Updated December 2025

Property Tax Appeal Board Issues Evidentiary Clarification Regarding the Admissibility of Appraisals

Historically, PTAB excluded appraisal reports when the appraiser did not testify, based on hearsay objections. This practice has been re-evaluated in light of statutory authority, administrative rules, and binding judicial precedent.

While this clarification does not formally revise Rule 1910.65, parties are advised that: (1) Appraisals submitted in market value appeals will be admitted into evidence, even if the appraiser does not testify, (2)Objections based on hearsay, licensure, or methodology will affect the weight, not the admissibility, of the appraisal, and (3)This approach aligns with PTAB's duty to evaluate all relevant evidence and conforms to the principles of substantial justice as articulated in 1411 N. State Condo. Ass'n v. PTAB, 2016 IL App (1st) 143757.

Passco Mellody Farm DST Trust v. Holly Kim, 2025 IL App (2d) 240329.  

This recent decision from September 2025 underscores the limitations on assessors’ authority to revise property valuations in non-quadrennial years and the importance of adhering to statutory procedures. 

Adam Becker
Siegel Jennings Co., L.P.A.
American Property Tax Counsel (APTC)

UPDATED september 2025

Major Win for Kentucky Big Box Properties

In a blistering, “to be published” opinion, the Kentucky Court of Appeals sided with a big-box retailer and seemingly rejected the “dark store” theory.  In Lowe’s Home Centers v. Arnold, No. 2024-CA-0307-MR (Aug. 22, 2025), the court criticized the Kentucky Board of Tax Appeals’ (“KBTA”) methodology for valuing an owner-occupied property.  The KBTA relied on unadjusted sales of leased Lowe’s to value an owner-occupied location, on the theory that any future sale of the property would be a sale/leaseback to Lowe’s or to a similarly creditworthy tenant.  The court found that the PVA’s appraiser’s value was “manufactured” and “not based on evidence.”  Instead, the court held that the Kentucky Constitution requires that the property should have been valued based on the fair cash value of “a lease to a buyer in general” in the area.  While the court that leased properties may be used as comparables for unleased properties, it noted that the leased comparables must be adjusted to render them comparable.

The court rejected the PVA’s argument that the comparable sales approach requires that vacant properties must be adjusted to account for their vacant status.  The court called the “dark store” theory a “red herring” that is “unsupported both in the law and in practice.”  Lowe’s appraiser’s conclusion that the property was only worth as much as it could be sold as a vacant store “is precisely what is required under the Kentucky Constitution.”

The county has filed a petition for rehearing, so the decision is not final – but if the case holds, it will represent the first published decision in Kentucky rejecting the “dark store” theory.

Michele M. Whittington
Morgan Pottinger McGarvey
American Property Tax Counsel (APTC)

UPDATED december 2022

Massachusetts Fiscal Year 2023 Property Tax Bills are to be issued

Most jurisdictions in Massachusetts sent out there actual fiscal year 2023 property tax bills during December of 2022.  The actual property tax bill is the first tax bill of the fiscal year that contains as assessed value and a tax rate. It is from this actual property tax bill that rights of appeal accrue. In most cases the fiscal year 2023 filing deadline is February 1, 2023. It is important to review your actual property tax bill as many communities in the Commonwealth are revaluing. In most cases the timely payment of property taxes is a jurisdictional prerequisite to a valid property tax appeal. Timely payment means that payment must be mailed to the tax collector by the due date. It is incumbent on the taxpayer to prove the date of mailing. Taxpayers must be vigilant as the taxing authority has the advantage at every turn.

David G. Saliba
Saliba & Saliba
American Property Tax Counsel (APTC)

UPDATED december 2025

December 31, 2025 Michigan Update From Honigman LLP

1. Coming Soon: 2026 Michigan Assessment Notices & Tax Appeal Deadlines

During the first quarter, Michigan assessors will be sending 2026 assessment notices.  For some properties, including those real property parcels that assessors have classified as agricultural or residential, an appeal to the Michigan Tax Tribunal usually requires first satisfying appeal requirements at the local level by appealing to the local Board of Review.

 Michigan’s inflation cap for taxable values (on which taxes are based), will be 2.7% for 2026.  When combined with the 3.1% increase in 2025 and 5% increases in 2023 and 2024, some properties will be suffering from 15.8% plus tax increases during a relatively short period in which cap rates for many properties have increased and property values have declined.   

For Michigan properties that the assessors have classified as commercial real or industrial real, taxpayers should calendar May 31 as the appeal deadline for valuation appeals notwithstanding that the deadline is extended to the following Monday because May 31, 2026 is a Sunday.  Those with property tax concerns, whether because of a valuation, exemption or other issue, should confer with their property tax counsel as soon as reasonably possible.

