UPDATED June 2024

Alabama Legislature Passes 7% Annual Cap

The Alabama legislature recently enacted a bill (HB73) that will establish a 7% cap on annual increases in assessed values for most real property parcels in the State.

The cap will go into effect beginning with the 2025 tax year (valuation date as of 10/1/24). The 7% cap shall not apply to: (i) real property that has never been assessed, (ii) new additions and improvements, excluding repairs and ordinary maintenance, (iii) changes in classification, (iv) changes in ownership, excluding some family transfers and redemptions, and (v) properties located within a tax increment district.

The cap legislation has a sunset provision of three years, meaning that the legislature must renew the legislation to extend the cap beyond the 2027 tax year.

Aaron D. Vansant, Esq.
DonovanFingar, LLC
American Property Tax Counsel (APTC)

UPDATED march 2026

California Extends Tax Relief for Property Contamination

In late 2025, California enacted legislation (AB 985) providing relief for residents living in Los Angeles County near the Chiquita Canyon Landfill, where an expanding elevated temperature landfill event – a deep subsurface reaction generating excessive heat, gas, and odors – has been ongoing since 2022.  The law requires all properties within five miles of the landfill to be reassessed so homeowners are not taxed at pre‑event property values.  Importantly, these reassessments are retroactive to January 1, 2022, ensuring residents receive refunds or reductions that reflect real declines in property worth tied directly to the environmental crisis.  The 2025 legislation is especially noteworthy because, unlike more typical reassessments caused by damage to a specific parcel, the new law recognizes the economic impact on a property’s fair market value caused by negative environmental conditions occurring miles away. 

Cris K. O'Neall and Bree E. Burdick
Greenberg Traurig, LLP
American Property Tax Counsel (APTC)

Updated september 2024

Connecticut Real Estate Tax Update: 2024 Municipal Revaluations in Connecticut – Is Your Town Among Them?

It is always important to carefully review your tax bill and/or notices of assessments, but even more so in the year in which your city or town conducts a revaluation.

Each assessment should be carefully reviewed, even if your assessment has not increased substantially, as an appeal immediately after a revaluation maximizes a property owner's potential tax savings.

Connecticut law requires that each municipality conduct a general revaluation of the real estate within its borders at least once every five years. Given the passage of Connecticut Public Act 22-74, the State's Revaluation Schedule has shifted slightly with the creation of five new Revaluation Zones which purportedly allows for the coordination of revaluation services and provides a mechanism to create efficiency and municipal cost savings. This new law does not change the fact that municipalities must conduct revaluations in Connecticut every five years, however, the result is that some municipal revaluations are a year shorter or longer to transition into the new schedule.

The purpose of a revaluation is for a municipality to determine the market value of real estate to be used to calculate property taxes.

Once a property's value is set in a general revaluation, it remains constant over the entire five-year cycle, absent appeal, demolition, improvements or expansion. Of course, the annual taxes usually increase, as a municipality's mill rate increases incrementally from year to year. Municipalities across the State are on differing revaluation cycles.

The following is a list of Connecticut municipalities conducting revaluations this year:

Bloomfield
Branford
Brooklyn
Canterbury
Coventry
Hamden
Mansfield
Monroe
New Fairfield
North Branford
North Haven
Old Lyme
Oxford
Pomfret
Prospect
Putnam
Seymour
Thompson
Tolland
Torrington
Voluntown
Wallingford
West Haven
Windsor Locks*
Woodbridge

*One-year delay as Revaluation was originally scheduled for 10/1/2023

If your municipality is conducting a general revaluation for the October 1, 2024 Grand List you will receive a notice of tax assessment change soon.

Once the notices are issued, there may be a chance to meet informally with the assessor to discuss the new assessment, which should represent 70% of the fair market value of your real estate. However, if a property owner wishes to challenge the assessment formally, a written appeal must be filed with the local Board of Assessment Appeals by the February 20, 2025 statutory deadline.

It is in your best interest to be proactive in monitoring the revaluation process and your new assessment so that you can take all necessary steps to ensure that the assessment is equitable.

Nicholas W. Vitti Jr. and Joseph D. Szerejko
Murtha Cullina LLP
American Property Tax Counsel (APTC)

UPDATED june 2025

Property Tax Reform in Florida

The Governor, Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Senate President are considering significant property tax reform in 2026.  Although no reform passed in the 2025 legislative session, the House created a Select Committee on Property Taxes, which has already met two times and will continue to gather information about the sources and uses of property tax revenue.  In addition, the legislature passed a bill directing the Office of Economic and Demographic Research to conduct a study and establish a framework to reduce or eliminate property taxes for homestead property.  Some of the initial proposals before the House Select Committee were local referenda to eliminate homestead property taxes, increasing the current homestead exemption to $500,000 on non-school taxes, with a further increase to $1 million for seniors or long-term residents, as well as lowering the cap on annual assessment increases.  Many of these ideas would require constitutional amendments which could be on the ballot as early as the fall of 2026. 

