Alliant Techsystems, Inc. v. Salt Lake County Board of Equalization

Summary

The Utah Supreme Court interpreted Utah’s Privilege Tax Statute and held that “exclusive possession” requires a present right to occupy and control exempt property akin to that of an owner or lessee, including against the property owner. The court concluded that genuine disputes of material fact existed regarding Alliant Techsystems’ and the Navy’s control of the NIROP property, making summary judgment inappropriate. The court remanded the case and declined to address Alliant’s Supremacy Clause standing argument.

Holdings

1. Under Utah Code section 59-4-101(3)(e), "exclusive possession" means exclusivity against all parties, including the property owner. It requires the user or possessor to have the present right to occupy and control the property akin to that of an owner or lessee.
2. To establish exclusive possession, the user or possessor must have the present right to occupy and control a definite space for a definite time, including the general power to admit or exclude others, including the property owner, and authority to make broad use of the property subject only to narrow exceptions.
3. Summary judgment was inappropriate because genuine issues of material fact existed concerning ATK's control of the Navy property.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the phrase "exclusive possession" in Utah Code section 59-4-101(3)(e) means possession exclusive only as against third parties or possession exclusive as against all parties, including the property owner.
2. Whether the undisputed material facts established that ATK had exclusive possession of the Navy property for purposes of the Utah privilege-tax exemption.
3. Whether summary judgment was proper when the record contained conflicting evidence regarding ATK's and the Navy's control of the property.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded