Temothy Fitzgerald v. Department of Revenue

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

BEFORE THE MONTANA TAX APPEAL BOARD

Montana Tex Apnea!
TIMOTHY FITZGERALD, CASE Ne: PT-2022-23
Appellant, FINDINGS OF FACT,
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, ORDER,
v. AND OPPORTUNITY FOR
JUDICIAL REVIEW
STATE OF MONTANA,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
Respondent.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This is an appeal of a final decision by the Gallatin County Tax Appeal Board
(CTAB) denying Timothy Fitzgerald (Taxpayer) a reduction in value on the subject
property located at 8300 Churchill Road, Manhattan, Montana. The Taxpayer
appealed that outcome to Montana Tax Appeal Board (MTAB) on April 22, 2022. We

affirm CTAB’s determination.

ISSUE TO BE DECIDED
Whether CTAB erred in affirming the DOR total value of $465,384, with a
land value of $342,454 and an improvement value of $122,930.

EXHIBIT LIST
The following evidence was submitted at the hearing:

Taxpayer Exhibits:
1. Comments of MDOR Acre Model;

2. Demonstrative method chart.

DOR Exhibits:
A. Appraisal notice of subject property;
B. AB-26 and 12/10/2021 decision letter;
C. CTAB appeal and decision;

Rte

a

‘a

BEFORE THE MONTANA TAX APPEAL BOARD
TIMOTHY FITZGERALD vy. STATE OF MONTANA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

D. Confidential information packet of subject property;
E. Model land sales with aerial photo;
F. Electronic spreadsheet with CALP of neighborhood 206.011.A.;

G. Demonstrative formula chart.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The DOR valued the 15.7 acre property located at 8300 Churchill Road,
Manhattan, Montana at $465,384 for the 2021/2022 appraisal cycle, with the land
valued at $342,454 and the improvements valued at $122,930. Ex D. The Taxpayer
filed an AB-26, Request for Informal Classification and Appraisal Review, with the
DOR on August 2, 2021, requesting a land value of $195,562 and an improvement
value of $133,520. Ex B. The DOR sent a Form AB-26 Determination Letter to the
Taxpayer dated December 10, 2021, denying the Taxpayer’s request. Jd. The
Taxpayer appealed the DOR’s valuation to the CTAB on January 3, 2022, requesting
a land value of $244,526 and an improvement value of $122,930. Ex C. The CTAB
hearing was held on March 23, 2022. The CTAB’s decision denying the Taxpayer’s
application for reduction was sent to the parties on March 23, 2022. The Taxpayer
appealed to MTAB on April 22, 2022, per Mont. Code Ann § 15-2-301, requesting a
land value of $244,526 and an improvement value of $122,930, for a total of
$367,456. MTAB Dkt. 1. The MTAB hearing was conducted in Helena on December
13, 2022, at which the following were present:
a. Timothy Fitzgerald, Taxpayer; and

b. Dave Burleigh, DOR Counsel; Kurt Swimley, Modeler; Garrett
McGrath, Appraiser; and Pam Moore, Area Manager.

The record includes all materials submitted to CTAB, a recording of the CTAB
hearing, all materials submitted to MTAB with the appeal, and additional exhibits
submitted by the parties prior to and at the MTAB hearing.

BEFORE THE MONTANA TAX APPEAL BOARD
TIMOTHY FITZGERALD v. STATE OF MONTANA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

FINDINGS OF FACT
To whatever extent the following findings of fact may be construed as

conclusions of law, they are incorporated accordingly.

The Taxpayer has a background in statistical modeling. MTAB Hr’g Tr. 30:21-

31:3. He holds a Ph.D. in economics and has worked in academia and as a

consultant. Id.

The Taxpayer testified the methodology used by the Department to value
properties not only leads to high variance in the value of the subject property
but in the land valuation model used by the Department from cycle to

cycle. MTAB Hr'g Tr. 5:22-6:9. The Taxpayer testified he could not replicate
the Department's statistical model, which he argued demonstrates flaws in the
Department’s methodology. /d. The Taxpayer argued that these flaws include:
1) The statistical model has a standard error that is too small, leading to high
valuations of the subject property; 2) The use of neighborhoods in the land
valuation model results in fewer observed sales, resulting in a less comparable
pool of properties in the statistical model; 3) The changing of neighborhood
boundaries between tax cycles results in drastically different values for the
subject property; 4) In the previous tax cycle, the Department used water
frontage and proximity to a park as influence factors, which were not used in
the most recent land model; 5) The land model assumes all land is uniform in
price although the comparable sales of land are different in location; 6)
Taxpayers in different neighborhoods are treated unequally because
comparison groups used to value properties are not consistent over time.

