RULES FOR VALUING PROPERTY

K.S.A. ch. 79, art. 5

in effect

K.S.A. 79-501 Appraisal of real and tangible personal property at fair market value in money; exceptions; rate of assessment.

79-501. Appraisal of real and tangible personal property at fair market value in money; exceptions; rate of assessment. Each parcel of real property shall be appraised at its fair market value in money, the value thereof to be determined by the appraiser from actual view and inspection of the property. The price at which such real property would sell at forced sale may be taken as a criterion of such fair market value in money in the market place of such sale if the appraiser believes such price to be a reasonable factor in arriving at fair market value. The price at which real property would sell at auction may be taken as the criterion of fair market value in money if the appraiser determines such sale to be an arms-length transaction between a willing buyer and seller. In addition, land devoted to agricultural use shall be valued as provided by K.S.A. 79-1476 , and amendments thereto. Tangible personal property shall be appraised at its fair market value in money except as provided by K.S.A. 79-1439 , and amendments thereto. All such real and tangible personal property shall be assessed at the rate prescribed by K.S.A. 79-1439 , and amendments thereto. L. 1876, ch. 34, § 15; R.S. 1923, 79-501; L. 1963, ch. 460, § 3; L. 1969, ch. 433, § 2; L. 1988, ch. 375, § 6; L. 1989, ch. 2, § 9 (Special Session); December 14. Source or prior law: L. 1862, ch. 198, § 3; L. 1866, ch. 118, § 12; G.S. 1868, ch. 107, § 15. Cross References to Related Sections: Valuation and assessment of real property, see also, 79-411. Law Review and Bar Journal References: Discussing uniform and equal assessment in survey of law of taxation, Leslie T. Tupy, 12 K.L.R. 333, 341 (1963). "Kansas Ad Valorem Property Tax Relief—A Current Review," Bruce F. Landeck, 49 J.K.B.A. 269, 270 (1980). Attorney General's Opinions: Factors for determining fair market value of property. 80-82. Rules for valuing property; duty to view and inspect real property. 82-7. Powers and duties of county appraisers; removal from office. 82-270. Oil and gas property as personalty; property held by federal land bank exempt from taxation. 86-16. Classification of property; constitutionality. 90-10. Valuation of property in year following reduction on appeal; effect of K.S.A. 79-1460. 95-71. Valuation of real property; change in value without physical inspection. 96-81. CASE ANNOTATIONS 1. Method of valuation of personal property for assessment and taxation. Standfield v. Boyd, 10 Kan. App. 265, 272, 62 P. 721. 2. Effect of illegal agreement among assessors as to valuations. Adams v. Beman, Treasurer, 10 Kan. 37; Challis v. Rigg, 49 Kan. 119, 130, 30 P. 190. 3. Cases of Adams v. Beman and Challis v. Riggs, distinguished. C. B. & Q. Rld. Co. v. Comm'rs of Atchison Co., 54 Kan. 781, 787, 39 P. 1039. 4. Improper valuation; collection of illegal excess restrained by injunction. C. B. & Q. Rld. Co. v. Comm'rs of Atchison Co., 54 Kan. 781, 787, 39 P. 1039. 5. Rule for valuing capital stock of corporation considered. Gas Co. v. Spaeth, 83 Kan. 191, 195, 109 P. 785. 6. Assessor competent to testify to value of real property. Hamilton v. Railway Co., 95 Kan. 353, 355, 148 P. 648. 7. Life annuity contract not taxable or subject to valuation under this action. Wellman v. Jewell County Comm'rs, 122 Kan. 229, 232, 252 P. 193. 