Steven B. and Theresa W. Leland v MDOR

BEFORE THE MONTANA TAX APPEAL BOARD
AUG 2 8 2026
Montana Tax Appeal Board
STEVEN B. AND THERESA W.
LELAND,
Appellants,
V.
STATE OF MONTANA,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
Respondent.
CASE :PT-2026-15
FINDINGS OF FACT,
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, ORDER,
AND OPPORTUNITY FOR
JUDICIAL REVIEW
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal of a final decision by the Gallatin County Tax Appeal Board
(CTAB) denying Steven B. and Theresa W. Leland (Taxpayers) a reduction in the value
of the subject property located at 1142 Barnard Ridge Road in Bozeman, Montana
(Subject Property). The Taxpayers appealed that outcome to the Montana Tax Appeal
Board (MTAB) on March 6, 2026. The Board affirms the CTAB's determination.
ISSUE TO BE DECIDED
Whether the CTAB erred in denying the Taxpayers' request for a reduction in
value of the Subject Property.
EXHIBIT LIST
The following evidence was submitted at the hearing:
Taxpayers' Exhibits:
1. Department AB-26 Determination letter dated November 18, 2025,and
letter for Temporary Constmction Access Agreement, dated August 23,
2018;
2. Letter from Amy C. McNulty, dated October 16, 2026;
3. MTAB-401 Appeal Form;
4. 2021 Classification and Appraisal Notice;
1

BEFORE THE MONTANA TAX APPEAL BOARD
STEVENB. AND THERESA W. LELAND v. STATE OF MONTANA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
5. AB-26 Determination Letter, dated November 17, 2025;
6. Edge Equity Offer and Withdrawal;
7. TB Properties Buys Land, Offer and Withdrawal;
8. Letter from Crystal Beckman, dated June 18, 2025;
9. Select Montana Code Annotated Statutes;
10. Grazing Land Valuation Email from Bill Billman and USDA Regional
News Release, dated August 2, 2024;
11. Property Lease Agreement;
12. First Security Bank Letter, dated May 1, 2026;
13. Email from U.S. Bank Regarding Freddie Mac Eligibility, dated May 22,
2026;
14. Montana Cadastral Images and Geocodes;
15. Battle Ridge Ranch Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions; and
16. Email from Nathan Whitmont, dated May 31, 2026.
Department Exhibits:
A. Property Record Card;
B. Subject Property Photographs;
C. Land Valuation Model;
D. Amended Market Area Map; and
E. 2024 Land Valuation Influence Model.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The Department of Revenue (Department) valued the Subject Property at
$629,973 for the 2025-2026 appraisal cycle, with the land valued at $613,643 and the
improvements valued at $16,330. MTAB Dkt. 3. The Taxpayers filed an AB-26, Request
for Informal Classification and Appraisal Review, with the Department on July 14, 2025,
requesting a land value of $8,23 1 and an improvements value of $8,470. Id. The
Department sent a Form AB-26 Determination Letter to the Taxpayers dated November
17, 2025, denying the Taxpayers' request. Id. The Taxpayers appealed the Department's
2

BEFORE THE MONTANA TAX APPEAL BOARD
STEVENB. AND THERESA W. LELAND v. STATE OF MONTANA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
valuation to the CTAB on November 25, 2025, requesting a land value of $6,173 and
making no request for an adjustment to the improvements value. Id. The CTAB hearing
was held on February 18, 2026, and the CTAB's decision denying the Taxpayers'
application for reduction was sent to the parties on Febmary 18, 2026. Id. The Taxpayers
timely appealed the CTAB decision to the MTAB on March 6, 2026, pursuant to Mont.
Code Ann. § 15-2-301, requesting a combined land and improvements value of $9,156.
MTAB Dkt. 1. The MTAB hearing was conducted in Helena on June 10, 2026, at which
the following were present:
a. Steven B. Leland, Taxpayer; and
b. Dave Burleigh, Department Counsel; Colton Parker, Area Manager; Laurie
Blue, Appraiser; Katelyn Thomton, Modeler; and Kandy Fleurisma,
Paralegal.
The record includes all materials submitted to CTAB, a recording of the CTAB
hearing, all materials submitted to MTAB with the appeal, additional exhibits submitted
by the parties prior to and at the MTAB hearing, and a transcript of the MTAB hearing.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. To whatever extent the following findings of fact may be construed as conclusions
of law, they are incorporated accordingly.
2. The Subject Property is owned by Steven B. and Theresa W. Leland, is classified
as class-four residential property, and is located at 1142 Barnard Ridge Road,
Bozeman, Montana. Ex. A. The Subject Property is also identified by its assigned
Geocode 06-0799-05-2-05-10-0000. Id. The Subject Property is approximately
11.625 acres in total size and is improved with a 9-foot-by-12-foot cabin, a 100-
square-foot wood deck, a 12-foot-by-14-foot dry cabin, and a lO-foot-by-15-foot
pole-frame structure. Id. For tax year 2025, the Department assigned a market
value of $613,643 for the land and $16,330 for the improvements, for a total
market value of $629,973. Id.
3

