Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tax Appeals Mtab Informal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill would let residential appellants waive district‑court appeal and opt for informal MTAB review
Summary
Senate Bill 302 would allow residential property owners appealing to the Montana Tax Appeal Board (MTAB) to waive the right to a district‑court appeal and instead receive a shorter, less formal MTAB hearing and written decision; supporters say this would reduce time and agency costs for small cases.
Senate Bill 302, introduced by Sen. Daniel Zolnikov, would allow residential property owners appealing a county tax assessment to the Montana Tax Appeal Board (MTAB) to elect an informal MTAB proceeding and waive their automatic right to appeal the MTAB decision to district court. The bill is limited to residential cases and would not change procedures for large or complex cases.
Zolnikov said his experience serving on MTAB highlighted administrative burden on both taxpayers and the Department of Revenue (DOR) when small appeals trigger full contested‑case records and court‑level procedures. “For a case that would have lowered the taxable value by $5, [the state] required dozens of hours of DOR lawyer time,” he told the committee, arguing the bill restores a shorter process used in earlier decades for low‑value residential disputes.
Travis Brown, chairman of MTAB, testified in support and said the bill would allow quicker reviews without the extensive discovery and record‑building that currently accompany many appeals. Robin Rude, deputy administrator with the DOR’s Property Assessment Division, described how appeals operated historically and confirmed that the current contested‑case process imposes heavy administrative burdens on both taxpayers and the department.
Committee members probed safeguards and asked whether the bill needs explicit rule‑making authority to define “informal” procedures. MTAB and DOR witnesses noted the Administrative Procedure Act (MAPA) contains provisions for informal hearings, and the sponsor said he would be open to an amendment adding rule‑making authority to clarify procedures.
Supporters emphasized the bill is narrow: it applies to residential property and will not change procedures for substantial commercial or complex valuation cases (refinery, large solar/wind projects, etc.), which would continue to receive the fuller contested‑case process and retain appeal rights. Supporters said allowing voluntary informal hearings would speed resolution of small appeals for taxpayers and reduce DOR litigation costs.
The committee closed the hearing on SB 302 after questions and discussion; no vote or amendment appears in the transcript.