8. Cited in upholding validity of assessment of real property. Reber v. Neibling, 138 Kan. 331, 335, 26 P.2d 269. 9. Court cannot fix valuation; can only determine whether valuation arbitrarily or unreasonably made. Hanzlick v. Republic County Comm'rs, 159 Kan. 667, 88 P.2d 1111. 10. Valuation of real property not determined only by its net return. Miller Investment Co. v. Sedgwick County Comm'rs, 151 Kan. 246, 249, 98 P.2d 109. 11. Section mentioned; method of valuing surface when minerals separated held illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory. Hitch Land & Cattle Co. v. Board of County Commissioners, 179 Kan. 357, 361, 364, 295 P.2d 640. 12. Action to enjoin collection of taxes; constructive fraud; petition sufficient. Anderson v. Dunn, 180 Kan. 811, 814, 308 P.2d 154. 13. Petition to recover protested taxes sufficiently alleged fraud in making unequal assessments. Kansas City Southern Rly. Co. v. Board of County Comm'rs, 183 Kan. 675, 677, 679, 331 P.2d 899. 14. Where state board of equalization approves assessment it is essential party to action to enjoin tax collection. Builders, Inc. v. Board of County Commissioners, 191 Kan. 379, 381, 381 P.2d 527. 15. Taxpayer's property assessed at 30 percent of value, other property in county at 12 percent; assessment fraudulent and invalid. Addington v. Board of County Commissioners, 191 Kan. 528, 530, 382 P.2d 315. 16. Validity of assessment at less than true value discussed. Pleasant v. Missouri, Kansas, Texas R. Co., 66 F.2d 842, 846. 17. Purpose of act; fair and equitable value of property for taxation. Board of County Commissioners v. Brookover, 198 Kan. 70, 71, 77, 422 P.2d 906. 18. Assessment and valuation of property are administrative in character; absent evidence that assessment was arrived at fraudulently, arbitrarily or capriciously, a difference of opinion as to value doesn't warrant judicial interference. Cities Service Oil Co. v. Murphy, 202 Kan. 282, 285, 291, 293, 447 P.2d 791. 19. Assessment of personal property at 30% of justifiable value and real property at 21% in the same county is grossly discriminatory. Burton v. Jones, 202 Kan. 435, 439, 449 P.2d 551. 20. Assessment schedules of property valuation director failed to consider factors prescribed by K.S.A. 79-503; invalid. Garvey Grain, Inc. v. MacDonald, 203 Kan. 1, 4, 9, 10, 453 P.2d 59. 21. Cited in holding that assessment of oil and gas properties at statutory rate, while real estate was knowingly assessed by the same officials at fourteen percent, was so grossly discriminatory and oppressive as to constitute constructive fraud. Beardmore v. Ling, 203 Kan. 803, 805, 457 P.2d 117. 22. Cited in consideration of scope of review as to assessment of property taxes. McManaman v. Board of County Commissioners, 205 Kan. 118, 123, 124, 468 P.2d 243. 23. Cited in determining if valuation was unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious. Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co. v. Dwyer, 207 Kan. 417, 420, 421, 485 P.2d 149. Affirmed: 208 Kan. 304, 491 P.2d 961. 24. Valuation order of state board of tax appeals is administrative matter and is final, absent showing order is arbitrary, unreasonable or fraudulent. Northern Natural Gas Co. v. Dwyer, 208 Kan. 337, 355, 492 P.2d 147. 25. Valuation of interstate gas pipeline and distribution property considered. Northern Natural Gas Co. v. Dwyer, 208 Kan. 337, 355, 492 P.2d 147. 