Perdido Energy Louisiana, LLC v. Acadia Parish Board of Review James J. Petitjean, in his capacity as Assessor for Acadia Parish and the Louisiana Tax Commission

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL
FIRST CIRCUIT
NO. 2022 CA 0115
PERDIDO ENERGY LOUISIANA, LLC
VERSUS
ACADIA PARISH BOARD OF REVIEW; JAMES J. PETITJEAN, IN HIS
CAPACITY AS ASSESSOR FOR ACADIA PARISH; AND THE
LOUISIANA TAX COMMISSION
CONSOLIDATED WITH
NO. 2022 CA 0116
PERDIDO ENERGY LOUISIANA, LLC
VERSUS
EVANGELINE PARISH BOARD OF REVIEW; DIRK DEVILLE, IN HIS
CAPACITY AS ASSESSOR FOR EVANGELINE PARISH; AND THE
LOUISIANA TAX COMMISSION
CONSOLIDATED WITH
NO. 2022 CA 0117
PERDIDO ENERGY LOUISIANA, LLC
VERSUS
BEAUREGARD PARISH BOARD OF REVIEW; BRENT RUTHERFORD,
IN HIS CAPACITY AS ASSESSOR FOR BEAUREGARD PARISH; AND
THE LOUISIANA TAX COMMISSION
CONSOLIDATED WITH
NO. 2022 CA 0118
PERDIDO ENERGY LOUISIANA, LLC
VERSUS
RAPIDES PARISH BOARD OF REVIEW; RICHARD I. DUCOTE, JR., IN
HIS CAPACITY AS ASSESSOR FOR RAPIDES PARISH; AND THE
0 LOUISIANA TAX COMMISSION
c..,,
tia #. Hw,. ,,,,.;, . zX46. a
MV" j-.
c6JMk ( odh 99trk S ,
CONSOLIDATED WITH
NO. 2022 CA 0119
PERDIDO ENERGY LOUISIANA, LLC
VERSUS
VERNON PARISH BOARD OF REVIEW; MICHAEL C. BEALER, IN HIS
CAPACITY AS ASSESSOR FOR VERNON PARISH; AND THE
LOUISIANA TAX COMMISSION
Judgment Rendered.
SFP 01 2022
Appealed from the
19th Judicial District Court
In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge
State of Louisiana
Case No. 693700, Sec. 25
consolidated with
Case Nos. 693701, 693702, 693703, 693704
The Honorable Wilson E. Fields, Judge Presiding
Kyle P. Polozola Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant
Lafayette, Louisiana Perdido Energy Louisiana, LLC
and
Phyllis D. Sims
Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Brian A. Eddington Counsel for Defendants/ Appellees
Baton Rouge, Louisiana James J. Petitjean, Assessor for Acadia
Parish; Brent Rutherford, Assessor for
Beauregard Parish; Dirk Deville,
Assessor for Evangeline Parish; Richard
I. Ducote, Jr., Assessor for Rapides
Parish; and Michael C. Bealer, Assessor
for Vernon Parish
Franklin " Drew" Hoffman Counsel for Defendant/ Appellee
Baton Rouge, Louisiana The Louisiana Tax Commission
and
Robert D. Hoffman, Jr.
Madisonville, Louisiana
BEFORE: McCLENDON, WELCH, AND THERIOT, JJ.
2
THERIOT, J.
This is a judicial review proceeding arising from the denial of a taxpayer' s
request for a reduction in the fair market value of the taxpayer' s property based on
obsolescence.
The taxpayer appeals from a district court judgment affirming the
decisions of the Louisiana Tax Commission (" LTC"). For the reasons set forth
herein, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Perdido Energy Louisiana, LLC (" Perdido") owns oil and gas wells and
equipment subject to ad valorem taxation in Acadia, Beauregard, Evangeline,
Rapides, and Vernon Parishes. The property, which Perdido purchased in
December 2017, consists of 23. 88 miles of pipelines and a total of one hundred and
six wells, comprised of forty-seven active wells, eight injection wells, forty-eight
shut- in wells, and three temporarily abandoned wells.