1. The Tax Tribunal is Sue Sponte Dismissing Appeals Deemed Untimely

The Tribunal is interpreting the Michigan Supreme Court’s decision in Sixarp LLC v Byron Twp, ___ Mich ___; ___ NW3d ___ (2025) as requiring the Tax Tribunal to sue sponte dismiss cases that it deems untimely filed. The Tax Tribunal is taking the position that if a case is untimely filed, then the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to take any action in the case, because the Tribunal does not have equitable powers to waive or otherwise disregard a statutory requirement or filing deadline. The Tax Tribunal, however, is dismissing cases without giving the parties an opportunity at a default proceeding to provide evidence regarding the timing of the filing which could be a due process violation. The Michigan Court of Appeals will be reviewing this issue eventually.

1. Appellate Decisions to Watch for in Early 2026

The Michigan Supreme Court recently held oral argument in Knier Powers v Bay City, regarding whether the value of a new roof results in a taxable value uncapping. The taxpayer is a law firm that owns an office building in Bay City. The taxpayer replaced the roof in 2021. Because of the roof project, Bay City uncapped the property’s taxable value, adding value attributable to the replacement roof. Bay City asserted the replacement roof was an “addition” within the meaning of MCL 211.27a(2)(a). Under MCL 211.27a(2)(a), taxable value may be uncapped to include the value of “additions.” Bay City asserted the replacement roof was “new construction” which is a type of addition as defined in MCL 211.34d(1)(b)(iii). “New construction” is “not in existence on the immediately preceding tax day” and is not replacing property damaged or destroyed by accident or act of God. MCL 211.34d(1)(b)(iii), (v). The Michigan Court of Appeals held that “the installation of a new roof on a commercial building was ‘new construction,’ and, therefore,” it was an “addition” that is not subject to the taxable value cap.

The Court of Appeals recently held oral argument in IIP-MI 4 LLC & LivWell Michigan LLC v City of Warren. The Tax Tribunal held a cannabis grow operation was devoted primarily to agricultural use and therefore “qualified agricultural property” that is exempt from 18 mills of school operating tax. The Tax Tribunal held that even though the taxpayer should have appealed the exemption denial to the July board of review under MCL 211.7ee(6), because the assessor’s denial misled the taxpayer by advising an appeal could be made to the July or December board of review, the taxpayer’s due process rights were violated, and the Tax Tribunal could excuse the board appearance and accept jurisdiction to review the exemption issue.

Jackie J. Cook
Honigman LLP
American Property Tax Counsel (APTC)

Updated march 2022

Recapture Tax: The Exception To Nevada’s Tax Cap

Historically, property taxes were calculated by simply multiplying the taxable value of a parcel by the assessment rate and multiplying the resulting product by the tax rate.  This simple approach provided a level of uniformity, but in a rising market the increase in a property owner’s taxes would mirror the increase in the value of the property owner’s parcel.  A real estate market that continues to rise, year-after year, would cause taxes to escalate, squeezing those living on a fixed income.  To address this problem, the Nevada Legislature passed a partial abatement from property tax which applies to all properties.  This legislation is commonly referred to as the tax cap because it limits the amount taxes can increase, from one year to the next, to a fixed percentage.  This ensures predictability and stability in the tax treatment of a parcel – unless the valuation of the parcel triggers the recapture tax imposed by NRS 361.4725.

The recapture tax is triggered when, during a three year period, the taxable value of a parcel declines by 15% or more followed by an increase in value of 15% or more.  If the valuation of a parcel fits this roller-coaster pattern the resulting recapture tax can come as a surprise.  The impact is illustrated by the following example which is based on the assessor’s valuation of an actual parcel.

In year 1 the parcel was assigned a taxable value of $1,234,800.  In year 2 the taxable value dropped to $840,351 – a decline 32%.   The tax in year 2 (based on an assessment rate of 35% and tax rate of 3%) would be $8,824.

In year 3 the value of the parcel increased to $1,430,800 – an increase of 70%.  Despite the increase in value the tax cap limits the tax assessment to an increase of no more than $706 – 8% of the tax paid in year 2.  However, the fluctuation in value would trigger the assessment of a recapture tax of $1,515 in year 3. 

In this example the property owner would be assessed the 8% increase allowed by the tax cap and the 17% increase attributable to the recapture tax (although collection of the recapture tax would be spread over 3 years). 

Property owners appreciate the predictability provided by the tax cap in a rising real estate market but are often unaware that a recapture tax might be assessed.  No notice of the pending assessment is given; it just shows up on the tax bill.  Consequently, for many the assessment comes as an unwelcome surprise.

The tax bills for tax year 2022-23 will be issued in July.  Many of those bills are likely to include the assessment of a recapture tax because, following the outbreak of the coronavirus and the closure of businesses, the assessor assigned reduced values to many properties for tax year 2021-22.  Then, after businesses reopened and the incidence of infection waned, the assessor increased the values for tax year 2022-23.  This valuation pattern is likely to trigger the assessment of recapture tax for some properties.