MTAB Hr'g Tr. 13:16-15:6, 15:19-16:7, Ex 1.

The Department's reliance on corrections for the time of transactions also
concerned the Taxpayer. MTAB Hr'g Tr. 7:10-25. The corrections or “time
trending” in the model have resulted in a doubling of some observed

transaction prices. Jd. The Taxpayer argued the Department is already

2

BEFORE THE MONTANA TAX APPEAL BOARD
TIMOTHY FITZGERALD v. STATE OF MONTANA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

estimating the time-trended sales prices used in the land model, with some
error. Id, MTAB Hr'g Tr. 11:3-6. The Department uses a flexible, functional
estimator or a sixth-order polynomial to time trend properties to account for
variations in sales price over time. Ex. 1, MTAB Hr'g Tr. 8:23-10:4. The longer
the period the properties are time trended, the more reliance is placed on the
polynomial to account for time; some properties were time trended by as much
as thirty months. MTAB Hr'g Tr. 12:8-14. The time trend error would likely be
in the Department's favor because of the upward property values trend. MTAB
Hr'g Tr. 11:12-17.

The Taxpayer gave several reasons why the sales sample used by the
Department did not fit the model. MTAB Hr’g Tr. 16:8-17:07. Of the fifteen
sales used to value the 15.7-acre subject property, fourteen sales were under
one acre, and one sale was two acres. Id. MTAB Ar’g Tr. 27:2-11. The model
had a smaller sample size than the previous cycle making the Taxpayer less
confident in the model’s predictions. MTAB Hr’g Tr. 17:21-18:5. The model
also used sales from two different taxing cycles. Jd. The Department’s modeler,
Mr. Swimley, testified the Department only uses sales in the model that are at
most six years old and if the neighborhood lacks the required sales to create a

reliable model, the neighborhood is expanded to find additional sales. MTAB
Hr’g Tr. 61:2-17.

The Taxpayer also testified to several inconsistencies in the land model used by
the Department. The land model for tax years 2019/2020 used 171 sales, while
the land model for the tax year 2021/2022 used only 52 sales. MTAB Hr'g Tr.
28:5-24, Additionally, the Department excluded 22 other sales from the
2021/2022 model as invalid sales. Jd. The sales excluded by the Department
had a mean acreage of 19.1 acres, making them more comparable to the 15.7-
acre subject property. Jd. The Department’s modeler testified that the

Department removed many of the sales because they were not arm’s length

BEFORE THE MONTANA TAX APPEAL BOARD
TIMOTHY FITZGERALD v. STATE OF MONTANA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

transactions and that an explanation of why the sale was removed is included in

Exhibit F. Ex. F, MTAB Ar’g Tr. 4926-5175.

The Taxpayer testified the Department’s judgment about whether to include a
particular transaction in their model led to the dropping of 30% of the
comparable transactions in the subject property's neighborhood during the
current cycle and omitting 60% of the observed transactions during the

2019/2020 tax cycle. MTAB Hr'g Tr. 7:18-8:7.

When creating a sales model, the Department uses standards published by the
International Association of Assessing Officers (AAO) for mass appraisal and

internal standards. MTAB HAr’g Tr. 39: 12-23.

When constructing a land model, the Department's modeler testified the
Department creates neighborhoods consisting of groups of properties that are
similar in characteristics that will affect the property's value. MTAB Hr'’g Tr.
33:5-35:10. The Department then develops a time trend using multi-
polynomial regression. /d. The time trend is applied to all sales within a land
sales model, including all neighborhoods in the model. /d. The area the land
model covers can change depending on the area's economic development or if
properties are selling differently than others based on location. Jd. The
Department's models are beholden to the sales that occur in the market area,
and occasionally the Department needs to use sales further back in time to
ensure the proper adjustments get made to simulate market conditions
correctly. Jd. Finally, the Department verifies all sales to determine which sales
are valid. Jd. Sales are not valid if they are not arm’s length transactions,
including estate sales, forced sales, sales between related entities or family

members, and valid sales must be the fair market price. Jd.