This matter originated as a challenge by Perdido to the correctness of
assessments made by the Assessors for Acadia, Beauregard, Evangeline, Rapides,
and Vernon Parishes ( collectively " Assessor defendants"). After the Assessor
defendants assessed Perdido' s property located in their respective parishes for ad
valorem tax purposes, Perdido filed protests with the parish governing authorities
for the above -referenced parishes, challenging the amount of the assessments based
on a disparity between the adjusted purchase price ($ 3, 072, 671. 79) and the
assessed value ($ 58, 609, 795. 00). The protests were denied, and Perdido appealed
the denials to the LTC.
In its appeals to the LTC, Perdido argued that the Assessor defendants failed
to properly value and assess its oil/ gas wells, gathering pipelines, and equipment
based on the purchase price and on an appraisal prepared by Perdido' s expert,
Joseph Calvanico, and provided to the Assessor defendants. The five appeals were
consolidated for hearing before the LTC, which was held on October 23, 2019. At
9
the hearing, Perdido presented testimony from its president, secretary, and founder,
Joshua E. Holden; its property tax consultant, Daron Fredrickson; and its expert
appraiser, Joseph Calvanico. The Assessor defendants presented testimony from
Beauregard Parish Chief Deputy Assessor, Rhonda Farris; Acadia Parish Deputy
Assessor, Cheryl Boudreaux; Rapides Parish Assessor, Richard L Ducote, Jr.;
Vernon Parish Assessor, Michael C. Bealer; and Rodney Kret, an expert in the
field of assessment practice and procedure. The parties also filed a number of
exhibits into the record, including the Purchase and Sale Agreement; Mr.
Calvanico' s fair market value appraisal; and a document titled " Explanation of
Depreciation," which was prepared by Mr. Calvanico for the LTC hearing.
Joshua Holden testified that Perdido Energy Louisiana, LLC was formed in
conjunction with the purchase of the Louisiana property at issue in this matter.
Perdido' s business involves " going in and buying oil fields off of large companies,
figuring out ways to cut expenses and increase production to extend the longevity
and life of those fields." Mr. Holden testified that Perdido acquired the property at
issue in this matter in December 2017 for an adjusted purchase price of
approximately $ 3, 072, 000. 00, and explained that the purchase was an arms -length
transaction and did not involve a distressed seller. The purchase price included
conveyance of both tangible and intangible assets, including " wells, gathering
systems, flow lines, pipelines, processing equipment, compressors, jet pumps, salt
or disposal wells, leases, surface tracts, [ right- of-way] agreements, [ roadway]
agreements, [ road] use agreements... mineral interests, mineral servitude[ s] ...
participation agreements, [ and] joint operating agreements." There were liabilities
conveyed to Perdido in the sale as well, the largest of which was the liability of
plugging and abandoning wells. Mr. Holden testified that Perdido estimated the
cost of plugging and abandoning the wells at approximately $ 75, 000. 00 per well,
for a total plug and abandon liability of roughly $ 825, 000. 00. During the due
M
diligence process prior to the sale, Perdido looked into the assessments and ad
valorem tax liability on the property, and Mr. Holden acknowledged that Perdido
was aware that the assessments were " pretty substantial." In fact, Mr. Holden
testified that part of the adjustment from the original purchase price of
approximately $ 4, 061, 000. 00 was for ad valorem taxes paid by Perdido on the
seller' s behalf. Although he explained that the substantial nature of the
assessments was not a" deal -stopper" for Perdido, Mr. Holden testified that
Perdido engaged a property tax consultant, Daron Fredrickson, at that time " to help
us understand those values and understand those assessments." When asked
whether supporting documentation was provided to the assessors regarding the
liabilities and other items affecting fair market value that he addressed in his
testimony, Mr. Holden testified that he provided only a copy of the purchase
agreement and the appraisal prepared by Mr. Calvanico, because the assessors did
not specifically request anything else.
