PHILLIPS 66 COMPANY v. ASSESSOR WENDY AGUILLARD AND THE CALCASIEU PARISH BOARD OF REVIEW (2025)

In this ad valorem tax case, a tax assessor challenges a Louisiana Board of Tax Appeals’ judgment, which reversed the Louisiana Tax Commission's order striking a taxpayer's property appraisal report, and instead ordered the Louisiana Tax Commission to file the appraisal report into the record. After review, we reverse the Louisiana Board of Tax Appeals’ judgment, reinstate the Louisiana Tax Commission's order striking the appraisal report, and remand to the Louisiana Tax Commission for further proceedings.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In 2023, Phillips 66 Company (Phillips) owned a crude oil refinery in Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana. For tax year 2023, Phillips sought a reduction in the refinery's fair market value, from approximately $1.72 billion to approximately $490,000, based on obsolescence. Calcasieu Parish Tax Assessor Wendy Aguillard (Assessor) rejected Phillips’ obsolescence request and assessed the fair market value of the refinery at approximately $1.72 billion. On September 13, 2023, Phillips challenged the assessment before the Calcasieu Parish Board of Review (Board of Review). After the Board of Review affirmed the assessment, Phillips appealed to the Louisiana Tax Commission (the Commission) under the Commission's Docket Number 23-22019-009.

On June 18, 2024, the Commission issued a Case Management Scheduling Order (CMSO) setting a hearing on the matter for January 15, 2025; ordering Phillips to pre-file its exhibits into the record and to serve the Assessor with the exhibits on or before November 15, 2024; and ordering the Assessor to pre-file her exhibits and serve Phillips with the exhibits on or before December 16, 2024. On December 13, 2024, four weeks after the CMSO deadline, Phillips filed an appraisal report of its refinery for tax year 2023 (2023 Appraisal) with the Commission. The Assessor filed a motion in limine requesting that the Commission strike the 2023 Appraisal, because Phillips had not timely provided it to her nor had Phillips timely filed it with the Commission before the deadline mandated by the CMSO. After a contradictory hearing, the Commission issued an order on January 30, 2025, granting the Assessor's motion and striking the 2023 Appraisal from the record (the Commission's Order).

On February 17, 2025, Phillips filed a petition for expedited review of the Commission's Order with the Louisiana Board of Tax Appeals (BTA). After a hearing, the BTA signed a judgment on July 15, 2025, reversing the Commission's Order and ordering the Commission to file the 2023 Appraisal into the Commission record. The BTA signed an amended judgment on January 13, 2026. The Assessor appeals the adverse judgment.²

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

On appeal, the Assessor contends the BTA erred in ordering the Commission to file the 2023 Appraisal into the Commission record for several reasons: the BTA applied the incorrect standard of review; the BTA failed to give due regard to the Commission's construction of the tax statutes it administers and to its factual determinations; the BTA failed to recognize that Phillips submitted the 2023 Appraisal after the deadline for filing exhibits as required by Louisiana Administrative Code 61:V.3103 and by the CMSO; and, the BTA erred in ordering the Commission to file the 2023 Appraisal into the Commission record when Phillips did not first apply to the Commission to present the 2023 Appraisal as additional evidence to be considered by the Assessor, as required by La. R.S. 47:1989(C)(2)(a)(i), but instead merely filed the 2023 Appraisal for the first time on appeal to be considered by the Commission itself.

JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW

Each assessor shall determine the fair market value of all property subject to taxation within his respective parish or district except public service properties. La. Const. art. VII, § 18(D). The correctness of assessments by the assessor shall be subject to review first by the parish governing authority, sitting as the board of review; then by the Commission or its successor; and finally by the BTA or appropriate district court, all in accordance with procedures established by law. See La. Const. art. VII, § 18(E); La. R.S. 47:1931 and 47:1992; La. R.S. 47:1989; La. R.S. 47:1998. See Comeaux v. Louisiana Tax Commission, 2020-01037 (La. 5/20/21), 320 So.3d 1083, 1097-98.³

The Commission shall consider the appeal of any taxpayer dissatisfied with the determination of a board of review. See La. R.S. 47:1989(B). Generally, the Commission's review of the correctness of an assessment shall be confined to review of evidence presented to the assessor prior to the close of the deadline for filing a complaint with the board of review. See La. R.S. 47:1989(C)(2)(a)(i). However, under certain circumstances, the Commission may order the assessor to take additional evidence, if the taxpayer establishes there are “good reasons” for failing to timely present the evidence to the assessor. Id.