10.

11.

12.

BEFORE THE MONTANA TAX APPEAL BOARD
TIMOTHY FITZGERALD v. STATE OF MONTANA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

The Department presented the County Rural North, Amsterdam & Churchill
land model used to value the subject property. Ex. F., The model was created
by Mr. Swimley using sales not older than six years and within the Amsterdam,
Churchill, and surrounding rural areas. MTAB Hr’g Tr. 35:20-37:14. The
Department prefers to use the most up-to-date sales because they reflect market

conditions. /d.

The Department’s model considers different characteristics that may influence
the value of a property. MTAB Hr’g Tr. 39: 1-11. Between valuation cycles, the
Department modelers reorganize data to better account for neighborhood
characteristics. Jd. For example, all properties in the Amsterdam & Churchill
area with a water influence were placed into their own neighborhood to account
for that particular characteristic. Jd. The Department testified neighborhoods
could change year to year because of the growth of different areas, and the
Department tries to capture similar parcels that reflect the growth or changes in
sales or market conditions. MTAB Hr’g Tr. 48:3-48:9. Additionally each tax
cycle, the Department tests whether influence factors appear relevant to sales
prices of properties and whether they exist in the field and the market

areas. MTAB Hr’g Tr. 61:22-62:14. If there is evidence of an influence, the
Department adjusts the model, and previous influences are retested to ensure

they are still relevant in the current model. Jd.

The base rate for the subject property, set by this Department model, is
$148,778. MTAB Hr’g Tr. 42:24-43:15. The model used to value the subject
property uses a base size of one acre. MTAB Hr’g Tr. 40:14-14. The base size
for the land model is determined by whether or not a parcel is located in an
urban or rural area. MTAB Hr’g Tr. 42:11-16. The base rate is the typical sales
price, based on observed data, and accounting for other characteristics in the

model, the cost of one acre, that is time trend to the lien date. MTAB Hr’g Tr.
42:24-43:15.

13.

14.

15.

BEFORE THE MONTANA TAX APPEAL BOARD
TIMOTHY FITZGERALD v. STATE OF MONTANA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

Each acre after the base rate is multiplied by the incremental rate to value the
additional acres of the subject property. MTAB Hr’g Tr. 43:16-23. Using the
incremental rate also accounts for economies of scale and diminishing value
rates depending on parcel size. Jd. The incremental rate is determined through
regression analysis. MTAB Hr’g Tr. 43:24-44:16. The base rate differs for each
neighborhood, while an incremental rate is consistent over all neighborhoods in

a given land model. MTAB Hr’g Tr. 44:20-45:8.

When creating models, the Department time trends individual comparable sales
to current market conditions as is the industry standard set by IAAO. MTAB
Hr’g Tr. 45:9-46:10. The Department develops sales ratios using sales prices
over a given timeframe to time trend sales using regression analysis over a
broader market area. Jd. To develop the time trends, the Department takes the
ratio of sales prices to the Department’s previously assessed value and uses
regression analysis to develop the average market adjustment that estimates a
percent increase for sales over time within a market area. MTAB Hr’g Tr. 59:1-
23. Sales from 2018 to the current lien date of January 1, 2020, were used as
the sixth-order polynomial in the regression analysis. /d. To ensure reliability,
the Department appraisers screen all options for time trends to ensure they are
consistent. MTAB Hr’g Tr. 45:9-46:10. Further, the Department evaluates

whether the time adjustment makes sense for older sales. Jd.

The Department also has several standards to assess the reliability of the land
model outputs. MTAB Hr’g Tr. 54:1-55:14. The primary test is the coefficient
of determination (COD) which must be less than 15; the model used to value
the subject property has a COD of 13.29. Ex. F. Id. The price-related
differential (PRD) measures whether the model is progressive or regressive; a
model should typically have a PRD between .98 and 1.03, and the model used
to value the subject property has a PRD of 1.04. Jd. The Department admitted it
was moderately regressive but was confident that it is a good output for this

model. /d. T stat indicates whether the model detects differences in influence

16.

17.

18.

