HOME    SEARCH    ABOUT US    CONTACT US    HELP   
           
Montana Administrative Register Notice 42-2-815 No. 4   02/25/2010    
Prev Next

BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

 

In the matter of the adoption of New Rule I (42.20.602); II (42.20.603); and III (42.20.604) and amendment of ARM 42.20.307, 42.20.601, 42.20.605, 42.20.606,42.20.610, 42.20.620, 42.20.625, 42.20.650, 42.20.655, 42.20.660, 42.20.665, 42.20.670, 42.20.675, and 42.20.680 relating to Agricultural Land Valuation

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

NOTICE OF ADOPTION AND AMENDMENT

 

TO:  All Concerned Persons

 

1.  On October 29, 2009, the department published MAR Notice No. 42-2-815 regarding the proposed adoption and amendment of the above-stated rules at page 1971 of the 2009 Montana Administrative Register, issue no. 20.

 

2.  A public hearing was held on November 23, 2009, to consider the proposed adoption and amendment.  Oral and written testimony received at, and subsequent to the hearing is summarized as follows along with the response of the department:

 

            COMMENT NO. 1:  Mr. Loren Hawks, Chester, Montana stated that he felt the new section in ARM 42.20.601 regarding "productive capacity value and productivity value" should be separated and not synonymous.  He stated that a productive capacity value infers the potential value of that land.  The potential value, as opposed to the productivity value infers that it's a set value that you know you can attain.  He stated that in future reappraisal cycles or even this one, in the first instance, if the language was left as the productive capacity value, a person would stand a better chance to contest the productivity values assigned to the land.  He stated that he thought it would help the taxpayer (landowner) in the long run if that language was left as productive capacity value, if it came to the sense of trying to adjust your productivity value that has been assigned to the land.

 

RESPONSE NO. 1:  The department is not changing the standard for "productive capacity value" and "productivity value."  It is attempting to ensure that no confusion exists when those terms are used. 

The law doesn't establish "productive capacity value" as a potential value; the law grounds it in the average practice to attain productive capacity.

This becomes clear when you review the various statutes:

            Section 15-7-201(7), MCA states "The governor shall appoint an advisory committee of persons knowledgeable in agriculture and agricultural economics.  The advisory committee shall include one member of the Montana state university-Bozeman, college of agriculture, staff. The advisory committee shall:

(e)  verify for each class of land that the income determined in subsection (5) reasonably approximates that which the average Montana farmer or rancher (emphasis added) could have attained; . . ."

Section 15-7-201(4), MCA states that "the department of revenue shall determine the productive capacity value of all agricultural lands using the formula V = I/R where"; the language in statute continues to provide a description of sources of information and the determination of the productive capacity value.

Section 15-7-103(2), MCA, makes specific mention of the term "productive capacity" when discussing the departments appraisal practice regarding agricultural lands.  In our discussions with landowners and staff the terms productive capacity and productivity are often intermixed and the proposed rule is an attempt to ensure that no confusion exists when those terms are used. 

The department is not changing the standard not affecting "productive capacity" (legal term), while still preserving the taxpayer's understanding of the common term "productive value".  In addition, other administrative rules provide description and reference to have the productivity of the land reflect "average management practices" under any specified use, to further reduce the concern about calculating a "potential" productivity value.

 

            COMMENT NO. 2:  Ms. Mary Whittinghill, President, Montana Taxpayers Association (MonTax), thanked the department for spelling out the definition of "productive capacity value and productivity value" as clearly as they did. She stated that she had some questions generally about the rules themselves and the timing, and also the recent discussions or concerns that she had heard from some of the MonTax members on potential changes that are occurring.  In that regard, she asked if the particular information contained in the rule language being considered today was provided with the assessment notices, since this was used to determine the 2009 values.

            Ms. Whittinghill explained that there has been a lot of confusion because people didn't have the final bushel values for the productive capability of the land and some of the formulas.  She stated that she understands the department's desire to get these rules adopted now, but, she was just wondering if the rules are out there already, because this is the method that was utilized to assign these values to those acreages. 

            Ms. Whittinghill stated that there seems to be a tremendous amount of questions that are coming after the fact, and considering the department went to so much trouble providing the maps to the landowners, it would have been good to have gotten the information on how the values would be performed to them a little earlier too.