BEFORE THE MONTANA TAX APPEAL BOARD
STEVENB. AND THERESA W. LELAND v. STATE OF MONTANA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
3. The Taxpayers filed an AB-26, Request for Infonnal Classification and Appraisal
Review, requesting a land value of $8,231 and an improvements value of $8,470.
MTAB Dkt. 3. The Department denied the request in its November 17, 2025, AB-
26 Determination Letter. Id. The Taxpayers appealed to the CTAB, requesting a
land value of $6,173 with no adjustment to the improvements value. Id. The
CTAB denied the requested reduction and upheld the Department's valuation. Id.
The Taxpayers timely appealed to MTAB on March 6, 2026, requesting a
combined land and improvements value of $9,156. MTAB Dkt. 1. The Department
maintains that the assigned market value of $613,643 for the land and $16,330 for
the improvements is correct. MTAB Hr'g Tr. 72:8-11.
4. Mr. Leland testified that the structures on the Subject Property are used for
recreational purposes and that Barnard Land & Livestock grazes the property in
part to reduce fire risk. MTAB Hr'g Tr. 15:13-23, 16:13-25. The Subject Property
is classified as residential, and the Taxpayer acknowledged that it does not qualify
for agricultural classification. Ex. A; MTAB Hr'g Tr. 17:1-4. Mr. Leland testified
that the definition of residential property includes the existence of or potential for
constructing a dwelling. MTAB Hr'g Tr. 12:19-13:1. Mr. Leland contends that the
lack of legal access eliminates the Subject Property's potential development for
residential use and that, if sold, its market value should reflect its remaining use as
grazing or pastureland rather than residential value. MTAB Hr 'g Tr. 12:19-13:11,
18:3-6. The Taxpayers have not listed the Subject Property for sale. MTABHr'g
Tr. 18:7-8.
5. Mr. Leland testified that his argument is focused on the land value and that he
could not say whether the Department's $16,330 improvements value was correct.
MTAB Hr 'g Tr. 18:19-19:2. Department Area Manager Colton Parker testified
that the Department accurately estimated the cost of the four structures, reduced
•4

BEFORE THE MONTANA TAX APPEAL BOARD
STEVENB. AND THERESA W. LELAND v. STATE OF MONTANA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
that amount based on depreciation, and assigned the improvements a total value of
$16,330. MTAB Hr'gTr. 25:16-21, 27:3-10.
6. Neither party disputes that the Subject Property lacks an easement providing legal
access and is landlocked. MTAB Hr 'g Tr. 20:11-20, 24:10-15. Mr. Parker defined
a landlocked parcel as one having no direct access to a public road or known right-
of-way. MTAB Hr'g Tr. 24:10-15.
7. Mr. Leland testified that the Subject Property is accessible by foot pursuant to a
license agreement with Barnard Land & Livestock that may be revoked upon
thirty days' notice. Ex. 2; MTAB Hr'g Tr. 13:19-25. Vehicle access to the Subject
Property requires express permission from the Barnard ranch manager. MTAB
Hr'gTr. 13:19-25.
8. Mr. Leland testified that the Taxpayers essentially assumed the seller's loan when
purchasing the Subject Property in 1985. MTABHr'g Tr. 20:22-21:2. Although
the Taxpayers obtained title insurance and had an attorney review the transaction,
the lack of a legal access easement was not identified. MTAB Hr'g Tr. 21:1-6. The
Taxpayers discovered the access defect in approximately 2017 or 2018, when it
was determined that the platted road serving the property had never been dedicated
as a public road. MTAB Hr 'g Tr. 20:11-20. Barnard Land & Livestock had
acquired the land underlying the expected access route, and the title insurer later
paid the policy limits because of the access defect. MTAB Hr'g Tr. 20:11-20,
21:11-17.
9. Before discovering the access defect, the Taxpayers obtained a septic permit for
the Subject Property. MTAB Hr'g Tr. 14:21-15:18. The Taxpayers abandoned the
septic project because, without a legal easement, they could not ensure access to
construct or maintain a wastewater system, and the permit ultimately expired. Id.
5