BEFORE THE MONTANA TAX APPEAL BOARD
TIMOTHY FITZGERALD v. STATE OF MONTANA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

variables used by the Department in the model. MTAB Hr’g Tr. 56:6-57:2. The
T stat limit for a model is 2; the T stat in the model used to value the subject
property was -2, which the Department testified is essentially the same as 2. Ex
F. Id. R squared is the measurement of the model’s fit to the data and how well
the data is explained by the model. MTAB Hr’g Tr. 57:4-17. The closer the R
squared is to 1, the better the data fits into the model; the model used to value

the subject property has an R squared value of .83. Id.

The Department’s modeler testified that the Taxpayer incorrectly used the
“Market Adjusted Sales Price Less Improvement value” instead of “Market
Adjusted Price Per Unit” to replicate the model and calculate coefficients in the
land model, causing discrepancies in the Taxpayer’s replicated model

output. MTAB Hr’g Tr. 48:12-22. Additionally, The Department testified that
neighborhoods in the model change every cycle because market delineations
react to observed market behaviors and the Department cannot predict

neighborhood growth in the future. MTAB Hr’g Tr. 59:24-55:12.

The subject property’s improvements were appraised using the cost approach
for estimating value. Ex. D. MTAB Hr’g Tr. 88:22-89: 18. The subject property
was Classified as class four residential property. Id. MTAB Hr’g Tr 90: 11-
91:4, The sales comparison method for estimating value was not used because
the property is unique, and any comparable sales would have required

excessive adjustments. Jd. MTAB Hr’g Tr. 96:8-17

To value the land of the subject property, the department’s model values the
base acre of the subject property at $148,778 and each additional acre with an
incremental rate of 0.3027. Ex. F. MTAB Hr’g Tr. 91:17-92:18. The subject
property has been in neighborhood 206.013E for the last three reappraisal
cycles. MTAB Hr’g Tr. 101:1-12. The subject property was purchased in 2008
for $395,000. MTAB Hr’g Tr. 92:23-93:4.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

BEFORE THE MONTANA TAX APPEAL BOARD
TIMOTHY FITZGERALD v. STATE OF MONTANA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Montana Tax Appeal Board is an independent agency not affiliated with
the Montana Department of Revenue. Mont. Const., Art. VIII $ 7; Mont. Code
Ann. § 15-2-101. The Taxpayer filed a timely appeal of the DOR’s decision to
the MTAB. Therefore, this Board maintains jurisdiction to hear and decide this
matter. Mont. Code Ann. $ 15-2-301.

This Board may hear appeals de novo. Dept. of Revenue v. Burlington N., 169
Mont. 202, 213-14, 545 P.2d 1083 (1976). “A trial de novo means trying the
matter anew, the same as if it had not been heard before and as if no decision
had been previously rendered.” MeDunn v. Arnold, 2013 MT 138, § 22, 370
Mont. 270, 275, 303 P.3d 1279, 1282.

The Board’s order is final and binding upon all parties unless changed by

judicial review. Mont. Code Ann. § 15-2-301(6).

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
To whatever extent the following conclusions of law may be construed as

findings of fact, they are incorporated accordingly.

“All taxable property must be appraised at 100% of its market value....” Mont.
Code Ann. § 15-8-111.

Per Montana Code Annotated § 15-2-301(5), MTAB is not bound by common
law and statutory rules of evidence or rules of discovery in appeals of CTAB

decisions and may affirm, reverse, or modify any decision.

DOR is entitled to a “presumption of correctness if its decisions are pursuant to
an administrative rule or regulation, and the rule or regulation is not arbitrary,
capricious or otherwise unlawful.” Burlington N., 169 Mont. at 214, 545 P.2d

at 1090. However, DOR cannot rely entirely on the presumption in its favor

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

BEFORE THE MONTANA TAX APPEAL BOARD
TIMOTHY FITZGERALD vy. STATE OF MONTANA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

and must present a modicum of evidence showing the propriety of their action.

Western Air Lines v. Michunovich, 149 Mont. 347, 353, 428 P.2d 3, 7 (1967).

The Taxpayer bears the burden of proving the error of DOR’s decision.
Farmers Union Cent. Exch. v. Dep’t of Revenue, 272 Mont. 471, 476, 901 P.2d
561, 564 (1995); Western Air Lines, 149 Mont. at 353, 428 P.2d at 7.