Perdido' s appraiser, Joseph Calvanico, testified as an expert witness at the
LTC hearing. He was retained by Perdido in connection with the property tax
appeal to perform a fair market value appraisal of the purchased property. Mr.
Calvanico testified that although the property was assessed at approximately
72, 000, 000. 00 the year prior to the sale, he estimated the fair market value of the
purchased property to be $ 12, 200, 000. 00. Mr. Calvanico explained that he
calculated the fair market value by first calculating replacement cost new and
physical depreciation according to the LTC tables, then deducting additional
functional obsolescence based on depth of the wells and pipeline pressure and
economic obsolescence based on the overall economy. To perform the appraisal,
Mr. Calvanico used information obtained from Perdido, such as financial data, the
Purchase and Sale Agreement, maps, engineering documents, communications
from engineers, and other information obtained as part of the due diligence
5
process; however, he testified that this information was not provided to the
assessors along with his appraisal. Mr. Calvanico testified that the methods he
used in calculating obsolescence were not the methods traditionally used, and the
mathematics behind his calculations, while introduced at the LTC hearing as part
of an exhibit entitled " Explanation of Depreciation," was not provided to the
assessors with his appraisal. Further, Mr. Calvanico did not speak to the assessors
about the assessment or his appraisal and did not testify at the Board of Review
hearings on the protests.
Daron Fredrickson, the tax consultant engaged by Perdido to handle tax
compliance for the purchased property, also testified at the LTC hearing. Mr.
Fredrickson prepared and filed the annual tax reporting forms in each parish for the
purchased property. He described his procedure for preparing the tax reporting
forms in this case. After preparing the forms as he normally would using the LTC
rules, he then " took Mr. Calvanico' s answer on his appraisal and ... backed into
the obsolescence it would take to get to the difference between what the schedule
called for and what Mr. Calvanico' s number was." He further explained that "[ w] e
had Mr. Calvanico' s report, which was the number we were trying to get to, to let
the assessor know [ what] we were trying to ask for on the value. And so each one
of those, we calculated the percentage obsolescence it would take to get from the
calculated number from the [ LTC] rules to Mr. Calvanico' s numbers." Mr.
Fredrickson confirmed that the data used by Mr. Calvanico to prepare his appraisal
was not provided to him or to the assessors. He only submitted the Purchase and
Sale Agreement and Mr. Calvanico' s appraisal to the assessors with the tax
reporting forms, along with a cover letter stating that he intended to travel to each
parish to discuss the assessments and package with the assessors. He testified that
he did not actually meet with any of the assessors, but someone in his office
reached out" to each of the parishes to ask whether they needed anything, and to
2
his knowledge, there were no questions received from the assessors' offices.
Although Mr. Fredrickson prepared the tax reporting forms and offered to meet
with the assessors to discuss the assessment, he testified that he could not explain
how the obsolescence was calculated because he is not an appraisal expert. Mr.
Fredrickson was unable to explain Mr. Calvanico' s reasoning for using well depth
in his calculation of obsolescence. He acknowledged that well values typically go
up as well depth increases and that there is nothing in the LTC rules and
regulations that calls for using depth as an obsolescence factor. Mr. Fredrickson
testified that he was not suggesting that any Assessor defendant failed to correctly
apply the valuation or depreciation tables for either wells or pipelines, but he
believes that the Assessor defendants' valuations are incorrect because they " did
not arrive at a value that matched what our expert appraiser came up with."
Rodney Kret testified on behalf of the Assessor defendants as an expert in
assessment practice and procedure. He testified that he is extremely familiar with
the methodology used by Louisiana tax assessors in valuing oil and gas properties.
Although he was not involved in the assessment of the Perdido properties, Mr. Kret
reviewed Mr. Calvanico' s appraisal and the documents provided to the Assessor
defendants and testified that he did not believe that the Assessor defendants were
given the data needed to derive the obsolescence that was being requested by
Perdido. Mr. Kret testified that he did not know what to make of Mr. Calvanico' s
calculations, other than that he could not duplicate them himself. In his opinion,
Mr. Calvanico' s methodology for calculating functional obsolescence was flawed.