Julie M. Schwartz, Esq.
Rennert Vogel Mandler & Rodriguez, P.A.
American Property Tax Counsel (APTC)

UPDATED march 2026

Watch Your Appeal Deadlines in Georgia

It’s almost that time of year again in Georgia – time to start thinking about ad valorem property tax appeal filing deadlines. County tax assessors mail out assessment notices to all real property owners in Georgia in the April/May/June time frame. Be on the lookout for assessment notices for each parcel owned. Appeals must be filed within 45 days of the date of the assessment notice. If you fail to meet this deadline, it will be too late to appeal when you get your tax bill and are dissatisfied with the amount of taxes you owe.

Lisa F. Stuckey
Georgia Property Tax Counsel, LLC
American Property Tax Counsel (APTC)

Updated march 2026

Federal Judge Rules Cook County Tax Sale System Unconstitutional

Late last year a federal judge ruled that the tax sale system used by Cook County is unconstitutional, violating both the Fifth Amendment and Eighth Amendment.

Bell v. Pappas, Case No. 1:22-cv-07061 (N.D. Ill.)

Adam W. Becker
Siegel Jennings, CO., LPA
American Property Tax Counsel (APTC)

Updated march 2026

Cook County Computer Issues Continue to Persist

Over $89 million in Cook County property tax refunds are delayed due to ongoing computer system upgrade issues. These refunds affect over 25,000 property owners who have been waiting for their refunds since May 2025.  These same computer system problems have also caused delays in tax bills being sent to property owners.  As a result, the 2025 first installment taxes normally due March 1, 2026, have been pushed back to April 1, 2026.

Property owners that are receiving refunds should ensure that they have applied for the refund and submitted the required documentation.  The Treasurer is also looking for alternative methods to release the funds to the property owners.

This computer upgrade has also halted the issuance of Certificates of Errors at the Cook County Assessor’s Office.  They can be filed, but they will lay stagnant until the computer upgrade has been properly implemented.

Adam W. Becker
Siegel Jennings Co., LPA
American Property Tax Counsel (APTC)

Updated march 2026

Cook County Assessor and Board of Review May Be Set for Change

Pat Hynes won the Democratic primary for Cook County assessor on Tuesday March 17th, defeating incumbent Fritz Kaegi.  Pat Hynes currently serves as Lyons Township Assessor and previously worked as a field inspector for the Cook County Assessor's Office for 23 years, including two years under Kaegi.

Liz Nicholson defeated incumbent Samantha Steel in the March 17 Democratic primary for the Cook County Board of Review’s District 2, which includes much of the North Side and northern suburbs. 

Overall, this is considered positive development for Cook County commercial property taxpayers.  Hynes and Nicholson were both supported by BOMA and other commercial real estate organizations.  

Adam W. Becker
Siegel Jennings Co., LPA
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 march 2026

March 31, 2026 Michigan Update

1. 2026 Michigan Assessment Notices & Tax Appeal Deadlines

Michigan taxpayers should have recently received their 2026 assessment notices, so now is the time to review the notices and evaluate whether there is a basis to challenge the valuation.

 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.   

Valuation appeals for commercial and industrial properties are due to be filed with the Michigan Tax Tribunal by June 1 (the statutory due date, May 31, falls on a weekend which moves the 2026 due date to the following Monday). Taxpayers 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.

2. The Michigan Supreme Court vacated the Court of Appeals published opinion in Knier Powers v Bay City.

This case involves a law firm that owns an office building in Bay City. The law firm replaced the building’s roof in 2021. Bay City asserted that the replacement roof was “new construction” and an “addition” within the meaning of MCL 211.34d(1)(b)(iii).  Under MCL 211.27a(2)(a), taxable value (which is used to calculate taxes) includes the value of “additions.”  With additions not subject to Michigan’s taxable value cap, this is a potentially important case.

In May of 2025, the Michigan Court of Appeals held that “the installation of the new roof was ‘new construction,’ and, therefore,” it was an “addition” that is not subject to the taxable value cap.    On March 25, 2026, the Michigan Supreme Court vacated the Court of Appeals opinion and remanded it for the Court of Appeals’ consideration of whether the Tax Tribunal had exceeded its authority in reviewing the taxpayer’s claim that the property tax statute at issue conflicted with Michigan’s Constitution.  Whether the Court of Appeals issues its decision this year, or next year, this case could be appealed again this year to the Michigan Supreme Court, so the final outcome of this case is quite uncertain. 