“* Assessment formulations’ by [the Montana Tax Appeal Board] should be
upheld unless there is a clear showing of an abuse of discretion.” Peretti v.
Dep’t of Revenue, 2016 MT 105, § 15, 383 Mont. 340, 344, 372 P.3d 447, 450
(citing O’Neill v. Dep’t of Revenue, 2002 MT 130, { 23, 310 Mont. 148, 155,
49 P.3d 43, 47); see Northwest Land & Dev. v. State Tax Appeal Bd., 203
Mont. 313, 317, 661 P.2d 44, 47 (1983) (overruled on other grounds by DeVoe
v. Dep’t of Revenue, 263 Mont. 100, 866 P.2d 228 (1993)).

When construing a statute, it is the Board’s role to “determine what in terms or
substance is contained in it, and not to insert what has been omitted or to omit
what has been inserted.” State v. Minett, 2014 MT 225, § 12, 376 Mont. 260,
263, 332 P.3d 235, 238; Mont. Code Ann. $ 1-2-101.

“[T]ax statutes are to be strictly construed against the taxing authority and in
favor of the taxpayer.” Western Energy Co. v. Dep’t of Revenue, 1999 MT 289,
q 10, 297 Mont. 55, 58, 990 P.2d 767, 769.

The Board “may not amend or repeal any administrative rule of the
department,” but may enjoin its application if the Board concludes the rule is

“arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise unlawful.” Mont. Code Ann. § 15-2-301(5).

The term “improvements” includes all buildings, structures, fences, and
improvements situated upon, erected upon, or affixed to land. Mont. Code Ann.

§ 15-1-101(1)Q.

10

32.

33.

34.

35.

BEFORE THE MONTANA TAX APPEAL BOARD
TIMOTHY FITZGERALD v. STATE OF MONTANA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

The Legislature intended the Department to utilize a number of different
approaches or combination of approaches, including the income approach,
sales comparison approach, and cost less depreciation approach, depending on
the market where the appraisals take place, when it assesses property and
estimates market value. Albright v. State, 281 Mont. 196, 208-09, 933 P.2d
815, 823 (1997).

DISCUSSION
The Taxpayer showed extensive knowledge of statistical methods and model
building. The Taxpayer presented logical arguments showing the land model
used to value property may contain flaws. We appreciate the professional
manner the Taxpayer and the Department engaged with each other to present

the facts of the case.

However, this Board finds that the general evidence presented by the Taxpayer
did not overcome the presumption of correctness given by law and precedent to
the Department. The Taxpayer did not present sufficient evidence to show the
Department erred when valuing the subject property. The Taxpayer presented
several different general theories relating to the appraisal process used by the
Department to value the subject property but ultimately did not convince the

Board the DOR model used to value the subject property was unreliable.

The Taxpayer made reference to the Department’s practice of time trending
sales and the possibility of error in adjusting sales. The time trending of sales is
necessary to treat all taxpayers equal. The Department has a duty under Mont.
Code Ann. § 15-9-101 to equalize the valuation of taxable property among the
counties, different classes of property and between individual taxpayers and
shall do all thing necessary to secure a fair just and equitable valuation.
Additionally, the time trending of properties is contemplated by the Uniform
Standard of Professional Appraisal Practices Standard 5, covering mass

appraisal and the IAAO. The Department rules allow the appraisers to use sales

11

36.

BEFORE THE MONTANA TAX APPEAL BOARD
TIMOTHY FITZGERALD y. STATE OF MONTANA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

from as far back as six years allowing adjustment for up to 72 months. While
the Board agrees that time trending can cause error, it is the only way for the
Department to equalize taxes among similarly situated taxpayers. Especially in
an active market such as Gallatin County, the use of more recent sales is
preferred, but also relies on models with more sales than fewer as a more
accurate predictor of market value. To achieve models with more sales in more
rural neighborhoods, the Department must look back in time to find valid sales,
and IAAO accepts more sales from a more historic list of sales as reliable.
Lastly, the Department modeler testified to the procedure used to check the

reliability of the time trending process and the Board found it credible.