The Commission's decision to deny a taxpayer's application to present additional evidence under La. R.S. 47:1989(C)(2)(a), shall, at the option of the taxpayer, be considered a final determination for purposes of appeal under La. R.S. 47:1998 or be subject to immediate review by supervisory writ in the same manner as provided for in Rule 4 of the Uniform Rules of Louisiana Courts of Appeal. See La. R.S. 47:1989(C)(2)(b).

The BTA and district courts have concurrent jurisdiction to review final decisions made by the Commission under La. R.S. 47:1989. See La. Const. art. V, § 35; La. R.S. 47:1998(A)(1)(a); 47:1998(H)(1). The BTA's review shall be heard pursuant to La. R.S. 49:978.1 (formerly La. R.S. 49:964) of the Louisiana Administrative Procedure Act. See La. R.S. 47:1998(A)(1)(b)(i); Phillips 66 Company v. Aguillard, 2025-316 (La. App. 3 Cir. 11/19/25), 426 So.3d 195, 201, writ denied, 2025-01603 (La. 3/18/26), 427 So.3d 1244.

After BTA review, the matter shall be subject to review by the courts of appeal pursuant to Chapter 17 of Subtitle II of Title 47, “Revenue and Taxation,” which is comprised of La. R.S. 47:1401-1486. See La. R.S. 47:1998(H)(2). Under La. R.S. 47:1431(F)(1), a provision in Chapter 17, a taxpayer aggrieved by an action of the Commission, when that action is appealable to the BTA, may file a petition with the BTA in accordance with La. R.S. 47:1998. Thus, herein, because Phillips filed its petition for expedited review of the Commission's Order under La. R.S. 47:1998, we follow La. R.S. 47:1998(A)(1)(b)(i) and conduct our review under La. R.S. 49:978.1. See Phillips 66 Company 426 So.3d at 201. On review, the appellate court owes no deference to the BTA's factual findings or legal conclusions. See Perdido Energy Louisiana, LLC v. Acadia Parish Board of Review, 2022-0115 (La. App. 1 Cir. 9/1/22), 349 So.3d 41, 48, writ denied, 2022-01483 (La. 12/20/22), 352 So.3d 81 (interpreting La. R.S. 49:964, the predecessor statute to La. R.S. 49:978.1). Rather, the appellate court conducts its own review of the administrative record and reviews the administrative agency's decision and findings (in this case, the Commission's decisions and findings) using the standards set forth in La. R.S. 49:978.1(G).⁴ Id.

Thus, this Court reviews whether the Commission's Order striking the 2023 Appraisal should be affirmed, remanded, reversed, or modified, pursuant to La. R.S. 49:978.1(G), which provides:

The court may affirm the decision of the agency or remand the case for further proceedings. The court may reverse or modify the decision if substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are:

(1) In violation of constitutional or statutory provisions;

(2) In excess of the statutory authority of the agency;

(3) Made upon unlawful procedure;

(4) Affected by other error of law;

(5) Arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion; or

(6) Not supported and sustainable by a preponderance of the evidence as determined by the reviewing court. In the application of this rule, the court shall make its own determination and conclusions of fact by a preponderance of evidence based upon its own evaluation of the record reviewed in its entirety upon judicial review. In the application of the rule, where the agency has the opportunity to judge the credibility of witnesses by first-hand observation of demeanor on the witness stand and the reviewing court does not, due regard shall be given to the agency's determination of credibility issues.