            Ms. Whittinghill further stated that she has heard questions in regards to recent changes occurring in some of the determinations of the productive capacity of the land in terms of grazing.  She asked if some of the spring wheat calculations will need to be reflected in the rules.

            Ms. Whittinghill requested that as the department finalizes what is happening, takes steps to provide the information to the landowners in writing.  She also asked if an adjustment is made that would apply to everyone in an area of a county, would the department change everybody in that county, even if an AB26 is not filed by each landowner?

            Ms. Whittinghill stated she would like to be on record as thanking the department staff throughout the state for going through this large process and it was quite an incredible thing.  She stated that they are to be commended for the time the department staff took to try to reach the thousands of taxpayers with these questions and perhaps these rules in time will help clear up some of the questions taxpayers have at this time.

 

            RESPONSE NO. 2:  The department undertook several means to keep taxpayers informed and involved in the process on valuing agricultural properties.  The department began discussing the agricultural reappraisal in 2005 with the Revenue and Transportation Interim Committee.  Those discussions included various changes the 2009 agricultural land reappraisal would encompass.  Meetings with the Governor's Agricultural Advisory Committee began in 2006, where the department was provided recommendations for the reappraisal of agricultural lands.  Once the department received and accepted the recommendations, the department began meeting with various agricultural groups and attending conventions between 2006 and 2008.  The department staff also attended agricultural trade shows in 2007 to provide information on the agricultural reappraisal.

            Prior to sending the maps to agricultural producers, the department held various focus groups across the state to gather more information on the map mailing process.  The changes and recommendations from all groups were considered as the department progressed through the reappraisal efforts.  This culminated in early 2009 as the maps and instructions were sent to all agricultural property owners.  The letter to the producers explained that their land would be valued based on the productivity of the land.  The producers were invited to discuss any productivity issues or questions with staff at that time.  Additionally, in the course of the department's field work, and map reviews last winter, staff members spoke to individuals and explained the steps that were taken and how the department intended to determine the value. 

            The department's concern at this early stage was to ensure the accuracy of field delineations and yield levels.  Thus, the department did not include dollar valuation information during the review processes.  References were made to the use of the statutory valuation formula.  The department provided the dollar value information when asked for it and instructed staff on the use of the valuation formulas so the potential valuation information could be provided should someone ask.

            The statutes require the department to send an assessment notice to notify a taxpayer of the values associated with their property.  The assessment notice does not provide a description of formulas to determine value for any type of property.  If the assessment were to provide this type of information for every property type: commercial, residential, agricultural, forest lands, personal property, industrial property, the challenge would be cost prohibitive, would complicate the assessment notice, and would cause additional taxpayer confusion. 

            For these reasons, the department invites taxpayers through the assessment notice to come to the local offices to discuss any questions they have on their valuation.

            The language contained in ARM 42.20.665 may cover the question of spring wheat calculations. 

            Under Montana Code Annotated, as well as the Montana Supreme Court's interpretation of that code, in the case entitled Department of Revenue v. State Tax Appeal Board (1980), states that these types of issues can only be properly handled on a case-by-case basis through the appeal process established by law, as the decision expressly prohibits global or sweeping valuation adjustments.  Based on the court's analysis in that case, the department has determined to address any productivity concerns through the AB-26 and appeals process.

            An individual who has timely filed an AB-26 or County Tax Appeal Board (CTAB) appeal will be allowed to present evidence that the actual productive capacity of their property is less than that established by the department.  The evidence presented by the taxpayer will be considered and adjustments will be made if the evidence indicates that such adjustment is necessary.

            Changes in productivity for 2009 will only be considered in those cases in which an AB-26 or CTAB appeal has been timely filed for 2009.  However, the department will also consider making similar adjustments for tax year 2010, if a taxpayer who missed the 2009 appeal deadline timely files an AB-26 request between January 1, 2010, and the first Monday in June 2010.  Productivity issues raised after the first Monday in June 2010 deadline cannot be considered by the department.

 

            COMMENT NO. 3:  Mr. Hawks asked how the phase-in process will take place under the Montana code and administrative rule process.

            Mr. Hawks asked where in Montana law or administrative rule, does it give the Department of Revenue the authority to do a phase in.  He stated that he could not find that authority in the Montana code or administrative rules. 

