co. v. Herren, 207 Kan. 400, 402, 403, 404, 485 P.2d 156.
10. Mentioned in connection with an appeal by pipeline company objecting to assessment of its property. Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co. v. Dwyer, 207 Kan. 417, 419, 420, 485 P.2d 149. Affirmed: 208 Kan. 304, 305, 306, 491 P.2d 961.
11. Appeal is from board of tax appeals as distinguished from property valuation department. Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co. v. Herren, 208 Kan. 119, 120, 490 P.2d 416.
12. Procedure for judicial review of assessment of property of interstate pipeline hereunder is exclusive. Northern Natural Gas Co. v. Bender, 208 Kan. 135, 138, 139, 140, 141, 145, 490 P.2d 367.
13. Section does not violate due process and equal protection clauses of state and federal constitutions. Northern Natural Gas Co. v. Bender, 208 Kan. 135, 143, 490 P.2d 367.
14. Assessment and valuation of property is administrative function; appeal from order of board is on limited issue of whether order is unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious. Northern Natural Gas Co. v. Dwyer, 208 Kan. 337, 339, 340, 342, 343, 346, 374, 492 P.2d 147.
15. Assessment of ad valorem tax is administrative matter and board of tax appeals' order thereon is final, absent showing of fraud, unreasonableness or arbitrariness. Northern Natural Gas Co. v. Dwyer, 208 Kan. 337, 340, 342, 343, 345, 346, 347, 492 P.2d 147.
16. Rules of evidence of civil code apply in appeals hereunder. Northern Natural Gas Co. v. Dwyer, 208 Kan. 337, 345, 492 P.2d 147.
17. Duty of board to make written findings of fact forming basis of order considered. Northern Natural Gas Co. v. Dwyer, 208 Kan. 337, 347, 370, 372, 374, 376, 492 P.2d 147.
18. Section provides exclusive procedure for review of assessment of property assessed under K.S.A. 1971 Supp. 79-1404 fifteenth. Northern Natural Gas Co. v. Williams, 208 Kan. 407, 409, 493 P.2d 568.
19. Under provisions of statute, decisions rendered by state board of tax appeals are appealable to the state district court. Northern Natural Gas Company v. Wilson, 340 F. Supp. 1126, 1129.
20. Cited; appeal procedure followed properly. Kansas Telephone Co. v. Herren, 209 Kan. 8, 9, 495 P.2d 990.
21. Utility valuation and assessment for ad valorem tax purposes by board approved; court's order erroneous. Mobil Pipeline Co. v. Rohmiller, 214 Kan. 905, 906, 910, 912, 915, 916, 918, 919, 920, 522 P.2d 923.
22. Appeal hereunder in action involving constitutionality of tax exemption statute concerning cemetery lands (K.S.A. 79-201). Topeka Cemetery Ass'n v. Schnellbacher, 218 Kan. 39, 41, 542 P.2d 278.
23. Appeal by taxpayer from order of director of taxation to district court properly dismissed. Wray v. State Dept. of Revenue, 224 Kan. 234, 579 P.2d 717.
24. Applied; order of board determining manufacturer's inventory properly remanded. Lyon County v. Iowa Beef Processors, Inc., 224 Kan. 239, 249, 580 P.2d 1300.
25. Failure to file appeal within time specified divests board of jurisdiction to hear appeal. Vaughn v. Martell, 226 Kan. 658, 659, 603 P.2d 191.
26. County taxing officials have no right of appeal hereunder from order of board of tax appeals favorable to taxpayer. Board of Johnson County Comm'rs v. Ameq, Inc., 227 Kan. 93, 94, 96, 605 P.2d 119.
27. Right to appeal hereunder not applicable to original applications for relief from tax grievances before the board of tax appeals under K.S.A. 79-1702. In re Lakeview Gardens, Inc., 227 Kan. 161, 163, 164, 165, 166, 169, 170, 172, 605 P.2d 576.
28. L. 1980, ch. 236, amending K.S.A. 74-2426, gives county taxing officials right of appeal from adverse ruling; retroactive application and other provisions of statutes constitutional. Board of Greenwood County Comm'rs v. Nadel, 228 Kan. 469, 480, 618 P.2d 778.
29. District court had jurisdiction to consider appeals of original proceedings. Kansas City Dist. Advisory Bd. v. Board of Johnson County Comm'rs, 5 Kan. App. 2d 538, 539, 620 P.2d 344.
30. Statute held constitutional. In re Tax Protest of Rice, 228 Kan. 600, 620 P.2d 312.
31. Property at Fort Leavenworth belonging to an association that is neither a de jure nor a de facto corporation is not taxable. In re Armed Forces Cooperative Insuring Ass'n, 5 Kan. App. 2d 787, 788, 789, 625 P.2d 11.