DISCUSSION

Application to Present Additional Evidence

We first address the Assessor's argument that the BTA erred in ordering the Commission to file the 2023 Appraisal into the Commission record, because Phillips did not first “[make] application to present additional evidence” to the Commission, as required by La. R.S. 47:1989(C)(2)(a)(i). The Assessor correctly points out that Phillips did not “apply” to the Commission to present the 2023 Appraisal but rather merely filed the 2023 Appraisal with the Commission on December 13, 2024. We agree that merely filing the 2023 Appraisal into the Commission record was improper under La. R.S. 49:1989(C)(2). However, the Assessor responded to Phillips’ improper action by filing a motion in limine to strike the 2023 Appraisal, and the record shows that, in ruling on that motion, the Commission conducted a hearing to determine if Phillips had good reason for filing the 2023 Appraisal late and determined that it did not. This is the same analysis the Commission would have conducted had Phillips properly “[made] application to present” the 2023 Appraisal as additional evidence, as required by La. R.S. 47:1989(C)(2)(a)(i). Thus, under the limited circumstances of this case, we will review the Commission's Order in accordance with the relevant standards set forth above.

Review of Commission's Order

Applying La. R.S. 49:978.1(G), we now decide whether the Commission's Order should be affirmed, remanded, reversed, or modified.

When a taxpayer appeals an assessment to the Commission, and the taxpayer wants to present additional evidence that was not first presented to the assessor, La. R.S. 47:1989(C)(2)(a)(i) dictates the procedure to be followed. The Commission may order the assessor to take additional evidence if: (1) the taxpayer makes application to present additional evidence before the date set for the Commission's hearing on the appeal; (2) the Commission finds the additional evidence is material; and (3) the Commission finds there were good reasons for the taxpayer's failure to timely present it to the assessor. See La. R.S. 47:1989(C)(2)(a)(i). “Good reason” for failure to timely present information to the assessor shall be presumed to exist for the reports of any appraiser or other expert that were “ordered” prior to the deadline for filing a complaint with the board of review, if the report is submitted: (1) to the assessor within thirty days of the taxpayer's receipt of the report and (2) at least twenty five days before the Commission hearing. See La. R.S. 47:1989(C)(2)(a)(ii). But, no provision of La. R.S. 47:1989(C) shall extend any deadline beyond the date that would be applicable under evidentiary rules promulgated by the Commission. See La. R.S. 47:1989(C)(2)(d). Here, the Commission found that Phillips was not entitled to the “good reason” presumption provided by La. R.S. 47:1989(C)(2)(a)(ii) and that Phillips failed to establish any other good reason for its failure to timely present the 2023 Appraisal to the Assessor.

Good Reason Presumption

The Commission concluded Phillips was not entitled to the “good reason” presumption provided by La. R.S. 47:1989(C)(2)(a)(ii), because Phillips failed to prove it timely “ordered” the 2023 Appraisal prior to the deadline for filing a complaint with the Board of Review. Under La. R.S. 47:1992(C), Phillips was required to file its complaint with the Board of Review “no later than seven days prior to the [Board of Review's] public hearing.”⁵

On appeal, Phillips contends the Board of Review's public hearing herein “was set for September 21, [2023],” and Phillips timely “ordered” the 2023 Appraisal on September 14, 2023. As evidence that it timely “ordered” the 2023 Appraisal, Phillips points to a September 14, 2023 email from Chris Cisneros, Phillips’ Property Tax Director, to Stancil and Company, an appraisal company. Mr. Cisneros’ email states, “I would like to order an appraisal of the Lake Charles Refinery as of January 1, 2023[,] pending final approval from the refinery management.”

The Commission determined that Mr. Cisneros’ email did not constitute an “order” as contemplated by La. R.S. 49:1989(C)(2)(a)(ii) because: the email expressly provided that the order had to be approved by “the refinery management;” Phillips did not provide any evidence establishing when management approval was given for the appraisal; and Phillips failed to adequately explain why an appraisal would take fifteen months to prepare and publish. Based on these determinations, the Commission concluded La. R.S. 47:1989(2)(C)(a)(ii)’s “good reason” presumption did not apply.