            Mr. Hawks referred to the AG Land Valuation Advisory Committee and part of their executive summary, which says agricultural taxpayers who see an increase in land valuation will have those increased values phased-in incrementally over the six- year reappraisal cycle.  In other areas of this report it refers to 15-7-111, MCA, to do a periodic revaluation of certain taxable property.  Section (3) of 15-7-111, MCA, states that "the revaluation of class three, four, and ten property is complete on December 31st 2008.  The amount of the change in valuation from the 2002 base year for each property in those classes must be phased in each year at the rate of 16.66% of the change in valuation."  That valuation process is shown in administrative rule 42.20.503 and it talks to just that, that it is phasing in the total difference over six years.  So, where in the law or administrative rule does the department get the authority to do this?

            Mr. Hawks further stated that information is information that the public is not aware of.  The only reason that I was able to find it, is by doing the math on my assessment notices and ultimately from my market value to my taxable value and seeing that phase in process referred to in law was not being used.  Only then, when I went to my local appraiser, assessor's office, were they able to tell me somewhat how this process that advisory committee came up with worked by going back and applying it to the last reappraisal process.  It goes back to getting the information out to the public sooner.  Especially being this close to when a week from today the property taxes are due.

            Mr. Hawks also mentioned that in the reasonable necessity for ARM 42.20.660 it states the language regarding the phase in of values is included to provide knowledge and assurance, underline assurance, to landowners that the phase in provisions of Montana law are also applied to agricultural land.  He said that he would like to go on record to say that he doesn't believe that is being done.

 

            RESPONSE NO. 3:  Section 15-7-111, MCA gives the department the responsibility of overseeing and implementing reappraisal activities.  That law further states in (2) that "the department shall value and phase in (emphasis added) the value of newly constructed, remodeled, or reclassified property in a manner consistent with the valuation within the same class and the values established pursuant to subsection (1)", and directs the department to adopt rules for determining the assessed valuation and phased-in value of new, remodeled, or reclassified property within the same class. 

            The department's existing rules set forth how this phase in will be accomplished by specifying the manner in which a value before reappraisal (VBR) is calculated. ARM 42.20.502.  The department has implemented this phase in consistent with these rules with a minor exception noted below related to productivity changes only on agricultural lands.

Administrative rule 42.20.502(2) for the 2003 reappraisal cycle states that the current year VBR for reclassified agricultural land is the prior year VBR of the new classification or land use change.  The rule requires that the department ascertain the prior year VBR of the land as if the land had been classified in the prior reappraisal cycle in the same class of land as it is for this reappraisal cycle.  The difference between the new reappraisal value and the prior year VBR for the land determines the amount of value that is to be phased in over the 6-year period. To effect this rule the department has determined a VBR for each parcel of agricultural land that was reclassified under the current reappraisal cycle.

The rule related to the reclassification of agricultural land is consistent with ARM 42.20.502(5), in which the VBR of land that has been reclassified as residential or commercial property will be determined by comparing other 2002 market values of similar residential or commercial land and determining a comparable VBR for the new residential or commercial land.  Likewise, in the case of class four property that contains new construction, the current year VBR is determined by dividing the reappraisal value by one plus the percent of neighborhood group change (ARM 42.20.502(4)).

Administrative rule 40.20.502(3) specifies that the new reappraisal value of agricultural land that experienced changes in productivity (only) is to be phased in based on the prior year VBR of the prior grade.  The department did not initially implement this portion of the rule correctly.  The department has determined that it will change the VBR and phase in calculation for agricultural producers who timely requested an informal review of their productivity values arising from a change in productivity only.  For agricultural producers who did not timely request a review, the department will make the adjustment beginning in tax year 2010.  The adjustment will include a phase in amount for both tax year 2009 and tax year 2010.  The department is in the process of adding language to the 2010 assessment notice to clarify this process for taxpayers. Accordingly, the department is in compliance with the existing statutes and rules with a minor exception that the department has determined to correct.

 

            COMMENT NO. 4:  Mr. Cory Swanson, Attorney, Helena, Montana asked for a clarification regarding the valuation of denied access land.  He asked if it is correct that the department would assign the highest productivity value of the land, the highest productivity of land around it if the department did not have the ability to do an NRCS sample.  Then later, if that sample is provided by the landowner, the productivity value would go down to the average of all the land around it.

            Mr. Swanson stated that it seems like there are a lot of legal issues that could come with that approach.  First of all let's say after the sample is completed the productivity value decreases on that land from the average to the actual, is there any mechanism for revenue rebates to the landowner if let's say it was a year or two before the department would retroactively apply the proper tax rate going back in time.  The matter would involve both state and local taxing entities.