26. Ratio study reflects relationship of assessed value to sale price, not assessed value to justifiable value for tax purposes and fails to establish discrimination in valuation. Northern Natural Gas Co. v. Williams, 208 Kan. 407, 414, 419, 423, 493 P.2d 568. 27. Provisions reviewed; assessment and valuation of public utility property under K.S.A. 79-5a04 by tax appeals board approved. Mobil Pipeline Co. v. Rohmiller, 214 Kan. 905, 925, 522 P.2d 923. 28. Actual view and inspection requirement hereunder met by county appraiser. Defenders of the Christian Faith, Inc. v. Sedgwick County Assessor, 227 Kan. 97, 100, 605 P.2d 122. 29. Statute cited; provisions of K.S.A. 79-342 declared unconstitutional as violative of article 11, sec. 1 of Kansas Constitution. State ex rel. Stephan v. Martin, 227 Kan. 456, 458, 608 P.2d 880. 30. Assessment and taxation of common areas in planned unit development not double taxation to individual lot owner; such areas not without fair market value. Quivira Falls Community Ass'n v. Johnson County, 230 Kan. 350, 354, 357, 634 P.2d 1115 (1981). 31. Considered in denying petition of attorney general for writ of quo warranto to prevent utilization of K.S.A. 79-331 and challenging constitutionality thereof. State ex rel. Stephan v. Martin, 230 Kan. 747, 754, 641 P.2d 1011 (1982). 32. Considered in holding K.S.A. 79-343, relating to assessment of farm machinery and equipment, unconstitutional and void; quo warranto granted. State ex rel. Stephan v. Martin, 230 Kan. 759, 767, 777, 641 P.2d 1020 (1982). 33. Cited in holding that valuation of land was arbitrary and discriminatory. Board of Johnson County Comm'rs v. Greenhaw, 241 Kan. 119, 124, 734 P.2d 1125 (1987). 34. Cited; allegations regarding illegal or void valuations or assessments of real property prohibited before exhausting administrative remedies examined. Board of Osage County Comm'rs v. Schmidt, 12 Kan. App. 2d 812, 813, 758 P.2d 254 (1988). 35. Methods of valuation of real property for tax purposes that meet uniform and equal basis requirements examined. In re Tax Appeal of Andrews, 18 Kan. App. 2d 311, 316, 851 P.2d 1027 (1993). 36. Whether BOTA failed to determine highest and best use for parimutuel track examined. Sunflower Racing, Inc. v. Board of Wyandotte County Comm'rs, 256 Kan. 426, 444, 885 P.2d 1233 (1994). 37. Whether developer's discount method of property valuation violated statutory tax scheme examined. Hixon v. Lario Enterprises, Inc., 19 Kan. App. 2d 643, 646, 653, 875 P.2d 297 (1994); aff'd, as modified, 257 Kan. 377, 381, 383, 892 P.2d 507 (1995). 38. Valuation of real property used for residential purposes. Board of Douglas County Comm'rs v. Cashatt, 23 Kan. App. 2d 532, 540, 541, 543, 933 P.2d 167 (1997). 39. Property valuation division use of post valuation data from next tax year quarter for personal property assessment held invalid. Board of Ness County Comm'rs v. Bankoff Oil Co., 24 Kan. App. 2d 532, 539, 949 P.2d 628 (1997). 40. Oil lease experiencing production decline late in year previous to assessment properly valued by consideration of post-January production data. Board of Ness County Commr's v. Bankoff Oil Co., 265 Kan. 525, 538, 960 P.2d 1279 (1998). 41. Highest and best use of property was for operation of a casino; fair market value of a property is based on its highest and best use. In re Equalization Appeal of Kansas Star Casino, 52 Kan. App. 2d 50, 57, 58, 362 P.3d 1109 (2015).