It is always important to critically review the tax treatment of your property, but this year there will be one added factor to consider – the recapture tax.  Our property tax attorneys know the critical legal and valuation factors that affect the tax treatment of property in Nevada and are prepared to assist property owners in evaluating and, when appropriate, challenging that tax treatment.

Paul D. Bancroft
McDonald Carano
American Property Tax Counsel (APTC)

Updated december 2022

New Hampshire property tax bills have been issued

Most communities in New Hampshire have sent out their 2022 property tax bills. These tax bills have an assessing date of April 1, 2022. The property tax assessment of taxable real estate should be the fee simple market value of the property as of April 1, 2022, multiplied by the jurisdiction's median assessment ratio. If your property is assessed in excess of that amount, you may have grounds for a tax appeal. In general, abatement applications must be filed with the local assessors by March 1, 2023. If you are aggrieved by the action or inaction of the local assessors, you may file a petition with the State Board of Tax and Land Appeals or the Superior Court in the County where the property is located. The deadline for filing the petitions is generally September 1, 2023. There you will be afforded a full hearing on the merits where the rules of evidence will apply.

David G. Saliba
Saliba & Saliba
American Property Tax Counsel (APTC)

UPDATED december 2025

Governor DeWine Approves Multiple Bills Aimed at Providing Relief to Ohio Property Taxpayers

Economic and legislative changes over the course of the last five years have transformed the property tax landscape in Ohio.  This Counsel is no stranger to the ongoing repercussions of House Bill 126, but 126 isn’t the only thing on the minds of Ohio property owners.

Many Ohio properties have seen historically significant and even exponential value increases in recent years, which has resulted in outcry and even grassroots movements like the one currently undertaken by the Committee to Abolish Ohio Property Taxes.  The committee seeks to eliminate Ohio property taxes via a constitutional amendment proposed for the November 2026 ballot.  It is currently attempting to gather the required 400,000 signatures. 

To ease the new tax burdens and to help put out the fire started by the committee, five bills have been recently passed.

House Bill 186 will provide close to $1.7B in property tax credits to offset large spikes in home values.  It is aimed at approximately 75% of Ohio school districts located primarily in rural small towns, and caps future tax increases at inflation.  These homeowners will also receive tax credits for tax years 2023 and 2024, when tax increases were at their greatest.  The bill also increases owner occupancy tax credits on certain levies over the next five years but will gradually eliminate a 10% non-business credit that was formerly collected by some landlords.  The latter measure has been met with criticism, as investors theorize those lost savings will translate to increased rents.

House Bill 335 will temper the growth of inside millage (unvoted property taxes), tying it to inflation.  The measure is expected to save taxpayers an estimated $700 million over three years.

House Bill 129 changes the calculation for the 20-mill floor and will result in an additional 211 school districts above that floor.  This should result in fewer tax hikes for homeowners in affected districts but also an estimated $609 million in lost school revenue.

House Bill 309 isn’t a tax cut but gives county budget commissions broadened power to reduce excessive voted property tax levies, which aims to help curb tax spikes from reappraisals. 

Finally, House Bill 124 moves the responsibility of sales data collection from the Ohio Department of Taxation to the county auditor/fiscal officer.  The theory is that the county itself will know its own markets better than the state, which should result in more accurate assessments.

It will likely be months/years before the full benefit of each measure is felt, not to mention any negative or unintended consequences.  Siegel Jennings will continue to update this Counsel as these measures move from theory to reality.

Kris Nicoloff
Siegel Jennings Co., L.P.A.
American Property Tax Counsel (APTC)

UPDATED september 2025

Oklahoma Law Requires Timely Payment of Taxes Under Written Notice of Protest

Treasurers across Oklahoma will begin mailing 2025 tax bills in October. By law, the taxes are due by December 31st, but the taxpayer has the option of making two equal installment payments, one on December 31st and the other on the following March 31st.

If a taxpayer has a protest pending, it is imperative that the taxes be paid timely, with an accompanying written notice of protest on OTC Form 990 specifying the amount of tax being paid under protest. By law, the treasurer must escrow the disputed taxes pending outcome of the appeal.  Failure to pay timely, or failure to pay under notice of protest, subjects the taxpayer’s appeal to dismissal.

Brittany N. Dowd
Elias, Books, Brown & Nelson, P.C.
American Property Tax Counsel (APTC)

UPDATED september 2023

Oregon Taxation of Delta Airlines Intangible Property Unconstitutional

In Oregon, centrally assessed properties have historically been subject to assessment of their intangible property. While locally assessed properties are statutorily exempt from taxation of intangible property, which includes a business’s work force, customer lists, patents, trademarks, trade secrets, goodwill, and contacts. 