BEFORE THE MONTANA TAX APPEAL BOARD
STEVENB. AND THERESA W. LELAND v. STATE OF MONTANA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
10. Mr. Leland testified that the lack of legal access adversely affects the Subject
Property's marketability and restricts its residential-development potential. MTAB
Hr 'g Tr. 12:19-13:11. Mr. Leland also testified that neither U.S. Bank nor First
Security Bank would make a loan using the Subject Property as collateral because
of its access limitations. Ex. 12, 13; MTABHr'g Tr. 19:11-19.
11. Mr. Leland challenged whether the sales in the Department's land model had
access impairments comparable to the Subject Property. Ex. 14; MTAB Hr'g Tr.
8:12-9:2. Mr. Leland testified that four Battle Ridge Ranch properties benefited
from access easements under the Battle Ridge Road covenants, the Bear Creek
Road property appeared to abut a road, and that a road crossed a comer of the
Black Bear Road property. Id. Department Appraiser Laurie Blue testified that the
Black Bear Road property underwent a boundary relocation after the sale to obtain
legal access. MTAB Hr 'g Tr. 62:8-14.
12. Mr. Leland also questioned the Ponderosa Pines sales contained in the
Department's land model. MTAB Hr'g Tr. 9:3-10:19. Mr. Leland testified that one
buyer purchased their property for cash without title insurance and was unaware of
an easement issue. Id. Mr. Parker testified that some Ponderosa Pines properties
have access easements but did not know whether the other sales contained in the
land model do, and Mr. Parker could not identify the specific parcels having
access issues. MTABHr'g Tr. 43:23-44:17.
13. The Department valued the improvements at $16,330 using the cost approach by
determining their replacement cost new less depreciation. MTAB Hr 'g Tr. 25:23-
26:3. The Department valued the land using a residential land model 206.023A.
The Department determined a 39 percent influence factor, which is equivalent to a
61 percent reduction from the uninfluenced land value. Ex. E; MTAB Hr 'g Tr.
36:16-23, 52:2-10.
6

BEFORE THE MONTANA TAX APPEAL BOARD
STEVENB. AND THERESA W. LELAND v. STATE OF MONTANA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
14. The Department used a multiplicative land model expressed as Y = B x XAM,
where Y is the land value, B is the base value, X is the Subject Property's total
acreage, and M is the incremental rate. MTAB Hr 'g Tr. 34:17-24. Using a base
value of $472,827, a total land size of 11.625 acres, and an incremental rate of
0.49, the model produced an uninfluenced land value of $1,573,444. MTABHr'g
Tr. 35:8-18. The Department multiplied that amount by a 0.39 influence factor,
resulting in a land value of $613,643. MTAB Hr'g Tr. 37:5-10.
15. Mr. Parker testified that the land model was used to value all properties in the
Subject Property's market area. Ex. C; MTAB Hr'g Tr. 29:23-30:8. Department
Modeler Katelyn Thornton testified that the Department used the same
methodology to appraise all similarly situated taxpayers. MTABHr'g Tr. 66:23-
67:6.
16. Ms. Thomton testified that the Department evaluates its land models using
statistical checks such as the coefficient of dispersion (COD), coefficient of
variation (COV), and R-squared value. MTAB Hr'g Tr. 67:7-68:16. Ms. Thomton
testified that the land model has a COD of 6.86, a COV of 8.94, and an R-squared
value of 0.937, all of which are within accepted ranges and support the land
model's reliability. Id.
17. Ms. Thomton testified that the Department developed the land valuation influence
model using nine vetted or arm's length sales from Gallatin County whose access
deficiencies affected their sale prices. Ex. E; MTABHr'g Tr. 68:17-69:4. The
Department removed those sales from their original land models, placed them in
an influence-ten-iplate model, and calculated the ratio of each parcel's regressed
value to its market-adjusted sale price. Id. The model produced a mean influence
ratio of 37 percent, a median of 39 percent, and a standard deviation of 9 percent.
Ex. E; MTAB Hr'g Tr. 69:13-70:4. The Department selected the 39 percent
7

