Kohl’s Dept. Stores, Inc. v. Rocky Hill

*********************************************** The “officially released” date that appears near the be- ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub- lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be- ginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the advance release version of an opinion and the latest version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publica- tions, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. *********************************************** KOHL’S DEPARTMENT STORES, INC. v. TOWN OF ROCKY HILL (AC 42021) DiPentima, C. J., and Moll and Bishop, Js. Syllabus The plaintiff, K Co., appealed to the Superior Court from an assessment by the Board of Assessment Appeals for the defendant town in connection with certain of K Co.’s personal property declarations. The trial court sustained K Co.’s appeal, finding that K Co. was aggrieved by the tax assessment. The court stated that pursuant to statute (§ 12-63 (b) (2)), the depreciation schedule set forth in § 12-63 (b) (6) can be used by an assessor only if the municipality has, by ordinance, adopted the provi- sions of that section, and that the defendant had not adopted any such ordinance. On appeal to this court, the defendant claimed that the court’s refusal to consider its assessor’s use of the statutory depreciation sched- ule in § 12-63 (b) (6) was incorrect and that this legal determination likely influenced the court’s finding of aggrievement and its ultimate determination of valuation. Held: 1. The use of the statutory depreciation schedule set forth in § 12-63 (b) (6) by the defendant’s assessor was legally correct; the legislature intended that the depreciation schedule set forth in § 12-63 (b) (6) was to be used by municipal assessors for purposes of standardization and uniformity, and, given the intent of the assessor in this matter to use the statutory depreciation schedule in order to achieve town wide consistency and uniformity in the valuation of business personal property, this court could not conclude that the assessor was legally barred from utilizing the statutory schedule. 2. The trial court’s misinterpretation of § 12-63 (b) (2) was harmful and influenced the outcome of the case; the court’s too narrow interpretation of § 12-63 (b) (2), foreclosed its consideration of the defendant’s evi- dence bearing on value solely because that evidence was based on …Original document