Specifically, Mr. Kret did not believe operating pressure was an appropriate
indicator of functional obsolescence, and he had never seen well depth used as an
indicator of functional obsolescence before, nor did he think it was appropriate.
Rhonda Farris, Chief Deputy Assessor for Beauregard Parish, testified that
she was involved in the assessment of the Perdido property located in that parish.
7
Since Perdido did not own any pipeline property in Beauregard Parish, Ms. Farris
explained that her office only considered a request for additional obsolescence
related to wells. In assessing the property, Ms. Farris testified that she applied
LTC tables, which took into account both depreciation and well depth. Perdido
then sought additional obsolescence based on the depth of the wells. Ms. Farris
testified that this request was considered, but ultimately rejected, because the
information provided by Perdido did not support the request and because she was
unable to determine how Perdido came up with the amount of obsolescence it
requested.
Ms. Farris acknowledged that she was contacted by someone in Mr.
Fredrickson' s organization regarding the request for additional obsolescence. She
testified that she replied by email, requesting any additional information that the
assessor' s office could consider " to help with obtaining a value for Perdido," but
nothing further was provided.
Deputy Assessor Cheryl Boudreaux with the Acadia Parish Assessor' s
Office also testified at the LTC hearing. Ms. Boudreaux was involved in the
appraisal of the Perdido property in Acadia Parish, which consisted of a single
well. Ms. Boudreaux testified that although she received a request from Perdido
for additional reduction based on obsolescence, the calculation of obsolescence
Perdido provided was not like anything she had ever used for obsolescence before,
and the request was not accompanied by documentation or an explanation of what
the numbers represented. Ms. Boudreaux testified that she had thirty- five years
experience as an accountant, and " looking at the documentation that they tried to
provide in support [ ofJ their request for obsolescence didn' t carry any weight with
my experience as a numbers person." As such, the request to apply additional
obsolescence to the assessment was denied.
Rapides Parish Assessor Richard I. Ducote, Jr. testified that he reviewed the
request submitted to his office by Perdido, but he did not agree with its
calculations, so he did not allow the additional reductions for obsolescence. Mr.
Ducote explained that some of the obsolescence requested by Perdido was based
on factors built into the LTC tables, which were already applied in his assessment.
Although Perdido sought additional reductions, Mr. Ducote explained that Perdido
did not properly explain its calculations or provide documentation for its requests.
For instance, Perdido sought a reduction based on well depth, which is not
normally a factor in obsolescence, but did not provide any supporting
documentation to show how well depth equates to functional obsolescence.
Perdido also sought an obsolescence reduction for its pipelines using a formula
based on operating pressure, which Mr. Ducote testified has never been used as an
obsolescence factor by his office, but Perdido did not provide any documentation
of operating pressure. Calvanico' s appraisal also applied a seventy- five percent
reduction in value based on general economic conditions, but did not explain what
that number represented. Although Mr. Ducote denied the additional obsolescence
requested by Perdido, he testified that he did apply some obsolescence reductions
as appropriate. He applied a fifty-six percent reduction for obsolescence to the
pipelines based on throughput, as he had done in other cases, and a ninety percent
reduction for the shut- in wells, as provided for by the LTC tables.
Michael C. Bealer, Vernon Parish Assessor, testified that he reviewed the
tax reporting forms submitted by Perdido, as well as its request for additional
reductions based on obsolescence, but he denied the request because it was not
adequately supported and documented. For instance, Mr. Bealer explained that
Perdido requested an additional reduction for functional obsolescence beyond the
obsolescence provided for in the LTC tables based on well depth, but did not
explain how it alleges the well depth functionally impairs the well or what the
percentage reductions requested represent.
0
After the hearing, the LTC took the matter under advisement before
upholding the assessments. The LTC' s Decision and Order noted that the Purchase
and Sale Agreement reflected a sale of a going concern and not a simple asset
purchase agreement. As such, the sale price alone, without more information and
further explanation, was not indicative of the fair market value of the property.