3. The Michigan Supreme Court will be reviewing the taxpayer’s application for leave in IIP-MI 4 LLC & LivWell Michigan LLC v City of Warren.

IIP-MI 4 LLC & LivWell Michigan LLC v City of Warren is one of several recent decisions that wrestles with the Michigan Tax Tribunal’s jurisdiction because of the Michigan Supreme Court’s decision in Sixarp issued earlier this year. In IIP, the taxpayer sought a Qualified Agricultural Exemption (“QAE”) for property used to grow cannabis.  The City denied the exemption and the Notice that the assessor sent stated that the taxpayer could appeal the denial to the July or December Board of Review (“BOR”) “under MCL 211.ee.”  The taxpayer appealed to the December BOR, which denied the exemption.  When the taxpayer appealed to the Tax Tribunal, however, the City claimed for the first time that the taxpayer was required to appeal to the July BOR.  The Tax Tribunal agreed and dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals majority affirmed, holding that, under MCL 211.7ee, a taxpayer who has its exemption request denied by the assessor must appeal to the July BOR and that the provisions in that statute allowing a taxpayer to appeal to either the July or December BOR, while technically applicable here, were not the appropriate section of the statute because the more specific section of the statute dealing with the denial of an exemption required appeal to the July BOR.  The dissent argued that the taxpayer had been misled by the City and that any taxpayer reading the statute would think that appeal to either the July or December BOR was acceptable given the language of the notice and the statute and, therefore, it would deny the taxpayer’s right to Due Process to deny the appeal. The taxpayer’s application for leave to appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court is pending.

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 March 2026

Ohio Office of Budget Management Publishes Memo Outlining the Potential Consequences of Property Tax Abolishment

While once derided, grassroots movements seeking to abolish property taxes in Ohio continue to make waves and garner attention. As they do, voices in opposition have become increasingly louder.

Articles are being written, meetings are being held, and experts are extolling the need for property taxes to remain an integral part of Ohio’s economy. Importantly, however - no party is lauding the virtues of the present system. Popular opinion holds that reform is needed, but the experts agree it cannot come at the expense of a complete abolishment of this revenue stream.

To paint the possible picture of abolishment for the governor, the Ohio Office of Budget Management published a memo on February 4, 2026 outlining the consequences.

The elimination of property taxes in Ohio would create a shortfall of an estimated $24B in revenue, currently relied upon by schools, police, fire departments, emergency services, and essential community services. For perspective, this figure is equal to the state’s annual income taxes and sales taxes combined.

Schools would likely feel the brunt of the damage of a tax repeal, where the memo estimates thousands of layoffs across the state leading to bulging class sizes and program cuts. Funds for building upkeep and capex would vanish and deferred maintenance would lead to deteriorating facilities and ultimately unsafe schools. Police and fire stations would shutter, and response times to emergency situations would slow considerably. Libraries, parks, health and human services organizations and senior support centers would also be heavily impacted.

One thing that has yet to be suggested by the Committee to Abolish Ohio Property Taxes is alternative means of generating the revenue that would be lost. The memo hypothesizes that if Ohio were to compensate through additional income tax, the necessary tax rate would climb from the current 2.75% to somewhere between 11 and 15%, or more. If replaced by an increase in sales tax, the current rate of a relatively modest 5.75% would need to go to 18%.

Essentially, the memo suggests the elimination of property tax in Ohio would be devastating to the State. While no perfect plan exists to further tax reform, efforts are underway to make progress, as evidenced in our last update to this Counsel. The impact of these new bills will be ongoing, as will the status of the proposed abolition. We will continue to keep you informed.

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

UPDATED march 2026

No Notice, No Problem: April 6th Deadline for Real Property Tax Appeals

Beginning in January each year, county assessors issue Notices of Value if the assessor increases the fair cash value or taxable fair cash value of real property from the preceding year. Taxpayers have 30 days from the date the notice was mailed to appeal on OTC Form 974. If a taxpayer does not receive a Notice of Value—indicating that the real property’s value did not increase from the previous year—the taxpayer may nonetheless file an appeal of the assessment by the deadline of the first Monday in April (April 6, 2026). Appeals for personal property assessed above the value rendered by the taxpayer are due 30 days from the date the Notice of Value is mailed.

