Jon at Montana Main Street submitted a response which began to address questions MOTTO raised regarding the HB469 veto.  

The legal proceeding was a tax protest filed by Qwest in 2006 that is making its way through the appeal process (still trying to learn more about this). Around 12 companies on average file tax protests per year based on DOR's centrally-assessed theories.

Just to answer some of the questions you pose: Yes, wireless companies will see their taxes double as a result of the governor's veto. Currently, they are not centrally-assessed based on the theory that cell towers do not fall into the same category as other utilities that have physical connections from county to county (railroads, pipelines, transmission lines, telephone lines). That a decision the legislature made in 1999. When DOR moves them into the centrally assessed category after the session, their property taxes will go from 3% to 6%. Not good for investment in Eastern Montana where they need more cell towers.

Also, since the DOR believes no physical connection is needed in order to lump a business into the centrally-assessed category, look for them to drag other companies (department stores, restaurants, banks, etc...) into centrally assessed categories just to double the tax rates without legislative action.

Like you, I am also wondering if legislators who supported the bill initially will switch only because of the governor's veto. Nothing that was presented in the governor's letter was new information. All of it had been discussed in both houses. If it was such a good idea for Montana and constituents, what has changed? No need to respond to my question - I already know the answer.

Jon is a good advocate for the Chamber and business in general.  I, too, have reservations regarding business taxes and agree the State should not be looking at centrally assessing like property as Jon described.  Central assessment is an important issue that needs to be addressed with the executive in context.    

I have long been one of those "urban" voices who rally to support rural interests, particularly central & eastern Montana.  We all have to work together.  That is exactly why this particular bill & veto have to be looked at so closely.  Tax protest places money local gov't need aside, unavailable to the gov't.  I need not remind anyone in North Central Montana the effect of tax protest on local government budgets.  These tax issues have broad implications to our local governments and school districts, and ultimately the local taxpayer (including business).

In this particular instance, it appears that wireless companies have been historically charged at the 3% rate.  Senator Gillan &  Representative McNutt (both of whom I admire & have the utmost respect) have stated that this was a legislative decision in 1999.  The bill carried by then Rep. Gillan in 1999 is not that clear( however it may have been a different bill or administrative rule).  I do  believe these issues were discussed at length in the committee, and a 3% rate is current intent by our legislators.  (That does not change what has been collected or what was projected to be collected according to the HB469 fiscal note).

The primary issue, I believe, is does the legislative intent in 469 harm the ability for the State to collect at a centrally assessed rate of 6% from property owned by non-wireless telecommunication companies?  Are we treating similar companies differently or unfairly?  If the answer is yes, are we potentially creating a large financial risk to the State, local governments, and education?  

I have asked DOR for information regarding the tax protest.