BEFORE THE MONTANA TAX APPEAL BOARD
STEVENB. AND THERESA W. LELAND v. STATE OF MONTANA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
median as the influence factor for the Gallatin County parcels with access issues.
Ex. E; MTAB Hr'g Tr. 69:15-70:4. Ms. Thornton testified that she used statistical
measurements, such as standard deviation, to measure the amount of variation
between variables. Ex. E; MTAB Hr'g Tr. 69:13-70:4. Additionally, Ms. Thomton
stated that the similarity between the mean and median indicated that no outliers
were skewing the influence model producing a reliable model. Id.
18. Ms. Thomton testified that the Department developed the influence land model
because the Subject Property has previously been valued using sales from as far
back as 1995 that no longer reflected the current market value. MTAB Hr'g Tr.
70:3-12.
19. The nine sales used to calculate the access influence model were located in rural
areas ofGallatin County, including Brackett Creek and Ponderosa Pines, rather
than Bozeman or the Bozeman 'donut' area. MTAB Hr'g Tr. 50:20-51:18. Mr.
Parker testified that access concerns may include seasonal limitations, easement
issues, no direct access to a public road, no known right-of-way, remoteness, and
other restrictions. MTABHr'g Tr. 37:21-38:3, 40:12-22, 42:1-9. Mr. Parker noted
that it is almost impossible to find sales with identical access limitations. MTAB
Hr'gTr. 37:21-38:3.
20. In the 2024 Land Valuation Influence Model, the Department did not distinguish
properties lacking legal access from properties with other types of access
limitations when developing the access influence. Ex. E; MTAB Hr'g Tr. 39:24-
40:22, 56:15-19. Mr. Parker could not determine how many of the nine sales in
the influence model lacked legal access and was unaware of any Department
methodology in Montana that separately values properties without easements.
A4TAB Hr'g Tr. 39:24-40:22, 56:15-19. Mr. Parker testified that the nine
properties could request access and were not necessarily barred from obtaining it,
8

BEFORE THE MONTANA TAX APPEAL BOARD
STEVENB. AND THERESA W. LELAND v. STATE OF MONTANA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
and also acknowledged a substantial difference between a property that cannot
obtain access and a property that potentially could. MTAB Hr 'g Tr. 55:9-23. Mr.
Parker testified that it is normal for properties with access issues to sell at
substantially lower prices than typical sales and attributed the low sales prices of
the properties in the influence model to access issues. MTAB Hr'g Tr. 39:13-21.
21. Mr. Parker testified that Department appraisers use sales verification forms, realty
transfer certificates, aerial imagery, multiple listing services, realtor.com
information, agent remarks, and, when available, conversations with agents or
taxpayers when verifying sales. MTAB Hr 'g Tr. 38:4-23, 39:3-12. Mr. Parker
testified that the Department first determines whether a sale is an arm's-length
transaction and, after making that determination, may investigate access
conditions and other circumstances relevant to valuation. MTAB Hr 'g Tr. 39:3-12.
Mr. Parker explained that each verification is unique, that the questions asked
depend on the property's circumstances, and that property owners sometimes do
not return the Department's calls. MTAB Hr'g Tr. 42:23-43:22.
JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW
22. 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 Taxpayers filed a timely appeal of the CTAB's decision to the
MTAB. Therefore, this Board maintains jurisdiction to hear and decide this matter.
Mont. Code Ann. § 15-2-301.
23. When reviewing a county tax appeal board decision under Mont. Code Ann. § 15-
2-301, MTAB acts as a quasi-appellate body with authority to supplement the
record and is limited to issues properly preserved for appellate review. 0 'Brien v.
Mont. Dep 't of Revenue, 2026 MT 132, ^ 72.
9

BEFORE THE MONTANA TAX APPEAL BOARD
STEVENB. AND THERESA W. LELAND v. STATE OF MONTANA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
24. 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
25. To whatever extent the following conclusions of law may be construed as findings
of fact, they are incorporated accordingly.
26. "All taxable property must be appraised at 100% of its market value..." Mont.
Code Ann. § 15-8-111.
27. "[1]n connection with any appeal under [Mont. Code Ann. § 15-2-301], the
Montana board is not bound by common law and statutory rules of evidence or
rules of discovery and may affirm, reverse, or modify any decision. To the extent
that this section is in conflict with the Montana Administrative Procedure Act, this
section supersedes that act." Mont. Code Ann. § 15-2-301(5).
28. 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 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).
29. 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.
30. '"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
10