Jay W. Dobson

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 march 2026

Pennsylvania Appeals Court Finds School District's Selection Scheme Violated Uniformity Principles

In a case stemming from a 2012 appeal, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court recently held that a School District's selection scheme violated the Pennsylvania Uniformity Clause where it intentionally excluded single-family residentially properties from consideration for tax assessment appeals, which was apparent in its written policy.

In Upper Merion School District v. King of Prussia Associates, the Court considered the legality of Upper Merion School District's appeal selection policy wherein it stated that "only under unusual circumstances, and with the approval of the Board, shall a property with an assessment of $500,000 or less be considered for a district-initiated assessment appeal."

The record in the case was replete with references that the school's policy would specifically  target commercial and/or industrial properties, and even preclude residential properties. The School District argued that its monetary threshold was proper and had been approved in Coatesville Area School District v. Chester County Board of Assessment. The Court, however, discerned that unlike in Coatesville, there were specific factual determinations in the record that the School District had zeroed-in on commercial properties and that the policy was largely designed to carry out that purpose. 

The Court's ruling corrobates the Supreme Court's 2017 decision in Valley Forge Towers, which affirmed that all real estate is a designated class entitled to uniform treatment, and thus a taxing authority is not permitted to implement a program of only appealing the assessments of one sub-classification of property. 

Christina Gongaware Noga, Esq.
Siegel Jennings, Co., LPA
American Property Tax Counsel (APTC)

Updated December 2022

File an account to protect your right of appeal

Now is the time for Rhode Island taxpayers to preserve their right of appeal for Tax Year 2023 by filing an account with the local assessor. In most jurisdictions the Tax Year 2023 tax bill will be sent out during the summer of 2023. The Tax Year 2023 tax bill has a valuation or assessing date of December 31, 2022. In most cases the filing of a valid account by January 31, 2023, is a prerequisite to a valid appeal. The account must describe the property, claim a value of the property, and be signed under oath and notarized. Occasionally the assessors do not send out account forms or the form may omit a section on real estate. It is incumbent upon the taxpayer to seek out a form and add a section for real estate if needed and properly complete and file it. It is acceptable for a taxpayer to construct his own account form, but it must include all required information and be signed under oath, notarized, and filed timely.

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

UPDATED december 2025

Truth in Taxation Explained

There is often confusion among taxpayers surrounding Tennessee’s “truth in taxation” statutes.  The statutes require assessors to certify the “total assessed value” of taxable property, new construction and improvements not on the previous tax roll and deletions from the tax roll within the jurisdiction to the governing body of the jurisdiction.  The governing body must then certify a tax rate “which will provide the same ad valorem revenue for that jurisdiction as was levied during the previous year.”  In other words, if total assessments go up, the tax rate must come down. 

This provision leads many taxpayers to mistakenly believe that overall property taxes cannot increase.  Unfortunately for taxpayers, these statutes do not prevent a taxing jurisdiction’s ability to increase both the tax rate and assessments in the same year.  The statutory exception that makes this “double-dip” possible provides that any governing body may levy a greater tax rate so long as it (1) advertises its intent to exceed the certified rate in a newspaper for 30 days, and (2) adopts a resolution levying a tax rate in excess of the certified tax rate. 

This exception swallows the rule.  Taxing jurisdictions may merely give lip service to maintaining the status quo while being free to raise tax rates and assessments in the same year.  This is authorized by law despite the potential windfall to the government and hardship on the taxpayers.  A taxpayer’s only real protection is to challenge the value of their property if they believe it is overvalued.

Andy Raines
Evans Petree PC
American Property Tax Counsel (APTC)

Updated March 2026

Texas Property Tax Updates

This quarter, Texas saw a fresh round of legislative changes and court rulings shaping property tax law. Following the 2025 legislative session, meaningful reforms began on January 1, and simultaneously notable appellate decisions were released, both of which will impact property owners, businesses, and appraisal districts statewide. From exemption eligibility to valuation procedures, the Texas property tax landscape is shifting. Below are the top developments from the 2025 Legislative Session and the latest court opinions from early 2026.

1.   Business Personal Property Exemption Increase and Reporting Relief

This year’s legislative updates are all about making life easier for Texas businesses. Lawmakers have rolled out major changes to business personal property taxes: exemptions are bigger and reporting is simpler. House Bill 9 increases the business personal property exemption from $2,500 to $125,000 through its amendment of Section 11.145 of the Texas Property Tax code. And it relieves some small business owners from filing yearly rendition statements reporting the value of their personal property though its amendment of Section 22.01. This is a meaningful change.