K.S.A. 79-502

K.S.A. 79-503

K.S.A. 79-503a Fair market value defined; allowable variance; factors to be considered in determining fair market value; generally accepted appraisal procedures and standards to be utilized; exclusion of federal internal revenue code section 1031 exchange transactions.

79-503a. Fair market value defined; allowable variance; factors to be considered in determining fair market value; generally accepted appraisal procedures and standards to be utilized; exclusion of federal internal revenue code section 1031 exchange transactions. "Fair market value" means the amount in terms of money that a well informed buyer is justified in paying and a well informed seller is justified in accepting for property in an open and competitive market, assuming that the parties are acting without undue compulsion. In the determination of fair market value of any real property which is subject to any special assessment, such value shall not be determined by adding the present value of the special assessment to the sales price. For the purposes of this definition it will be assumed that consummation of a sale occurs as of January 1. Sales in and of themselves shall not be the sole criteria of fair market value but shall be used in connection with cost, income and other factors including but not by way of exclusion: (a) The proper classification of lands and improvements; (b) the size thereof; (c) the effect of location on value; (d) depreciation, including physical deterioration or functional, economic or social obsolescence; (e) cost of reproduction of improvements; (f) productivity taking into account all restrictions imposed by the state or federal government and local governing bodies, including, but not limited to, restrictions on property rented or leased to low income individuals and families as authorized by section 42 of the federal internal revenue code of 1986, as amended; (g) earning capacity as indicated by lease price, by capitalization of net income or by absorption or sell-out period; (h) rental or reasonable rental values or rental values restricted by the state or federal government or local governing bodies, including, but not limited to, restrictions on property rented or leased to low income individuals and families, as authorized by section 42 of the federal internal revenue code of 1986, as amended; (i) sale value on open market with due allowance to abnormal inflationary factors influencing such values; (j) restrictions or requirements imposed upon the use of real estate by the state or federal government or local governing bodies, including zoning and planning boards or commissions, and including, but not limited to, restrictions or requirements imposed upon the use of real estate rented or leased to low income individuals and families, as authorized by section 42 of the federal internal revenue code of 1986, as amended; and (k) comparison with values of other property of known or recognized value. The assessment-sales ratio study shall not be used as an appraisal for appraisal purposes. The appraisal process utilized in the valuation of all real and tangible personal property for ad valorem tax purposes shall conform to generally accepted appraisal procedures and standards which are consistent with the definition of fair market value unless otherwise specified by law. The sale price or value at which a property sells or transfers ownership in a federal internal revenue code section 1031 exchange shall not be considered an indicator of fair market value nor as a factor in arriving at fair market value. Federal internal revenue code section 1031 exchange transactions shall not be used as comparable sales for valuation purposes nor as valid sales for purposes of sales ratio studies conducted pursuant to K.S.A. 79-1485 et seq., and amendments thereto. L. 1982, ch. 391, § 2; L. 1990, ch. 346, § 3; L. 1995, ch. 254, § 5; L. 1997, ch. 126, § 42; L. 2003, ch. 156, § 4; L. 2009, ch. 97, § 3; L. 2016, ch. 112, § 9; L. 2024, ch. 1, § 10 (Special Session); June 27. Cross References to Related Sections: Private property protection act, see 77-708. Law Review and Bar Journal References: "The Kansas Property Tax: Understanding and Surviving Reappraisal," P. John Brady, Brian T. Howes, and Greg L. Musil, 57 J.K.B.A. No. 3, 23, 27 (1988). "Reappraisal—How Long Will It Last?" Bruce Landeck, 58 J.K.B.A. No. 1, 15, 18 (1989). "Kansas Property Classification and Reappraisal: The 1986 Constitutional Amendment and Statutory Modifications," Nancy Ogle, 29 W.L.J. 26, 30, 47 (1989). Attorney General's Opinions: Factors for determining fair market value of property. 80-82. Public utilities valuation of real and personal property. 80-83. Powers and duties of county appraisers; removal from office. 82-270. Classification of property; constitutionality. 90-10. Powers and duties of director of property valuation; force and effect of directives. 