BEFORE THE MONTANA TAX APPEAL BOARD
STEVENB. AND THERESA W. LELAND v. STATE OF MONTANA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
O'Neillv. 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).
31. The Legislature intended the Department to utilize a number of different
approaches or combinations 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 vsi{ue.Albrightv. State, 281 Mont. 196, 208-09, 933 P.2d 815, 823 (1997).
DISCUSSION
32. The Taxpayers contend that the Department's valuation does not adequately
account for the Subject Property's lack of legal access. The Taxpayers argue that
the absence of a recorded easement substantially limits the Subject Property's
marketability, restricts conventional financing, and effectively prevents residential
development. Therefore, the Taxpayers contend that the Subject Property should
be valued substantially below the amount determined by the Department.
33. The Department does not dispute that the Subject Property is landlocked and lacks
a recorded access easement. Rather, the Department maintains that its appraisal
already accounts for that impairment through the application of an access
influence adjustment developed from market data. The Board notes that the
Department's 39 percent access influence represents an influence factor, not a 39
percent reduction. Under the Department's model, the Subject Property's
uninfluenced land value was first calculated and then multiplied by the influence
factor, resulting in a land value of $613,643. Accordingly, the Department's
methodology reflects an overall reduction of approximately 61 percent from the
uninfluenced land value. According to the Department, the Subject Property
retains some value despite its access limitations, and the 39 percent influence
11

BEFORE THE MONTANA TAX APPEAL BOARD
STEVENB. AND THERESA W. LELAND v. STATE OF MONTANA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
factor derived from the Department's access influence model appropriately
reflects the market's reaction to the lack of legal access.
34. The Board finds Mr. Leland's testimony regarding the practical consequences of
the access issue to be credible. The evidence demonstrates that the Subject
Property lacks legal access, that vehicle access presently depends upon permission
from neighboring landowners, and that conventional mortgage financing may be
unavailable because of the absence of legal access. The Board also recognizes that
these conditions affect the Subject Property's marketability and development
potential. Although Mr. Leland credibly described the Subject Property's access
conditions, the Taxpayers did not quantify the impairment's effect on market value
and therefore did not satisfy their burden of demonstrating that the Department's
valuation was incorrect.
35. The Department valued the Subject Property using its residential land model and
then applied an access influence adjustment developed from nine Gallatin County
sales exhibiting access-related limitations. Ms. Thomton and Mr. Parker described
the statistical measures used to evaluate the reliability of the underlying model and
testified that the Department selected the median of the calculated influence ratios
as the influence factor. The Board finds that the Department presented competent
evidence explaining both the development of its land model and the methodology
used to calculate the access influence adjustment. That evidence establishes the
mechanics of the Department's methodology, although it does not eliminate the
comparability limitations discussed below.
36. The Board also recognizes limitations in the Department's access influence model.
Mr. Parker acknowledged that the model includes properties exhibiting a variety
of access concerns and that the Department does not distinguish between
properties lacking legal access and properties affected by other access limitations.
12

BEFORE THE MONTANA TAX APPEAL BOARD
STEVENB. AND THERESA W. LELAND v. STATE OF MONTANA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
Mr. Parker further testified that he could not determine how many of the sales
included in the model lacked legal access comparable to the Subject Property and
acknowledged that there is a substantial difference between purchasing property
that cannot obtain access and purchasing property that may obtain access in the
future. Mr. Barker's testimony supports the Taxpayers' contention that the Subject
Property presents a more severe legal impairment than other properties included
within the Department's generalized access model. Nevertheless, neither Mr.
Parker's testimony nor the remaining evidence establishes what additional market
adjustment, if any, is warranted for that difference. The Board considers the
model's shortfall to isolate parcels lacking legal access when weighing the
Department's evidence. Nevertheless, the Department's market-derived evidence
provides sufficient support on this record for the 39 percent influence factor,
which produces a 61 percent reduction from the uninfluenced land value, and the
remaining evidence does not quantify a different adjustment.
37. The Board also considered Mr. Leland's testimony, the First Security Bank letter,
and the U.S. Bank email submitted by the Taxpayers. Mr. Leland testified that the
two banks would not make a loan secured by the Subject Property because of its
access limitations. The correspondence supports the Taxpayers' contention that
property lacking legal access may not qualify as acceptable collateral for
conventional residential financing. This correspondence is relevant because
restricted financing may reduce the number of potential purchasers and adversely
affect marketability. However, neither communication evaluates the Subject
Property, offers an opinion of its market value, or quantifies the effect of the
access condition on the price a willing buyer would pay. The Board therefore
gives the correspondence weight as evidence of a marketability limitation, but not
as proof of a particular market value.
13

