Utah Supreme Court
Can Utah courts ignore clear statutory language based on alleged drafting errors? Visitor Information Center Authority of Grand County v. Customer Service Division Explained
Summary
The Visitor Information Center Authority of Grand County challenged the Tax Commission’s assessment of corporate franchise taxes, arguing that 1984 legislative language was a drafting error. The Supreme Court affirmed the Tax Commission’s ruling that the Authority was subject to corporate franchise tax under the clear statutory language.
Practice Areas & Topics
Analysis
In Visitor Information Center Authority of Grand County v. Customer Service Division, the Utah Supreme Court addressed whether courts should consider legislative history when statutory language appears clear and unambiguous, even when a party claims the language resulted from a drafting error.
Background and Facts
The Visitor Information Center Authority of Grand County was organized as a nonprofit municipal building authority under the Utah Municipal Building Authority Act. The Tax Commission assessed corporate franchise taxes on the Authority based on Utah Code section 17A-3-913, which exempted building authority property and bonds “from all taxation in this state, except for the corporate franchise tax.” The Authority argued this language was a drafting error and that the legislature intended only bond interest to be subject to corporate franchise tax.
Key Legal Issues
The central issue was whether courts should consider legislative history and alleged drafting errors when statutory language appears clear and unambiguous. The Authority also pointed to a 1996 legislative amendment that changed the statute to achieve the result they sought.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
Applying a correctness standard for questions of statutory interpretation, the Supreme Court found the statutory language clear and unambiguous. The Court rejected the Authority’s argument that the “except for the corporate franchise tax” language applied only to bond interest, calling this “a forced reading of a clear and unambiguous statute.” The Court emphasized that “when language is clear and unambiguous, it must be held to mean what it expresses, and no room is left for construction.”
Practice Implications
This decision reinforces Utah’s approach to statutory construction: courts will not delve into legislative history when statutory language is facially clear. The subsequent legislative amendment did not support the Authority’s interpretation but rather confirmed the statute previously meant something different. Practitioners should focus on plain language arguments rather than speculative legislative history when statutory text is unambiguous.
Case Details
Case Name
Visitor Information Center Authority of Grand County v. Customer Service Division
Citation
1997 UT
Court
Utah Supreme Court
Case Number
No. 950523
Date Decided
January 21, 1997
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
Municipal building authorities are subject to corporate franchise tax under the clear language of Utah Code section 17A-3-913 as it existed prior to the 1996 amendment.
Standard of Review
Correctness for questions of law and statutory interpretation
Practice Tip
When challenging statutory interpretation, courts will not consider legislative history arguments if the statutory language is clear and unambiguous on its face.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.