The LTC found that the sale was a valid sale under the LTC' s Rules and
Regulations and that genuine consideration should have been given to it. The LTC
also noted that the Assessor defendants failed to give genuine consideration to the
sale. Nevertheless, the LTC found that despite the fact that the Assessor
defendants applied insufficient obsolescence to the subject property, Perdido
failed to submit and offer sufficient information and testimony concerning the
sale for the [ LTC] to determine obsolescence based on the sale." In finding that
Perdido failed to provide sufficient evidence, the LTC noted that it did not find
Calvanico' s valuation to be reliable. Based on these findings, the LTC concluded
that it had " no choice but to uphold the values determined by the [ Assessor
defendants] by affirming the decision."
Perdido filed separate petitions for judicial review of each of the LTC
rulings in the Nineteenth Judicial District Court, requesting that the determinations
of the LTC be reversed or, in the alternative, that the matter be remanded to the
LTC with instructions to give due weight and consideration to the facts,
documentary evidence, and witness testimony presented by Perdido. On motion of
the defendants, the suits were consolidated for purposes of judicial review.'
1 After a hearing, the district court remanded the matter to the LTC to take additional evidence of
obsolescence. The Assessor defendants appealed the trial court judgment remanding the matter
to the LTC. However, finding that the judgment was a nonappealable interlocutory ruling, this
Court converted the consolidated appeals to applications for supervisory writs. Thereafter, this
Court concluded that the district court erred in remanding the matter to the LTC to allow Perdido
to present additional evidence under La. R.S. 49: 964( E). As such, this Court granted the writ
application, reversed the district court judgment remanding the matter to the LTC to take
additional evidence, and remanded the matter to the district court for further proceedings. See
Perdido Energy Louisiana, LLC v. Acadia Parish Board of Review, 20- 0962 ( La.App. 1 Cir.
3/ 30/ 21), 2021 WL1207818 ( unpublished writ action).
10
A hearing was held on the judicial review proceeding on September 22,
2021. After taking the matter under advisement, the district court affirmed the
LTC' s ruling, and this appeal followed. On appeal, Perdido argues that the LTC' s
decisions should have been reversed as arbitrary and capricious and not supported
and sustainable by a preponderance of the evidence for failure of the assessors to
grant any obsolescence on the value of the property.
DISCUSSION
Louisiana Constitution article VII, § 18( E) provides that the correctness of
assessments by the assessor shall be subject to review first by the parish governing
authority, then by the LTC or its successor, and finally by the courts, all in
accordance with procedures established by law. See La. R.S. 47: 1931; 47: 1992;
47: 1989; 47: 1998. Louisiana Revised Statutes 47: 1998 authorizes judicial review
of the correctness of a tax assessment, and the Administrative Procedure Act,
specifically La. R.S. 49: 964( F) and ( G), governs the extent of that review. La. R.S.
49: 967( A); D90 Energy, LLC v. Jefferson Davis Parish Board of Review, 20-
00200, pp. 8- 9 ( La. 10/ 20/ 20), 341 So. 3d 492, 498- 99. When reviewing a final
decision of an agency, the district court functions as an appellate court. Regency
Intrastate Gas, LLC v. Louisiana Tax Commission, 21- 0271, p. 4 ( La.App. 1 Cir.
9/ 27/ 21), 329 So. 3d 838, 842, writ denied, 21- 01559 ( La. 1/ 19/ 22), 331 So. 3d 320.
An aggrieved party may obtain review of any final judgment of the district court
by appeal to the appropriate court of appeal. La. R.S. 49: 965.
On review of a district court judgment rendered under La. R.S. 49: 965, the
appellate court owes no deference to the district court' s factual findings or legal
conclusions. Regency Intrastate Gas, LLC, 21- 0271 at p. 6, 329 So. 3d at 844.