BEFORE THE MONTANA TAX APPEAL BOARD
STEVENB. AND THERESA W. LELAND v. STATE OF MONTANA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
38. Although Mr. Parker acknowledged limitations in the Department's access
influence model, those limitations do not establish that the Department's valuation
is inaccurate or provide a basis for determining an alternative market value. The
Department presented market-based evidence and explained how the 39 percent
influence factor was calculated from verified, arm's-length sales involving access
impairments. By comparison, the Taxpayers established that the Subject Property
has a more severe legal access impairment but did not present comparable sales,
an appraisal, or other market evidence quantifying the impairment's effect on
value. The Board therefore finds the Department's evidence more persuasive on
the ultimate question of market value. On the present record, the Board cannot
derive a different influence factor or market value without engaging in
speculation.
39. The Taxpayers alternatively argue that the Subject Property should be valued
similarly to grazing land because its residential utility is substantially impaired,
leaving grazing as its principal practical use. The Board is not persuaded. The
record contains no market evidence demonstrating that similarly situated
residential parcels are bought and sold according to agricultural or grazing values.
Furthermore, while the residential use may be impaired by access limitations, the
evidence before the Board still indicates that the primary use is residential as
shown by the presence of several improvements, one of which contains a
kitchenette and deck area. The residential use is not overcome by Barnard Land &
Livestock's lease allowing it to use the land for grazing.
40. The evidence demonstrates that the lack of legal access presents a genuine and
substantial impairment affecting the Subject Property. The Board also recognizes
that the Department's access influence model does not isolate properties sharing
that exact legal characteristic. However, the Taxpayers have the burden of
demonstrating that the Department erred in the valuation of the Subject Property.
14

BEFORE THE MONTANA TAX APPEAL BOARD
STEVENB. AND THERESA W. LELAND v. STATE OF MONTANA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
On this record, the Taxpayers established the existence of the impairment but did
not establish that the Department's valuation methodology produced an inaccurate
market value. Nor did the Taxpayers present sufficient market evidence
demonstrating that the Department's appraised value exceeds the Subject
Property's actual market value.
41. Although the Board acknowledges the Department's prior valuation method based
on neighboring sales, the Board agrees that those sales are old and they need to
value the property using current market sales. Ms. Thomton testified that sales
used in prior valuations dated back as far as 1995 and no longer reflected current
market value. By comparison, the Department's current influence model was
derived from nine verified, arm's-length sales involving access impainnents.
Although the model includes varying types of access limitations and does not
isolate properties lacking legal access, the Board finds the Department's current
market-derived evidence more persuasive than the older sales evidence. The
Taxpayers did not present current market evidence quantifying a different access
adjustment or demonstrating that the Department's appraised value exceeds the
Subject Property's market value. Accordingly, the Board concludes that the
Taxpayers have not met their burden of proof and affirms the valuation assigned
by the Department.
15

BEFORE THE MONTANA TAX APPEAL BOARD
STEVENB. AND THERESA W. LELAND v. STATE OF MONTANA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
ORDER
42. The Board denies the Taxpayers' appeal and affirms the determination of the
Gallatin County Tax Appeal Board.
Dated this 28th day of August 2026.
?^^ Q0
r~^1	T 	0	/<;
SEAL
^-J<c
9. ^
^	.%i 0 	/•
-^
Travis Brown, Chairman
AL f^^
Adam Millinoff, Member
Clmstoplier Murphy, ty^iber
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).
16

BEFORE THE MONTANA TAX APPEAL BOARD
STEVENB. AND THERESA W. LELAND v. STATE OF MONTANA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
Certificate of Service
I certiiy that I caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing Findings of Fact,
Conclusions ofLa-w, Order, and Opportunity for Judicial Review to be sent by email and
United States Mail via Print & Mail Services Bureau of the State of Montana on August
28, 2026, to:
Steven B. and Theresa W. Leland
528 North Bozeman Avenue
Bozeman, Montana 59715
Leland@montana.com
Dave Burleigh
State of Montana, Department of Revenue
Legal Services Office
P.O. Box 7701
Helena, Montana 59604-7701
david.burleigh(5),mt,5QY
Paula Gilbert
State of Montana, Department of Revenue
Property Assessment Division
P.O. Box 8017
Helena, Montana 59604-8018
Katie Fan"
Gallatin County Tax Appeal Board
311 West Main Street, Suite 304
Bozeman, Montana 59711
^
Madison Aml^ose Hall
Legal Administrative Assistant
17