Request By:
Robert Lee Rose
Grant, Rose, Pumphrey & McCready
49 South Main Street
Winchester, Kentucky 40391
Opinion
Opinion By: Robert F. Stephens, Attorney General; By William S. Riley, Assistant Attorney General
In your recent letter to the Attorney General it is stated that you represent a company which is engaged in construction projects in counties other than that of its domicile. In the course of operations, the company will have several pieces of its equipment at different job sites. It is not unusual to have pieces of equipment located in one or more counties other than that of its domicile on January 1.
The company has always listed such property for assessment with the Property Valuation Administrator in the county of its domicile. The company has been receiving each year increasing demands from various counties within which certain of its property is located on January 1 to list such property at that location and receives tax bills from such counties.
The question is whether the equipment should be listed in the county where it is located other than the county of domicile for property assessment purposes on January 1 or should it be listed at the owner's domicile.
KRS 132.220(1) provides in part that it is the duty of all persons owning or having any interest in any property taxable in this state to list or have listed such property with the Property Valuation Administrator of the county wherein it is located between January 1 and March 1 in each year except as otherwise provided by law.
The case of Hill v. Caldwell, Ky., 119 S.W. 749 (1901) concerned the taxable situs of cattle which were temporarily pastured in a county other than the residence of the owner. The statute at that time provided that tangible personal property was to be listed and taxes paid thereon in the county, municipality or taxing district where the property had established a taxable situs. The court stated that the legislature apparently intended to change or modify the hard and fast rule, prevailing in the state that tangible personal property could be taxed only at the residence of the owner, no matter how permanently situated it might be elsewhere. It certainly did not mean that property which was temporarily in a county other than the residence of the owner was taxable there on the assessment day. The court held the cattle were not taxable in the county where they were temporarily pastured.
In Ashland Oil & Refining Company v. Department of Revenue, Ky., 256 S.W.2d 359 (1953) the question involved the taxable situs of boats and barges owned by Ashland Oil which passed through a number of Kentucky counties. The principal offices of Ashland Oil are in Boyd County where it had listed all of its boats and barges and paid taxes on the same for a number of years. The property of Ashland Oil had been taxed on a pro rata basis by the 27 counties through which the boats and barges passed. The court in holding that the location for the assessment of the boats and barges in question was Boyd County stated there was no statutory authorization for allocating tangible personal property of a resident taxpayer among several counties and taxing districts where the property had no permanent situs in the county other than the residence of the taxpayer.
Since the road equipment has only a temporary situs in a county other than the county of the owner's domicile, it would appear that the property should be listed in the owner's domiciliary county. It should be pointed out, however, as stated in OAG 64-511 that even though tangible personal property having merely a temporary location at a place other than the owner's domicile is not taxable at such place there is a presumption that such property in this state on the assessment date is subject to assessment at the place where located. The burden is upon the owner to present evidence to the assessing authorities that the property is located in the county on a temporary basis and that it has been, in fact, assessed and taxes paid at the place of domicile.