            Mr. Swanson further stated that  it seems arbitrary to do that and it's done obviously to put leverage on the landowners to make them give the state access to their land and I don't believe there's a statutory requirement that landowners are required to do that or a constitutional requirement.  By placing the highest value rather than the average value of surrounding land, if I were a devil's advocate representing the landowner, I would argue that is arbitrary as a way to help coerce landowners into letting the state have access onto their land.  I don't believe there is a statutory duty for landowners to have to do that.  So the result is they are being financially punished for failing to do something that they're not required to do, i.e. let the state have access onto their land to take samples.  He suggested taking the situation a step further, the landowner who is concerned about some kind of federal endangered species act invasion on his land, the landowner certainly has a right to not allow state NRCS or taxing entities to come on, and certainly if he hasn't done anything to violate the law he has no obligation to allow them onto his land.  He stated that this clearly appears to be a leverage mechanism on landowners.

 

            RESPONSE NO. 4:  Denied access (DA) land designations are included in the National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) soil survey. In circumstances where the NRCS was not allowed to conduct their soil survey work, they assigned the DA designation.  When the DA designation is encountered in the department's efforts to determine productivity under a particular use, the department uses the highest productivity determination from the surrounding lands with a completed soil survey.  The department uses GIS technologies buffering routine to review all soils with productivity information within a mile of the DA designation.  If there are enough samples of productivity information within that one-mile area, the department assigns the highest productivity from within that buffered area to the DA soils.  If there are not enough samples within one mile of the DA designation, the buffer routine is expanded to five miles, and then twenty miles, if need be to determine what the highest productivity is.  The need for expansion of the buffering routine reflects the need to identify sufficient acres of lands with the same agricultural use and to determine a representative sample of productivity under that same agricultural use.

            There can be legitimate concerns about NRCSs access to a taxpayer's property.  In such cases where NRCS was denied access the taxpayer has the opportunity to present data to the department, which the department staff will then take into consideration.  It is good administrative practice, and sound appraisal practice, to ensure that the appraisers are allowed to complete their job, along with statutes that do allow for the department to estimate property, if the appraiser cannot gather the appropriate information.  A taxpayer should not benefit by not providing the department with the information that is needed to complete the valuation that is statutorily required.

            When the landowner provides the department with a letter from the NRCS indicating that the landowner will allow the NRCS to conduct a soil survey, then the department immediately changes the productivity of the land to the average productivity within that same area.  After the NRCS conducts their soil survey, the department will change the land to the actual productivity from the soil survey.  It may take the NRCS some time to conduct the soil survey on the property, they may not get out there next summer, it may be the summer after or even later.  The department can't make the change to the actual productivity until the NRCS has completed their work. 

From what the department has seen and heard from landowners, they understand the time required to reduce productivity from highest to average; knowing that it will ultimately change once the soil survey is conducted.  Most of the landowners that have denied access lands weren't even aware their land had that classification.  It usually happened prior to their acquisition of the land and, until now, when advised by the department, had no knowledge of that designation. 

If a taxpayer has appealed the value of the taxpayer's property and has paid the taxes assessed on the property, Montana law provides a mechanism through which a taxpayer may obtain a refund of overpaid taxes.  A refund in these cases may become available if the value of the property is reduced as a result of the statutorily established appeals process.

Section 15-7-103, MCA requires the department to develop a general and uniform method of classifying lands in the state for the purpose of securing an equitable and uniform basis of assessment of lands for taxation purposes; a general and uniform method of appraising timberlands.

The law further states that all lands must be classified according to their use or uses and graded within each class according to soil and productive capacity.  In the classification work, use must be made of soil surveys and maps and all other pertinent available information.

Additionally, the law requires all lands must be classified by parcels or subdivisions not exceeding one section each, by the sections, fractional sections, or lots of all tracts of land that have been sectionized by the United States government, or by metes and bounds, whichever yields a true description of the land.

Finally, all agricultural lands must be classified and appraised as agricultural lands without regard to the best and highest value use of adjacent or neighboring lands.

