The Utah County Commission on Oct. 29 voted to approve a personal-property tax appeal by counsel for ACE-related companies, removing equipment the company says was disposed of years earlier and mistakenly remained on depreciation schedules after a 2024 state audit.

Dan Heaton, general counsel for the ACE group of companies, told the commission the case “was fairly simple”: roughly $271,000 in equipment — primarily cryptocurrency-mining servers — had been disposed of in 2018 but remained on depreciation schedules and were flagged by a 2024 audit. "It’s a travesty of justice to to pay taxes on assets that that do not exist," Heaton said, describing the company’s decision not to challenge the earlier audit and the subsequent effort to correct its filings.

Utah County Assessor Bert Garfel and Personal Property Supervisor Paulette Stetzer told commissioners the county’s assessment followed the findings of the Utah State Tax Commission audit and the taxpayer filings the auditors relied on. Stetzer said auditors typically record equipment that appears on a federal depreciation schedule and that ‘‘it’s up to the taxpayer’’ to move or update items between accounts; she confirmed one cited account (listed in the audit as 8518O) was closed and showed no taxes owed.

Commissioners pressed for evidence of disposal and noted practical difficulties proving removal of hardware seven years after the fact. Heaton acknowledged the challenge of proving a negative but pointed the panel to the audit’s walk-through and to state statute that allows a legislative body to order corrections when property is erroneously assessed. He read from the meeting record, citing the statute noted in the hearing.

Commissioner Garner moved to approve the appeal; the motion was seconded and passed on an aye vote. Commissioners voting in favor recorded their assent during the roll call. The appeal resolves the county assessment for the accounts discussed and directs staff to adjust the assessed personal property values consistent with the commission decision.

Votes at a glance
- Item 1 (personal-property appeal for ACE accounts): Motion to approve appeal; mover — Commissioner Garner; second — another commissioner; outcome — approved (ayes recorded). The appeal concerned removal of approximately $271,000 in assessed value that the taxpayer says was disposed of in 2018; Heaton said the related tax impact was small (taxes cited in discussion included figures described as approximately $2,700 and smaller amounts on other accounts).
- Item 2 (replace Accident Review Board with Risk Committee): approved.
- Item 9 (additional no-cost service added to existing contract): approved.
- Item 14 (two years of Utah Lake Authority marketing funding): approved.
- Item 18 (lease with Community Action for the Red Building/warming center): approved.

Discussion vs. decision
The record distinguishes discussion from formal action. Testimony and question-and-answer between Dan Heaton and assessor’s staff constitute discussion of factual claims and audit procedure. The formal action taken by the commission was approval of the taxpayer’s appeal; commissioners were explicit that either party may appeal the commission’s decision to the Utah State Tax Commission.

Authorities and references cited at the hearing include the Utah State Tax Commission audit and a statute cited in the hearing record (referenced as section 59 2 13 21, Utah Code, in participants’ remarks).