91-134. Effect of failure to consider factors to determine fair market value. 92-12. Use of real estate ratio study as evidence of fair market value for tax purposes. 94-69. Valuation of property in year following reduction on appeal; effect of K.S.A. 79-1460. 95-71. Valuation of real property; change in value without physical inspection. 96-81. CASE ANNOTATIONS 1. Section considered in determining validity of assessment of real property for uniformity and equality. Board of County Comm'rs v. Greenhaw, 241 Kan. 119, 126, 734 P.2d 1125 (1987). 2. Cited; allegations regarding illegal or void valuations or assessments of real property prohibited before exhausting administrative remedies examined. Board of Osage County Comm'rs v. Schmidt, 12 Kan. App. 2d 812, 813, 758 P.2d 254 (1988). 3. County appraiser authorized (K.S.A. 79-1461) to scrutinize and revalue taxpayer's filed inventory statement to fair market value. In re Tax Appeal of Wichita Bldg. Material Co., 14 Kan. App. 2d 39, 779 P.2d 875 (1989). 4. Appellate court's authority regarding appeal of BOTA ruling examined. Wolf Creek Golf Links, Inc. v. Board of Johnson County Comm'rs, 18 Kan. App. 2d 263, 264, 853 P.2d 62 (1993). 5. Methods of valuation of real property for tax purposes that meet uniform and equal basis requirements examined. In re Tax Appeal of Andrews, 18 Kan. App. 2d 311, 317, 851 P.2d 1027 (1993). 6. Whether BOTA failed to consider evidence of economic obsolescence in ad valorem tax determination of racing track examined. Sunflower Racing, Inc. v. Board of Wyandotte County Comm'rs, 256 Kan. 426, 441, 885 P.2d 1233 (1994). 7. Whether developer's discount method of property valuation violated statutory tax scheme examined. Hixon v. Lario Enterprises, Inc., 19 Kan. App. 2d 643, 646, 648, 875 P.2d 297 (1994); aff'd, as modified, 257 Kan. 377, 381, 892 P.2d 507 (1995). 8. Valuation of real property used for residential purposes. Board of Douglas County Comm'rs v. Cashatt, 23 Kan. App. 2d 532, 540, 541, 543, 933 P.2d 167 (1997). 9. Property valuation division use of post valuation data from next tax year quarter for personal property assessment held invalid. Board of Ness County Comm'rs v. Bankoff Oil Co., 24 Kan. App. 2d 532, 539, 949 P.2d 628 (1997). 10. Oil lease experiencing production decline late in year previous to assessment properly valued by consideration of post-January production data. Board of Ness County Commr's v. Bankoff Oil Co., 265 Kan. 525, 526, 538, 540, 542, 543, 960 P.2d 1279 (1998). 11. Taxing authority to consider effects of low-income housing contract when valuing property for ad valorem taxes. In re Equalization Appeal of Ottawa Housing Assoc., L.P., 27 Kan. App. 2d 1008, 10 P.3d 777 (2000). 12. "Cost method" calculation in determining fair market value of property affirmed (uninhabitable house under renovation for several years). Krueger v. Board of Woodson County Comm'rs, 31 Kan. App. 2d 698, 71 P.3d 1167 (2003). 13. Of three multifamily units, BOTA's valuation affirmed for one unit and reversed for the other two units. Board of Saline County Comm'rs v. Jensen, 32 Kan. App. 2d 730, 88 P.3d 242 (2004). 14. Listing price of real estate property may be a valid consideration for a county appraiser when determining fair market value. Wagner v. State, 46 Kan. App. 2d 858, 265 P.3d 577 (2011). 15. Legislative intent underlying statutory scheme for ad valorem property taxation has always been to appraise property as if in fee simple; fair market value statute values property rights, not contract rights. In re Equalization Appeal of Prieb Properties, 47 Kan. App. 2d 122, 130, 131, 275 P.3d 56 (2012). 16. Fee simple interest of a property is valued for purposes of property tax; property owner did not purchase property under undue compulsion where it entered into options for property voluntarily in an open and competitive market. In re Equalization Appeal of Kansas Star Casino, 52 Kan. App. 2d 50, 62, 63, 362 P.3d 1109 (2015). 17. The use of minimum lease values for gas wells caused an assessed valuation greater than the fair market value. In re River Rock Energy Co., 58 Kan. App. 2d 98, 104, 464 P.3d 344 (2020). 18. Working interest minimum lease value provision of oil and gas appraisal guide is consistent with accepted appraisal practices and calibrated to aid in the determination of fair market value; BOTA decision upholding county appraisers' application of the guide is affirmed where taxpayer submitted no well-specific information to support just cause to deviate from the guide. In re River Rock Energy Co., 313 Kan. 936, 492 P.3d 1157 (2021). 19. Use of unadjusted build-to-suit lease data to support a valuation opinion goes to the weight and credibility of the opinion and is not inadequate as a matter of law. In re Equalization Appeal of Walmart Stores, Inc., 316 Kan. 32, 513 P.3d 457 (2022).

