Douglas County Board of Equalization v. Fidelity Castle Pines, Ltd.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the term “cost of development” in a statute was ambiguous, as it could reasonably refer to direct costs alone, or to direct and indirect costs
• stating that “[generally, we interpret ambiguous tax statutes in favor of the taxpayer,” but also applying several other canons of construction and surveying legislative history
• stating that “[g]enerally, we interpret ambiguous tax statutes in favor of the taxpayer,” but also applying several other canons of construction and surveying legislative history
• “There is a presumption that when the legislature amends a statute it intends to change the law.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).