In a significant decision, the Oregon Tax Court concluded that this statutory scheme, the taxation of intangible property listed for centrally assessed businesses, violated the Oregon Uniformity Clause and the federal Equal Protection Clause. The opinion was specific to Delta Airlines, because the court found no genuine differences between Delta’s (taxable) use of intangible property in its transportation business and the (exempt) use of intangible property in road transportation businesses or other businesses that rely on a network of property. How the court will later interpret “other businesses that rely on a network of property” is yet to be seen.

In this same decision, the court rejected the PacifiCorp’s regulated utility challenge because the court found genuine differences between PacifiCorp’s (taxable) use of intangible property in its business as a regulated public utility and (exempt) uses of intangible property in non-regulated businesses. Additionally, the court concluded the legislature could have determined that taxing the value of intangible property of a utility compliments the regulatory scheme by redistributing for public purposes some value that accrues through regulated operation that would otherwise be inure to investor-owners. 

As of the date of this writing, the Department of Revenue had not appealed this decision.

Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. Dep't of Revenue, No. TC 5409, 2023 WL 5425246 (Or. T.C. Aug. 23, 2023).

Cynthia M. Fraser
Foster Garvey PC
American Property Tax Counsel (APTC)

UPDATED december 2025

PA Lawsuit Seeking to Declare Base-Year Assessment System Unconstitutional

A lawsuit in Pennsylvania’s Commonwealth Court’s original jurisdiction from Petitioners Mon Valley Unemployed Committee Inc. seeks to declare Pennsylvania’s Base-Year Assessment System Unconstitutional. Mon Valley through their attorneys from the Community Justice Project are challenging the base-year system in Pennsylvania related to high coefficient of dispersion (COD) rates. They state that the COD in the majority of Pennsylvania counties is above 20% in 2024 indicating high rates of variation in property assessments. In their arguments they include the fact that under Pennsylvania’s base-year system some counties have not performed county-wide reassessments since the late 1960s.  

The petitioners charge two counts as to the current system’s unconstitutionality. Count I argues that the General Assembly under Article II, § 1 of the PA Constitution, unconstitutionally delegated their powers to Counties by failing to provide guidance on using a base-year versus current year assessment system, and by failing to set standards for counties to implement their property tax responsibilities. For Count II Petitioner’s argue that the base-year system establishes an unauthorized tax exemption under Article VIII § 2 and § 5 of the PA Constitution. Petitioners argue this unconstitutional tax exemption exists as irregular countywide assessments have de facto exempted property appreciation from taxation. These arguments both seek to eliminate the base-year system of property tax assessments in Pennsylvania.

Recently the Petitioners filed an amended complaint on December 23rd, 2025, removing the Governor and Attorney General of Pennsylvania as respondents and adding the General Assembly as a party to the lawsuit. Originally, the Petition from Mon Valley was filed in July 2025 against the Governor and Attorney General of Pennsylvania. The Respondents filed Preliminary Objections in September 2025 with an additional brief in Support of Preliminary Objections filed on November 24th, 2025. These Preliminary Objections challenged the organizational standing to file the suit, whether the petition claims a non-justiciable question, whether the parties are mis-joined in the suit, and that the petitioner failed to state a claim under Count I and II. It will be interesting to see how the court responds to the argument that the base-year system and its failure to account for property appreciation results in a property being exempt from taxation when the underlying property is still taxed.

By filing the amended complaint, the Petitioner sought to correct the joinder of the Governor and Attorney General as they are not involved in the Executive or Legislative Functions of property tax administration in Pennsylvania. However, the other claims from the Preliminary Objections will still need to be addressed if brought up by the General Assembly in further litigation. The only other change in the Amended Petition is the removal of Petitioner’s request for injunctive relief which had requested the Defendants to direct counties to assess properties. Now the petition merely asks the Court to declare the base-year system unconstitutional and to grant such additional relief as is just and proper.

Now that the General Assembly has been added as a party it is likely they will file a response and preliminary objections similar to those made previously by the Attorney General. One of those objections could be that the General Assembly is not the correct party to this litigation and instead the Defendants should be the 67 individual counties of Pennsylvania. Depending on their response and subsequent filings, this case could take a while to meet its resolution at the Commonwealth Court. Whether this case resolves before legislative change occurs will depend on the willingness of PA’s General Assembly to address this matter. However there have been talks of legislation to eliminate the base-year system and replace it with regular county-wide reassessments. In the end, it is too early to determine the willingness of the Court to accept these novel arguments of unconstitutionality, and we will be watching for the General Assembly’s response to being added as a party.

Connor R. Baumle, Esquire
Siegel Jennings, Co., L.P.A.
American Property Tax Counsel (APTC)