Taxing Unpatented Mining Claims, Fremont County sending out Real Property Notice of Valuations |
Taxing Unpatented Mining Claims, Fremont County sending out Real Property Notice of Valuations |
May 8 2012, 05:05 PM
Post
#1
|
|
Rock Bar! Group: Members Posts: 613 Joined: 16-October 08 From: Central Colorado Member No.: 6,813 |
Just when I thought I had everything pretty much figured out with mining claim laws, Fremont County sends me a Real Property Notice of Valuation for my unpatented placer mining claims. After running the numbers and reading the fine print, county government was making a demand for several hundred dollars on each claim. No other county has demanded taxes on unpatented claims I hold on BLM lands. After doing a little research, I found this reference to taxing Colorado mining claims;
TITLE 39 I went to the Assessor's Office and complained about the high values and asked how they were determined along with an explanation of why adjacent claims were not being taxed. Well, now they are going to re-asses my claims and send me an updated valuation in a couple of weeks. Both the local BLM Field Office and the Mining Law Administration at the Colorado State BLM Office are looking into this matter as well, since they have never heard of it happening before. Anyone else ever encounter this? ASTROBLEME -------------------- Annual Dues Paying Member Since 2008
Tonko Mining Company "Some day this crater is going to be a greatly talked about place, and if the above credit is due, as is certainly the case, I would like to have it generally known for the sake of the children." Daniel Moreau Barringer 2/1/1912 in a letter about the Barringer Meteorite Crater, Arizona USA |
|
|
Nov 21 2014, 07:35 PM
Post
#2
|
|
Shovel Buster! Group: Members Posts: 107 Joined: 23-September 14 Member No.: 118,169 |
The mining claim is not being taxed. As others have pointed out that would be contrary to the organic founding documents for Colorado Territory and State as well as Federal law.
Taxes can be applied to the proceeds from mining. Here is the original Supreme Court case from 1876 explaining the difference: Forbes v. Gracey Here is an important Colorado case dealing with the same issues, the State and Federal Supreme Courts were both involved. GEORGE R. ELDER, Successor in Interest to Samuel McMillen, Deceased; Alice J. McCombe, Administratrix of John McCombe, Deceased; and Rowena E. McCombe, by Alice J. McCombe, Her Next Friend, Plffs. in Err., v. TINGLEY S. WOOD, Impleaded with Mary M. Bullard, Anna L. Finnerty, and Cecelia L. Wahrer, Defts. in Err. That should clear up any misunderstanding for you and the County Tax Assessor. |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 28th April 2024 - 03:14 PM |