 

COMMENT NO. 5:  Ms. Patty Lovaas, Missoula, Montana stated that the rule proposals are an attempt to provide some legal authority for the manipulation of values and limit mitigation rights following the legislative session ex post facto (retroactively).  A "Rule" is designed to implement or interpret prescribed law, not create it.  Committees do not have the legislative authority to adopt "Rules" which in essence increase property taxes without full enabling legislation.

 

RESPONSE NO. 5:  The amendment of these rules has nothing to do with retroactive applicability of an enacted statute.  This rule action is in compliance with the requirements of the Montana Administrative Procedure Act.

 

COMMENT NO. 6:  Mr. Jim Hagenbarth, Hagenbarth Livestock, Dillon, Montana provided written comments concerning the definition of an animal unit.  He stated that the definition is ambiguous and does not fit the parameters of today's production model very well.  Today's cow size is probably a third larger than 1,000 pounds and a calf could weigh up to 500 pounds.  The instructions given on the reappraisal defined an animal unit as a 1,000 pound unit or a cow with a calf.  There is a considerable difference between production units used to harvest forage off of grazing lands.  They can vary between a 500 pound weaned calf to a cow/calf pair weighing 1,800 pounds plus.  It would be more accurate and simpler to define an animal unit as a 1,000 pound grazing unit.  One could then match the production unit used with a figure that accurately represents the relationship of the production unit to a 1,000 pound taxable or grazing unit.

 

RESPONSE NO. 6:  The Legislature requires the department to use a 1,000 pound animal unit, as defined in 15-7-201(5)(c),MCA.  That statute states in part that "the base unit for valuation of grazing lands is animal unit months (AUM), defined as the average monthly requirement of pasture forage to support a 1,000-pound cow with a calf or its equivalent."  Therefore, to change the definition of an animal unit would require legislative action and cannot be adjusted through the administrative rule process.

 

COMMENT NO. 7:  Mr. Hagenbarth also stated that it is common practice to graze irrigated land.  There is no land classification for this use.  In the current system one has to covert the forage harvested in AUMS to tons of hay.  It would be much simpler and more appropriate to have a grazing land category that would include irrigated land that was used solely for grazing purposes.

 

RESPONSE NO. 7:  The department agrees with Mr. Hagenbarth's assessment.  Irrigated land that is primarily grazed deserves further study and evaluation leading up to the next appraisal cycle.  The current categories were set and adopted by the Governor's Agricultural Land Advisory Council, given that this cycle has been completed, it would not be practical or appropriate to add an additional category at this time.  It would be beneficial to have the next Agricultural Land Advisory Committee take this recommendation under advisement and provide direction to the department to address this issue prior to the next reappraisal cycle.

 

COMMENT NO. 8:  Jake Cummins, Jr., Executive Vice President, Montana Farm Bureau Federation provided comments regarding New Rule II stating that they think the "average level of productivity" should be used, not the "highest".  NRCS soil surveys were originally used for the Food Security Act.  All producers had the option to not have soil data collected.  They should still have the option and be subject to the average level of productivity around them.  Requiring the soil data goes beyond the scope of information the Montana Department of Revenue should be able to require.

 

RESPONSE NO. 8:  The department's response to comment 4 is similar to Mr. Cummins' comment.  The department has a statutory responsibility to utilize the soil information and the productivity capacity in the valuation of agricultural lands.

This is the first time in 46 years, that the department conducted a comprehensive reclassification and revaluation of agricultural lands.  The department used the best information and science available to determine land use and productivity.  Most importantly, this reappraisal used a rational and uniform methodology and replaced valuation practices lacking in any uniform rhyme or reason.  In addition, the department regularly called upon farmers and ranchers during the process to review their own land information and provide input as part of this process.  Indeed, given the scope of the changes undertaken for these properties, agricultural producers had two opportunities to provide input to the department as opposed to the one provided to all other taxpayers.

 

COMMENT NO. 9: Mr. Cummins also commented on New Rule III stating that it was a good start.  However, under (a), (b), and (c) there should be wording added to encompass additional lands that are not harvested/grazed.  These acreages should reflect a zero base productivity per acre.  Agricultural lands are sometimes not used during droughts; and thus are not reflected in the gathering of data for Montana agricultural statistic surveys because they do not generally ask questions regarding nonharvested/grazed acres.  Thus in these years, an over estimation of production is created.