32. Appeal from order of board of tax appeals improperly dismissed; K.S.A. 60-206 controls timeliness of appeal. Quivira Falls Community Ass'n v. Johnson County, 230 Kan. 350, 352, 353, 634 P.2d 1115 (1981).
33. Jurisdiction of district court to hear appeal hereunder lacking until motion for rehearing filed hereunder. In re K-Mart Corp., 232 Kan. 387, 389, 390, 391, 392, 393, 654 P.2d 470 (1982).
34. Procedure for appeals to district court from board of tax appeals governed exclusively hereby. Lakeview Village, Inc., v. Board of Johnson County Comm'rs, 232 Kan. 711, 712, 714, 715, 718, 719, 720, 721, 722, 723, 726, 659 P.2d 187 (1983).
35. Order of board of tax appeals is final absent showing order is based on fraud or oppressive, arbitrary or capricious conduct amounting to fraud; evidence limited to record of hearing before board. Wirt v. Esrey, 233 Kan. 300, 320, 662 P.2d 1238 (1983).
36. Cited in holding method of valuation under K.S.A. 79-5a04 not shown to be retaliatory. Burlington Northern R. Co. v. Lennen, 573 F. Supp. 1155, 1167 (1982).
37. Section (with K.S.A. 79-213, 79-2005) provides administrative remedy for determining tax-exempt status of property before resort to courts. Tri-County Public Airport Authority v. Board of Morris County Comm'rs, 233 Kan. 960, 964, 965, 967, 666 P.2d 698 (1983).
38. While scope of judicial review from administrative proceedings well defined, courts have authority to construe statutes at variance therewith. In re Order of Board of Tax Appeals, 236 Kan. 406, 409, 410, 691 P.2d 394 (1984).
39. Question of law subject to review without limitations imposed by subsection (b)(4). Director of Taxation v. Kansas Krude Oil Reclaiming Co., 236 Kan. 450, 453, 691 P.2d 1303 (1984).
40. Appeal hereunder; applicability of sales (K.S.A. 79-3601 et seq.) or compensating (K.S.A. 79-3701 et seq.) tax to advertising in or supplemental to newspaper determined. In re Appeal of K-Mart Corp., 238 Kan. 393, 394, 400, 710 P.2d 1304 (1985).
41. Board's orders, when considered with record, furnish a sufficient basis for meaningful appellate review; considerations by district court on review. In re Appeal of Horizon Tele-Communications, Inc., 241 Kan. 193, 196, 197, 734 P.2d 1168 (1987).
42. Cited; when duty of wholesaler to collect and return sales tax arises (K.S.A. 79-3604) examined. In re Appeal of News Publishing Co., 12 Kan. App. 2d 328, 331, 743 P.2d 559 (1987).
43. Cited; sales tax on repair services computer software programs prepared out-state as not subject to compensating tax examined. In re Tax Appeal of AT&T Technologies, Inc., 242 Kan. 554, 556, 749 P.2d 1033 (1988).
44. Legislature has provided, along with K.S.A. 74-2005, full remedy for claims of illegal or void valuations or assessments. Board of Osage County Comm'rs v. Schmidt, 12 Kan. App. 2d 812, 815, 758 P.2d 254 (1988).
45. Question of findings regarding excavation services as not subject to sales tax under K.S.A. 79-3603 examined. In re Tax Appeal of Bernie's Excavating Co., 13 Kan. App. 2d 476, 772 P.2d 822 (1989).
46. Cited in discussing liability of state and political subdivisions for postjudgment interest (K.S.A. 16-204). Greenhaw v. Board of Johnson County Comm'rs, 245 Kan. 67, 72, 774 P.2d 956 (1989).
47. Bank and holding company as not unitary business for tax purposes examined. First Nat'l Bank of Manhattan v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 13 Kan. App. 2d 706, 708, 779 P.2d 457 (1989).
48. Taxable status under K.S.A. 79-201a Second of property owned to produce revenue for financing governmental function (airport, K.S.A. 27-315 et seq.) examined. Tri-County Public Airport Auth. v. Board of Morris County Comm'rs, 245 Kan. 301, 304, 777 P.2d 843 (1989).
49. Order whether multi-state business is unitary for tax purposes subject to review under K.S.A. 77-601 et seq. In re Tax Appeal of A.M. Castle & Co., 245 Kan. 739, 783 P.2d 1286 (1989).
50. Discretion of county appraisers in valuing individual items of personal property examined. In re Tax Appeal of Director of Property Valuation, 14 Kan. App. 2d 348, 351, 791 P.2d 1383 (1989).
51. Nonexempt tax status of city's royalty interest in oil and gas lease on city-owned property examined. City of Liberal v. Seward County, 247 Kan. 609, 611, 802 P.2d 568 (1990).