While the Department did use a smaller sample size to value the subject
property’s land, the Board finds that the Department did have sufficient sales in
this tax cycle to correctly value the property. The Department is allowed to use
sales from as far back as six years. The Department testified that they try to use
sales as close to the lien date as possible to reflect current market conditions,
but it is not always possible. The model presented by the Department did not
have any sales older than six years and sales that were not arm’s length were
properly excluded. Additionally, the sample size of a model will not always
remain consistent. The Board acknowledges the Taxpayer’s concern that the
smaller sample size will result in a larger error rate for the model, but the
Department is tasked with valuing all properties at market value and must
balance these two factors. Any sales that are not market value should not be
included in the land model to value property. The Department verifies all sales
to ensure all data in the model is accurate. This verification process is set out in
the Department’s classification and valuation manual and is an important step
to document uniform application of consistent valuation of properties. Lastly,
while some of the similar sized properties were removed from the model due to
validation issues the Department estimated the subject property value using the

available sales. The Department does not control when or how sales occur, the

12

37.

38.

39.

BEFORE THE MONTANA TAX APPEAL BOARD
TIMOTHY FITZGERALD y. STATE OF MONTANA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

Department can only use sales that are arm’s length and occurred with the last

six years, thus restricting usable data.

Bozeman and the surrounding are a quickly growing market area. To keep up
with the changing market values the Department must react to observed market
behaviors. Because the Department cannot predict how a market area will
perform, it must have the latitude to make changes to its model. The
Department testified when creating neighborhoods, the Department looks for
properties that are similar in characteristics that affect market value of the
property. Looking at the Amsterdam/Churchill Rural model the properties
included in the subject property neighborhoods are all similar in characteristics
and the subject property was included in neighborhood 206.013E for the last

three appraisal cycles.

Lastly, the Taxpayer was concerned that the Department removed several
influence factors from the previous cycle causing inconstancy in the model.
The Department testified that they removed all properties with the
waterfrontage influence factor and placed them in their own neighborhood to
account for the influence factor. The removing of the properties with the
influence factor made the subject’s property neighborhood more similar and

consistent.

The Board finds that the methodology used by the Department to value the
subject property is within an acceptable standard. The Department testified to
the multiple tests and checks it performs to ensure their model is providing
reliable data. While not perfect by these measures, all tests and checks were
within the acceptable range. This is typically the case with mass appraisal
required by state law. Additionally, just because the Taxpayer could not
replicate the model does not mean the model is flawed. The Department

testified that they thought the Taxpayer was using the wrong inputs and thus

40.

BEFORE THE MONTANA TAX APPEAL BOARD
TIMOTHY FITZGERALD v. STATE OF MONTANA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

causing discrepancies. Models built by the Department are assembled by

multiple people using a variety of information, and are complex at best.

The Taxpayer was very knowledgeable and knew a great deal about the model
and regression analysis but did not overcome his burden of proving the
Department error in its valuation. The Taxpayer testified about several areas
that could potentially cause an error in the Department’s model. However, the

Board was unable to find a mistake and therefore must rule for the Department.

14

BEFORE THE MONTANA TAX APPEAL BOARD
TIMOTHY FITZGERALD v. STATE OF MONTANA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

ORDER

41. We affirm the CTAB’s decision upholding the Department’s valuation for the
2021-2022 tax cycle.

Dated this 9th day of March 2023.

“pedt. Ma

David L. McAlIpin, Chairman

LC

Amie Zendron, Member

7

Travis Brown, Member

Notice: You are entitled to judicial review of this Order by filing a petition in district
court within 60 days of the service of this Order. The Department of Revenue shall
promptly notify this Board of any judicial review to facilitate the timely transmission

of the record to the reviewing court. Mont. Code Ann. §15-2-303(2).

15

BEFORE THE MONTANA TAX APPEAL BOARD
TIMOTHY FITZGERALD v. STATE OF MONTANA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

Certificate of Service

I certify that I caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing Findings of Facts and
Conclusions of Law to be sent by email and United States Mail via Print & Mail

Services Bureau of the State of Montana on March 8, 2023, to:

Timothy Fitzgerald
8300 Churchill Rd.
Manhattan, Montana 59741

Dave Burleigh

State of Montana, Department of Revenue
Legal Services Office

P. O. Box 7701

Helena, MT 59604-7701

Pamela Hamlin Lammey
CTAB Secretary

311 West Main, Room 306
Bozeman, MT 59715

Kory Hofland

DOA PAD Central Office
340 N. Last Chance Gulch
Helena, MT 59601

Kern beth

Lyin: Cochran, Legal Secretary

16