 

RESPONSE NO. 9:  Mr. Cummins' issue is similar in nature to Mr. Hagenbarth's comment no. 7.  The Legislature reviewed the agricultural use in 2005 and to date has not identified a category that is not harvested/grazed or considered as waste land or no value land.  The assumption is that all land has productivity of some type.  The department has a statutory obligation to classify lands into one of the existing five agricultural land use classes and determine productivity associated with the particular land use.

 

3.  As a result of the comments received the department adopts New Rule II (42.20.603) with the following changes:

 

            NEW RULE II (42.20.603)  STEPS NECESSARY TO VALUE AGRICULTURAL LAND THAT DOES NOT HAVE A PUBLISHED SOIL SURVEY  (1)  Denied access (DA) lands do not currently have any agricultural use productivity information associated with them from a published soil survey.

           (a)  When denied access lands are encountered in the department's efforts to assign a productivity to an agricultural use, the department will use Geographic Information System (GIS) technology to determine the highest level of productivity in the same agricultural use from the surrounding soils within one mile of the DA land and will assign the highest level of productivity to the denied access lands.

           (b)  Where an inadequate number of acres within the same use class with productivity information are not identified in the one-mile buffer routine, the buffer routine is expanded to include all acres with the same use and productivity information within five miles of the DA property.  On occasion the buffer routine is expanded to 20 miles to ensure that an adequate number of acres with soils productivity information and in the same use are identified.

           (b)(c)  When the owner of the land makes arrangements with the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) and provides written proof to the department that an arrangement has been made to have a soil survey conducted on their lands, the department will use GIS technology to determine the average level of productivity in the same agricultural use from the surrounding soils within one mile of the denied access land and will assign the average level of productivity to the denied access lands.

            (c)(d)  Upon completion of the soil survey by the NRCS the department will apply the productivity of the soil to the agricultural use as indicated in the published soil survey.

            (d)(e)  When the department receives the information in (b) or (c) above within 30 days of receipt of the assessment or the 1st Monday in June, the department will make the adjustments for the current tax year.  If the information is received after that date, it will be adjusted for the following tax year.

            (2)  Not completed (NOTCOM) lands do not have any agricultural use productivity information associated with them from a published soil survey.

            (a)  When NOTCOM lands are encountered in the department's efforts to assign a productivity to an agricultural use, the department will use GIS technology to determine the average level of productivity in the same agricultural use from the surrounding soils within one mile of the NOTCOM land and will assign the average level of productivity to the NOTCOM lands.

            (b)  Where an inadequate number of acres within the same use class with productivity information are not identified in the one-mile buffer routine, the buffer routine is expanded to include all acres with the same use and productivity information within five miles of the NOTCOM property.  On occasion the buffer routine is expanded to 20 miles to ensure that an adequate number of acres with soils productivity information and in the same use are identified.

            (b)(c)  Upon completion and publication of the soil survey by the NRCS the department will apply the productivity of the soil to the agricultural use as indicated by the published soil survey.

 

AUTH:  15-7-111, MCA

IMP:  15-7-201, 15-7-202, 15-7-208, MCA

  

4.  Therefore, the department adopts New Rule II (42.20.603) with the amendments listed above and New Rule I (42.20.602) and III (42.20.604) and amends ARM 42.20.307, 42.20.601, 42.20.605, 42.20.606, 42.20.610, 42.20.620, 42.20.625, 42.20.650, 42.20.655, 42.20.660, 42.20.665, 42.20.670, 42.20.675, and 42.20.680 as proposed. 

 

5.  An electronic copy of this Adoption Notice is available through the department's site on the World Wide Web at www.mt.gov/revenue, under "for your reference"; "DOR administrative rules"; and "upcoming events and proposed rule changes."  The department strives to make the electronic copy of this Adoption Notice conform to the official version of the Notice, as printed in the Montana Administrative Register, but advises all concerned persons that in the event of a discrepancy between the official printed text of the Notice and the electronic version of the Notice, only the official printed text will be considered.  In addition, although the department strives to keep its web site accessible at all times, concerned persons should be aware that the web site may be unavailable during some periods, due to system maintenance or technical problems.

 

 

/s/ Cleo Anderson                                         /s/ Dan R. Bucks

CLEO ANDERSON                                      DAN R. BUCKS

Rule Reviewer                                               Director of Revenue

 

Certified to Secretary of State February 16, 2010

 

Home  |   Search  |   About Us  |   Contact Us  |   Help  |   Disclaimer  |   Privacy & Security