STATE OF ALASKA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Appellant and Cross-Appellee,
BP PIPELINES (ALASKA) INC., CONOCOPHILLIPS TRANSPORTATION ALASKA, INC.,EXXONMOBIL PIPELINE COMPANY, KOCH ALASKA PIPELINE COMPANY, LLC, UNOCAL PIPELINE COMPANY, ALYESKA PIPELINE SERVICE COMPANY, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, FAIRBANKS NORTH STAR BOROUGH, and CITY OF VALDEZ, Appellees, Cross-Appellants, and Cross-Appellees
Appeal from the Superior Court of the State of Alaska, Third Judicial District, Anchorage, Sharon Gleason and Andrew Guidi, Judges. Superior Court No. 3AN-06-08446 CI.
Kenneth J. Diemer, Assistant Attorney General, Anchorage, and Michael C. Geraghty, Attorney General, Juneau, for Appellant/Cross-Appellee State of Alaska, Department of Revenue.
Leon T. Vance, Faulkner Banfield, P.C., Juneau, and Alexander O. Bryner, Feldman Orlansky & Sanders, Anchorage, for Appellees/Cross-Appellants/Cross-Appellees BP Pipelines (Alaska) Inc., ConocoPhillips Transportation Alaska, Inc., ExxonMobil Pipeline Company, Koch Alaska Pipeline Company, LLC, Unocal Pipeline Company, and Alyeska Pipeline Service Company.
Jessica Dillon and Mauri Long, Dillon & Findley, PC, Anchorage, for Appellee/CrossAppellant/Cross-Appellee North Slope Borough.
A. Rene Broker, Borough Attorney, Fairbanks, and Robin O. Brena, Kevin G. Clarkson, Anthony Guerriero, and Laura S. Gould, Brena, Bell & Clarkson, PC, Anchorage, for Appellee/CrossAppellant/Cross-Appellee Fairbanks North Star Borough.
William M. Walker, Craig W. Richards, and Jon S. Wakeland, Walker & Richards, LLC, Anchorage, for Appellee/Cross-Appellant/Cross-Appellee City of Valdez.
Before: Fabe, Chief Justice, Winfree, Stowers, Maassen, and Bolger, Justices.
This is an appeal of the superior court's de novo valuation of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS) for tax assessment years 2007, 2008, and 2009. In February 2014 we issued a decision affirming the superior court's de novo valuation of TAPS for the 2006 assessment year. The parties introduced considerably more evidence during trial for the 2007, 2008, and 2009 years, but the operative facts remained substantially the
same and the superior court applied similar standards and methods for valuation. Many of the issues raised on appeal are similar or identical to issues raised in the 2006 appeal and thus are partially or wholly resolved by our prior opinion. Because the superior court did not clearly err or abuse its discretion with regard to any of its findings ...