K.S.A. 79-504 Appraisal standards; definitions.

79-504. Appraisal standards; definitions. For the purposes of this act: (a) "Appraisal foundation" and "foundation" mean the appraisal foundation established on November 30, 1987, as a not-for-profit corporation under the laws of Illinois. (b) "Written appraisal" means a written statement used in connection with the activities of the division of property valuation or a county appraiser that is independently and impartially prepared by a county appraiser setting forth an opinion of defined value of an adequately described property as of a specific date, supported by presentation and analysis of relevant market information. L. 1992, ch. 249, § 3; L. 2016, ch. 112, § 10; July 1. Law Review and Bar Journal References: "Survey of Kansas Law: Taxation," Sandra Craig McKenzie, 41 K.L.R. 727, 732 (1993). Attorney General's Opinions: County and district appraisers; qualifications, duties and responsibilities; proper respondent before appraisal board in complaint involving written mass appraisal reports. 96-71. Valuation of real property; change in value without physical inspection. 96-81. CASE ANNOTATIONS 1. Computer assisted mass appraisal introduced by county's witness fits within statute's definition of written appraisal. In re Tax Appeal of Yellow Freight System, Inc., 36 Kan. App. 2d 210, 217, 137 P.3d 1051 (2006). 2. Commercial valuation specialist's report not rendered invalid due to failure to explain 10% upward adjustment in ad valorem tax assessment for taxpayer's fast food restaurant. In re Equalization Appeal of Johnson County Appraiser, 47 Kan. App. 2d 1074, 283 P.3d 823 (2012).

K.S.A. 79-505 Appraisal standards; adoption by director of property valuation; additional standards, when.

79-505. Appraisal standards; adoption by director of property valuation; additional standards, when. (a) The director of property valuation shall adopt appraiser directives prescribing appropriate standards for the performance of appraisals in connection with ad valorem taxation in this state. Such appraiser directives shall require, at a minimum: (1) That all appraisals be performed in compliance with the uniform standards of professional appraisal practice, commonly referred to as "USPAP," promulgated by the appraisal standards board of the appraisal foundation; and (2) that such appraisals shall be written appraisals. (b) The director of property valuation may require compliance with additional standards if a determination is made in writing that such additional standards are required in order to properly carry out statutory responsibilities and such additional standards do not conflict with the uniform standards of professional appraisal practice, commonly referred to as "USPAP," promulgated by the appraisal standards board of the appraisal foundation. L. 1992, ch. 249, § 1; L. 2014, ch. 141, § 9; L. 2021, ch. 58, § 7; July 1. Law Review and Bar Journal References: "Survey of Kansas Law: Taxation," Sandra Craig McKenzie, 41 K.L.R. 727, 732 (1993). Attorney General's Opinions: Rules and regulations; definitions; appraisal directives issued by property valuation director. 94-120. CASE ANNOTATIONS 1. Oil lease experiencing production decline late in year previous to assessment properly valued by consideration of post-January production data. Board of Ness County Commr's v. Bankoff Oil Co., 265 Kan. 525, 539, 960 P.2d 1279 (1998). 2. Property valuation director directive prescribing appraisal standards in connection with ad valorem taxation consistent with statutory law. Board of Sedgwick County Comm'rs v. Action Rent to Own, Inc., 266 Kan. 293, 299, 969 P.2d 844 (1998). 3. BOTA's valuation adequately supported by evidence and not otherwise arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable; appraisal in violation of USPAS prohibited. In re Tax Appeal of Dillon Stores, 42 Kan. App. 2d 881, 221 P.3d 598 (2009). 4. Failure by COTA to adhere to practice standards may constitute a deviation from a prescribed procedure or an error of law. In re Tax Appeal of Brocato, 46 Kan. App. 2d 722, 234 P.3d 866 (2010). 5. COTA (formerly BOTA) may not rely on an approach to value expressly prohibited by USPAP, but USPAP violations that are not materially detrimental to an appraiser's overall opinion of value are not fatal. In re Equalization Appeal of Kansas Star Casino, 52 Kan. App. 2d 50, 65, 362 P.3d 1109 (2015). 6. County is required to reappraise property in accordance with USPAP to determine fair market value, rather than based on agreed-upon values from two tax years before. In re Equalization Appeal of Target Corp., 55 Kan. App. 2d 234, 238, 410 P.3d 939 (2017).