52. Board of tax appeals may not allow longer time than provided by K.S.A. 77-529 to file petition for reconsideration. In re Tax Appeal of Cessna Aircraft Co., 16 Kan. App. 2d 229, 821 P.2d 328 (1991).
53. District court lacked subject matter jurisdiction in tax relief action due to failure of plaintiffs to exhaust administrative remedies. Zarda v. State, 250 Kan. 364, 366, 374, 826 P.2d 1365 (1992).
54. District court lacked subject matter jurisdiction in action to recover vehicle registration taxes; failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Dean v. State, 250 Kan. 417, 419, 420, 423, 427, 826 P.2d 1372 (1992).
55. Catalysts as circumstantially exempt from compensating use tax (K.S.A. 79-3602, 79-3606) examined. In re Tax Appeal of Derby Refining Co., 17 Kan. App. 2d 377, 380, 838 P.2d 354 (1992).
56. Tax-exempt status of church property examined where caretaker's house built on church campgrounds. Midwest Presbytery v. Jefferson County Appraiser, 17 Kan. App. 2d 676, 677, 843 P.2d 277 (1992).
57. Cited; construction and application of time allowed for filing petition with KCCR. United Steelworkers of America v. Kansas Comm'n on Civil Rights, 17 Kan. App. 2d 863, 866, 845 P.2d 89 (1993).
58. Board of tax appeals' findings regarding charitable purposes of claimant examined. Woman's Club of Topeka v. Shawnee County, 253 Kan. 175, 179, 853 P.2d 1157 (1993).
59. Legislative history of administrative remedies in seeking tax exemption hereunder and K.S.A. 79-213, 79-2005 discussed and applied. J. Enterprises, Inc. v. Board of Harvey County Comm'rs, 253 Kan. 552, 857 P.2d 666 (1993).
60. BOTA order subject to KJRA appellate review. In re Appeal of Morton Thiokol, Inc., 254 Kan. 23, 24, 864 P.2d 1175 (1993).
61. Statutory procedures regarding public utilities right to appeal assessment and valuation of property examined; whether section intended to preclude colorable constitutional challenges examined. Colorado Interstate Gas Co. v. Beshears, 18 Kan. App. 2d 814, 818, 820, 822, 860 P.2d 56 (1993).
62. Whether BOTA hearing fundamentally unfair where majority of voting panel members did not participate in evidentiary hearing examined. Sunflower Racing, Inc. v. Board of Wyandotte County Comm'rs, 256 Kan. 426, 430, 885 P.2d 1233 (1994).
63. Whether district court erred by granting personal property tax exemption for motor vehicles owned by native American examined. In re Tax Exemption Application of Oyler, 256 Kan. 589, 590, 887 P.2d 81 (1994).
64. Unique circumstances doctrine excused party's untimely petition for reconsideration of BOTA ruling for appellate jurisdiction purposes. In re Tax Appeal of Sumner County, 261 Kan. 307, 308, 311, 930 P.2d 1385 (1997).
65. Cited; Indian land excluded from boundaries of state not subject to taxation unless specifically included by treaty or act of Congress; state taxation of fee-patented Indian-owned land may be proper. In re Tax Exemption Application of Kaul, 261 Kan. 755, 765, 933 P.2d 717 (1997).
66. Board of Tax Appeals subject to judicial review under act for judicial review and civil enforcement of agency actions. In re Tax Appeal of Univ. of Kan. School of Medicine, 266 Kan. 737, 748, 973 P.2d 176 (1999).
67. Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to review BOTA order. In re Tax Grievance Application of Kaul, 269 Kan. 181, 4 P.3d 1170 (2000).
68. Cited in case challenging the constitutionality of K.S.A. 79-32,117; statute constitutional. In re Tax Appeal of Weisgerber, 285 Kan. 98, 169 P.3d 321 (2007).
69. KJRA applicable to order of board of tax appeals denying KSU property tax exemption. In re Tax Exempt. Application of K.S.U. SE Ag. Research Center, 37 Kan. App. 2d 718, 721, 157 P.3d 1 (2007).
70. K.S.A. 79-201b Third, 79-201 Second, 79-201 Ninth are discussed and applied in denying tax exemption. In re Tax Exemption Application of Gracious Promise Foundation, 42 Kan. App. 2d 180, 205 P.3d 791 (2009).
71. The statutory directive for timely decision by COTA is not to be ignored. In re Tax Complaint of Wine, 46 Kan. App. 2d 134, 260 P.3d 1234 (2011).
27. Board of tax appeals' inaction or failure to issue a full and complete opinion was an interlocutory decision. In re Target Corp., 311 Kan. 772, 777, 466 P.3d 1189 (2020).
28. County bears the burden to prove correctness of the classification of property before the district court in a trial de novo. Dodge City Coop. Exch. v. Bd. of Gray Cnty. Comm'rs, 62 Kan. App. 2d 391, 401, 516 P.3d 615 (2022).