Rather, the appellate court conducts its own independent review of the
administrative record and reviews the administrative agency' s decision and
findings using the standards set forth in La. R. S. 49: 964( G). Id. Thus, we may
11
affirm or remand the agency decision for further proceedings. We may reverse or
modify the decision if substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced
because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusion, or decisions are: in
violation of constitutional or statutory provisions; in excess of the agency' s
statutory authority; made upon unlawful procedure; affected by other error of law;
arbitrary or capricious or characterized by an abuse of discretion or a clearly
unwarranted exercise of discretion; or not supported by a preponderance of the
evidence. La. R.S. 49: 964( G)( 1)-( 6). This Court shall make its own factual
determinations by a preponderance of the evidence based on its own evaluation of
the record reviewed in its entirety upon judicial review. La. R.S. 49: 964( G)( 6). In
conducting this review, however, this Court affords considerable weight to an
administrative agency' s construction and interpretation of its rules and regulations,
and the agency' s construction and interpretation should control unless found to be
arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to its rules and regulations. Regency
Intrastate Gas, LLC, 21- 0271 at p. 6, 329 So. 3d at 844. Further, this Court shall
give due regard to the administrative agency' s determinations regarding witness
credibility, where the agency had first-hand observation of a witness' s credibility
on the witness stand. La. R.S. 49: 964( G)( 6).
Each assessor is charged with the responsibility of determining the fair
market value of all property subject to taxation within his parish or district at
intervals of not more than four years. Fair market value is determined in
accordance with criteria established by law and applied uniformly throughout the
state. La. Const. art. VII, § 18( D). Fair market value is the price for property that
would be agreed upon between a willing and informed buyer and a willing and
informed seller under usual and ordinary circumstances; it shall be the highest
price estimated in terms of money that property will bring if exposed for sale on
the open market with reasonable time allowed to find a purchaser who is buying
12
with knowledge of all uses and purposes to which the property is best adapted and
for which it can be legally used. La. R.S. 47: 2321; LAC 61: V. 109. To ensure
uniformity, the LTC has adopted guidelines, procedures, rules, and regulations,
which each assessor shall follow in determining fair market value. La. R.S.
47: 2323( A) and ( B). Louisiana Administrative Code Title 61, Pt. V, Chapter 13
contains the " Guidelines for Ascertaining the Fair Market Value of Pipelines."
LAC 61: V. 1301.
Here, the parties do not dispute that the subject pipeline property is valued
using a cost approach based on schedules found in LAC 61: V. 1307. See LAC
61: V. 1301( A). In using the cost approach, the assessor values the property by
estimating the replacement or reproduction cost of the improvements and then
deducting the estimated depreciation. La. R. S. 47: 2323( C)( 2); LAC
61: V. 1301( A)(2). The assessor shall also consider functional and/ or economic
obsolescence in the fair market value analysis, as substantiated by the taxpayer in
writing. LAC 61: V. 1301( A)(2); LAC 61: V. 1305( F).
Although La. R.S. 47: 2324 requires the assessor to gather all data necessary
to properly determine fair market value of property in his jurisdiction, it is the
party seeking a fair market value reduction for its pipeline property based on
obsolescence who has the burden of producing sufficient data and information to
substantiate its claim. Regency Intrastate Gas, LLC, 21- 0271 at p. 7, 329 So. 3d at
845. The assessor retains the discretion to determine whether the taxpayer has
substantiated the obsolescence. ANR Pipeline Co. v. ANR Pipeline Co., 11- 379, p.
8 ( La.App. 3 Cir. 8/ 10/ 11), 73 So. 3d 398, 403. Consistent with La. R.S. 47: 1957,
the assessor may request additional documentation when ascertaining the fair
market value of pipeline property. LAC 61: V. 1301( A)(2).
The dispute in this case involves the Assessor defendants' rejection of
Perdido' s request for additional reductions in its property' s fair market value based
13
on obsolescence. In support of its request, Perdido provided the Assessor
defendants with a copy of the Purchase and Sale Agreement and Calvanico' s
appraisal, but not the data forming the basis for the appraisal or an explanation of
the methodology or calculations, despite the fact that the burden was on Perdido to
produce sufficient data and information to substantiate its claim.