K.S.A. 79-506 Same; interim standards; time for adoption of final standards.

79-506. Same; interim standards; time for adoption of final standards. (a) The uniform standards of professional appraisal practice as promulgated by the appraisal standards board of the appraisal foundation in effect on March 1, 1992, for all dates of valuation on or after January 1, 1993, are hereby adopted upon the effective date of this act as interim standards. (b) Rules and regulations or appraiser directives promulgating appraisal standards adopted by the director of property valuation shall be proposed not later than six months and shall be adopted in final form and become effective not later than 12 months following the effective date of this act. L. 1992, ch. 249, § 2; July 1. CASE ANNOTATIONS 1. Oil lease experiencing production decline late in year previous to assessment properly valued by consideration of post-January production data. Board of Ness County Commr's v. Bankoff Oil Co., 265 Kan. 525, 542, 960 P.2d 1279 (1998). 2. BOTA's valuation adequately supported by evidence and not otherwise arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable; appraisal in violation of USPAS prohibited. In re Tax Appeal of Dillon Stores, 42 Kan. App. 2d 881, 221 P.3d 598 (2009). 3. Failure by COTA to adhere to practice standards may constitute a deviation from a prescribed procedure or an error of law. In re Tax Appeal of Brocato, 46 Kan. App. 2d 722, 234 P.3d 866 (2010).

K.S.A. 79-507 Commercial and industrial machinery and equipment; definition; classification and valuation.

79-507. Commercial and industrial machinery and equipment; definition; classification and valuation. (a) In accordance with the provisions of section 1 of article 11 of the constitution of the state of Kansas, all commercial and industrial machinery used directly in the manufacture of cement, lime or similar products including: Kilns, pumps, lifts, process fans, bucket elevators, compressors, raw mills, hammer mills, grinders, conveyors, ball mills, mixers, storage tanks, scales, crushers, reclaimers, processing vessels, filters, electric motors, cement and clinker coolers, finish mills, separators, electric hoists, stackers, roller mills, clinker breakers, hydraulic and lubricating systems used directly in manufacturing and processing activities, analyzers, aeration systems, air pollution control equipment, bulk loading systems, material and gas flow distribution gates and handling and transport systems, except public utility property valued and assessed pursuant to K.S.A. 79-5a01 et seq., and amendments thereto, are hereby defined as commercial and industrial machinery and equipment, and shall be classified for property tax purposes as tangible personal property within subclass 5 of class 2 of section 1 of article 11 of the constitution of the state of Kansas. All such property shall be valued in accordance with the provisions of subsection (b)(2)(E) of K.S.A. 79-1439 , and amendments thereto. (b) The provisions of this section shall apply to all taxable years commencing after December 31, 2013. L. 2014, ch. 140, § 11; July 1.

Source: Kansas Office of Revisor of Statutes (ksrevisor.gov)URL: https://www.ksrevisor.gov/statutes/ksa_ch79.htmlFetched: 10/20/2026