We find no error. Reasonably interpreting Mr. Cisneros’ email, we agree with the Commission that the email did not constitute a definitive order for the 2023 Appraisal. Rather, Mr. Cisneros’ “order” was conditioned on management approval and there is no evidence establishing when that approval was given. Thus, because Phillips did not prove that it ordered the 2023 Appraisal prior to the deadline for filing a complaint with the Board of Review, the Commission did not err in finding that Phillips was not entitled to La. R.S. 47:1989(C)(2)(a)(ii)’s “good reason” presumption.

At this point, because the parties raise the issue, we clarify an important limitation on the Commission's review under La. R.S. 47:1989(C)(2). Even if Phillips was entitled to a good reason presumption, the Commission would not have been required to consider the 2023 Appraisal. That is, under La. R.S. 47:1989(C)(2)(a)(i), if a taxpayer properly proves good reason for failure to timely present additional evidence to the assessor, the Commission is not then required to order that the additional evidence be taken. Rather, if the taxpayer proves good reason, La. R.S. 47:1989(C)(2)(a)(i) merely states that the Commission may order that additional evidence be taken, leaving it clearly within the Commission's discretion to do so. When used in a statute, the word “may” is permissive and denotes discretion. La. R.S. 1:3; Blake International v. State, 2015-0164 (La. App. 1 Cir. 9/18/15), 182 So.3d 169, 177.⁶

Thus, under the review standard of La. R.S. 49:978.1(G), we find the Commission did not err in striking the 2023 Appraisal, because Phillips did not prove it had good reason for failing to timely present it to the Assessor. And, even if Phillips had proven good reason, the Commission was not required to order the Assessor to consider the 2023 Appraisal, but rather, would have had discretion whether or not to do so.

Failure to Comply with CMSO Deadline

In addition to the lack of good reason for failing to timely present the 2023 Appraisal to the Assessor, the Assessor contends the Commission properly struck the 2023 Appraisal because Phillips submitted it after the deadline set in the CMSO. In opposition, Phillips contends that La. R.S. 47:1989(C)(2)(a)(ii), not the CMSO, prescribes the timeline for the filing an appraisal. Phillips thus contends that, because it submitted the 2023 Appraisal to the Assessor within thirty days of having received it and at least 25 days before the Commission hearing, as required by La. R.S. 47:1989(C)(2)(a)(ii), then any contrary deadline in the CMSO does not control.

Louisiana Revised Statutes 47:1989(C)(2)(d) provides that the Commission “may promulgate rules related to the disclosure of evidence to the opposing party and the consideration of evidentiary disputes, and no provision of this Paragraph [Paragraph CJ shall extend any deadline beyond the date that would be applicable pursuant to [Commission] rules.” (Emphasis added.) Pursuant to La. R.S. 47:1989(C)(2)(d), the Commission has promulgated LAC 61:V.31O3, which addresses the disclosure of evidence in a Commission review proceeding. Specifically, under LAC 61.V.3103(C)(10), the Commission has the authority to issue a case management scheduling order setting discovery and filing deadlines, and under LAC 61.V.3103(D)(2), the “taxpayer shall pre-file all documentary evidence with the [Commission] in accordance with these rules, or any case management scheduling order adopted by the [Commission].” (Emphasis added.)

In this case, the CMSO scheduled a hearing for January 15, 2025, and directed Phillips to pre-file all documents and papers into evidence and to serve copies of such documents upon the Assessor on or before November 15, 2024. On November 15, 2024, Phillips filed an exhibit list identifying the 2023 Appraisal as one of its exhibits, but stated that it would be “provided upon receipt.” It is undisputed that Phillips did not file the 2023 Appraisal with the Commission and provide it to the Assessor until December 13, 2024, four weeks after the CMSO's deadline. Thus, even had Phillips complied with all of Subsection (C)(2)(a), Subsection (C)(2)(d) explicitly prohibits the use of any other provision of Paragraph C (which includes Subsection (C)(2)(a)) to extend the deadlines the Commission set in its CMSO. Contrary to Phillips’ assertion on appeal, these subsections do not conflict. Thus, because Phillips failed to file the 2023 Appraisal on or before the CMSO's November 15, 2024 deadline, such is another basis for finding the Commission properly struck the 2023 Appraisal.