Based on our review of the administrative record, and giving due regard to
the LTC' s interpretation of its rules and to its witness credibility determinations,
we conclude Perdido failed to carry its burden of proving entitlement to a fair
market value reduction for its property based on obsolescence for the 2018 tax
year. See Regency Intrastate Gas, LLC, 21- 0271 at p. 11, 329 So.3d at 847. We
find no basis in La. R.S. 49: 964( G) requiring reversal of the LTC' s decisions in
these consolidated appeals. The LTC' s decisions are legally supported by
applicable statutory and administrative authority and are factually supported by the
record evidence.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth herein, we affirm the district court' s judgment on
judicial review. Costs of this appeal are assessed to plaintiff, Perdido Energy
Louisiana, LLC.
AFFIRMED.
14
STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL
FIRST CIRCUIT
2022 CA 0115
PERDIDO ENERGY LOUISIANA, LLC
VERSUS
ACADIA PARISH BOARD OF REVIEW; JAMES J. PETITJEAN, IN HIS
CAPACITY AS ASSESSOR FOR ACADIA PARISH; AND THE LOUISIANA TAX
COMMISSION
CONSOLIDATED WITH
2022 CA 0116
PERDIDO ENERGY LOUISIANA, LLC
VERSUS
EVANGELINE PARISH BOARD OF REVIEW; DIRK DEVILLE, IN HIS
CAPACITY AS ASSESSOR FOR EVANGELINE PARISH; AND THE LOUISIANA
TAX COMMISSION
CONSOLIDATED WITH
2022 CA 0117
PERDIDO ENERGY LOUISIANA, LLC
VERSUS
BEAUREGARD PARISH BOARD OF REVIEW; BRENT RUTHERFORD, IN HIS
CAPACITY AS ASSESSOR FOR BEAUREGARD PARISH; AND THE LOUISIANA
TAX COMMISSION
CONSOLIDATED WITH
2022 CA 0118
PERDIDO ENERGY LOUISIANA, LLC
VERSUS
RAPIDES PARISH BOARD OF REVIEW; RICHARD I. DUCOTE, IN HIS
CAPACITY AS ASSESSOR FOR RAPIDES PARISH; AND THE LOUISIANA TAX
COMMISSION
CONSOLIDATED WITH
2022 CA 0119
PERDIDO ENERGY LOUISIANA, LLC
VERSUS
VERNON PARISH BOARD OF REVIEW; MICHAEL C. BEALER, IN HIS
CAPACITY AS ASSESSOR FOR VERNON PARISH; AND THE LOUISIANA TAX
COMMISSION
McClendon, J., dissents.
Louisiana Revised Statutes 47: 2324 requires the assessor to gather all data
necessary to properly determine fair market value of property in his jurisdiction.
Regency Intrastate Gas, LLC v. Louisiana Tax Commission, 2021- 0271 ( La. App.
1 Cir. 9/ 27/ 21), writ denied, 2021- 01559 ( La. 1/ 19/ 22), 331 So. 3d 320. However, the
taxpayer seeking obsolescence has the burden of producing sufficient data and
information to substantiate its claim. Id.In this matter, the Louisiana Tax Commission found that the parish assessors
failed to give genuine consideration to the sale and that the evidence submitted by
Perdido suggested that insufficient obsolescence was applied to the subject property.
Nevertheless, the tax commission determined that Perdido failed to offer sufficient
evidence to determine and quantify the obsolescence.' In D90 Energy, LLC v.
Jefferson Davis Parish Board of Review, 2020- 00200 ( La. 10/ 20/ 2020), 341 So. 3d
492, 497- 98, the Louisiana Supreme Court recognized the tax commission' s authority to
receive and consider evidence not previously submitted to the assessor. Accordingly,
with the tenets of fair play in mind and based on the specific facts of this case, I
respectfully dissent.
I note that after requesting the obsolescence, Perdido reached out to each of the assessors to ask
whether they needed additional information. Only one assessor's office responded, by email, asking for
any additional information " to help with obtaining a value for Perdido."
2