CONCLUSION

In sum, based on our review of the administrative record, we conclude there is no basis in La. R.S. 49:978.1(G) requiring reversal of the Commission's Order in this case, and the BTA erred in concluding otherwise. Phillips did not prove it had good reason for failing to timely file the 2023 Appraisal with the Assessor, because it presented no evidence that it ordered the 2023 Appraisal prior to the deadline for filing a complaint with the Board of Review. Further, Phillips failed to comply with the CMSO deadline for filing the 2023 Appraisal.

For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the Louisiana Board of Tax Appeals’ January 13, 2026 amended judgment; reinstate the Louisiana Tax Commission's January 30, 2025 order, which granted the motion in limine filed by Calcasieu Parish Tax Assessor Wendy Aguillard and struck Phillips 66 Company's Exhibit 16 (labeled “Appraisal of Taxpayer's Refinery Property for 2023, prepared by Stancil & Co.”) from the record in Louisiana Tax Commission Docket Number 23-22019-009; and remand this matter to the Louisiana Tax Commission for further proceedings. We assess costs of this appeal to Phillips 66 Company.

LOUISIANA BOARD OF TAX APPEALS’ JANUARY 13, 2026 AMENDED JUDGMENT REVERSED; LOUISIANA TAX COMMISSION'S JANUARY 30, 2025 ORDER REINSTATED; REMANDED.

FOOTNOTES

2.   The Assessor appealed the BTA's original July 15, 2025 judgment. This Court issued an interim order remanding this matter to the BTA to consider issuing an amended judgment correcting certain deficiencies in the July 15th judgment's decretal language. The BTA thereafter signed an amended judgment on January 13, 2026, which corrected the deficiencies; this Court supplemented the appellate record with the amended judgment; and, on January 27, 2026, this Court maintained the appeal.

3.   Louisiana's constitutional and statutory law formulates a two-track procedure for challenging property tax assessments; one track encompasses challenges to the correctness of an assessor's assessment, while the other track encompasses challenges to the legality of the tax levied. Gisclair v. Louisiana Tax Commission, 2009-0007 (La. 6/26/09), 16 So.3d 1132, 1135. Generally, the Commission has original jurisdiction over correctness challenges, while the district court has original jurisdiction over legality challenges, including constitutional claims presented that arise from a correctness challenge. Id. at 1136, 1138.

4.   We review the Commission's Order using the standard of review set forth in La. R.S. 49:978.1(G), not the BTA's decision and findings. Thus, we do not address the Assessor's arguments that the BTA applied the incorrect standard of review and failed to give deference to the Commission. We also note that the Legislature recently amended La. R.S. 49:978.1 to add Section H, which sets forth a standard of review for an agency's interpretation of a state statute or rule. See 2025 La. Acts No. 139. We need not decide whether Section H applies to our review herein, because we reach the same conclusion under prior law or the law as amended.

5.   Louisiana Revised Statutes 47:1992.2 specifically pertains to complaints filed at the Calcasieu Parish board of review. However, this statute does not apply herein – it is only applicable to complaints filed on or after July 1, 2025. See 2025 La. Acts No. 9, § 2.

6.   Further, if the Commission exercises its discretion, La. R.S. 47:1989(C)(2)(a)(i) only authorizes the Commission to “order that the additional evidence be taken by the assessor’”- the statute does not authorize the Commission to consider the additional evidence itself for the first time in its review of the challenged assessment. This procedure conforms to the constitutionally established principle that it is the assessor's function to determine assessments in the first instance, and the Commission's primary function is one of review, as opposed to assessment. See La. Const. art. VII, §§ 18(D) and (E); Dow Chemical Company v. Pitre, 468 So.2d 747, 754 (La. App. 1 Cir.), writ denied, 474 So.2d 1308 (La. 1985); Phillips 66 Company, 426 So.3d at 201; TBM-WC Sabine, LLC v. Sabine Parish Board of Review, 17-1189 (La. App. 3 Cir. 7/18/18), 250 So.3d 1075, 1079.

GREENE, J.