In Texas, each year property owners are required to file yearly renditions reporting all personal property they use in the production of income. Now, under amended Section 22.01 an owner is only required to file yearly renditions if “in the person’s opinion . . . the aggregate market value of the property” is greater than $125,000. Tex. Tax Code § 22.01(j-1). If it is less, then the owner only is required to file one rendition statement that “includes a certification that the person reasonably believes that the value of the property” is not more than $125,000. Tex. Tax Code § 22.01(j-3). And importantly, once that certification is filed, no additional statement (or yearly report) is required until ownership changes, the chief appraiser requires it, or the owner subsequently acquires property that causes their aggregate property to be valued more than $125,000. Id. This is a huge administrative relief for small business owners.

Of course, these new rules aren’t without their quirks: there are still questions about how the expanded exemption applies. Specifically, the statute increases the exemption amount to $125,000. But what does that mean in the context of this statute? The statute states that the $125,000 applies “to each separate location in a taxing unit in which a person holds or uses tangible personal property for the production of income.” Tex. Tax § 11.145(c). And then goes on to state, “all property that has taxable situs in each separate location in the taxing unit is aggregated to determine taxable value.” Id. This raises an unresolved interpretive question that should be noted — does each separate business location receive its own $125,000 exemption; or is the exemption applied once per taxing unit?

For example, if a business owns and holds personal property at two separate addresses located within the taxing unit of Dallas Independent School District, does the business receive a $250,000 exemption — two $125,000 exemptions (one at each address) — or does the business receive one $125,000 exemption covering both addresses? Guidance on this topic has not been uniform between Texas Appraisal Districts, and further clarification may be necessary through litigation, but time will tell. Either way, this is a big, meaningful development in Texas.

2.   Business Personal Property Deadlines, Penalties, and Procedural Reforms

In addition to expanding exemptions and reducing reporting requirements, the Legislature also took aim at one of the most common—and costly—problems facing Texas businesses: harsh penalties tied to missed deadlines for personal property exemptions. For many taxpayers, particularly those with mobile or high‑value assets, the prior penalty structure could produce results that felt wildly out of proportion to a business’s actual tax liability.

Under prior law, if a business missed the deadline to apply for a Freeport or interstate allocation exemption, the penalty was calculated as 10 percent of the difference between the tax owed with the exemption and the tax owed without it. While this may sound reasonable at first glance, in practice it often led to extreme outcomes.

For example, consider an aircraft valued at $50 million. After applying the interstate allocation formula, only $250,000 of that value might be taxable in Texas. At a 2 percent tax rate, the correct tax bill with the allocation would be just $5,000. Without the allocation, however, the tax would be $1,000,000. Under the old penalty structure, the “difference” between those two numbers was $995,000, and a late‑filing penalty of 10 percent meant a penalty of $99,500—almost twenty times the amount of tax actually owed.

The Legislature corrected this disconnect through Senate Bill 1352. Under the new law, the penalty for filing a Freeport or interstate allocation exemption late is capped at 10 percent of the tax owed after the exemption is applied, not 10 percent of the tax savings. Using the same example, the penalty would now be $500, bringing the total tax bill to $5,500 instead of $104,500. This change dramatically reduces risk for businesses and ensures penalties remain tied to the actual tax liability, not a hypothetical one.

Senate Bill 1352 also simplified the filing process by aligning deadlines that previously required separate tracking. When a business requests—and receives—the standard extension to file its business personal property rendition until May 15, the deadlines for the Freeport exemption and interstate allocation application are now automatically extended to May 15 as well. Under prior law, businesses often assumed those deadlines moved together, only to learn too late that a separate extension request was required. This automatic alignment removes a common compliance trap and makes the process far more predictable.

Together, these changes substantially reduce the financial and administrative risk associated with filing business personal property exemptions. While businesses still need to be mindful of deadlines, the consequences of an honest mistake are no longer disproportionate, and the overall process is more forgiving and easier to manage.

 3.   Timely Payment and Jurisdiction in Tax Appeals

Two recent Houston‑area appellate decisions squarely address a real‑world problem in property tax appeals: what happens when a taxpayer timely puts a tax payment in the mail, but the envelope is postmarked after the February 1 delinquency date. In both cases—Harris Central Appraisal District v. LXMI Copper Cove Property Owner, LLC and Harris Central Appraisal District v. LXMI Ashford Pointe Property Owner, LLC—the appraisal district argued that the postmark date was controlling and established that the payments were untimely, depriving the trial court of jurisdiction over the appeal.

The underlying facts in the two cases were very similar. In each, the taxpayer hired a third‑party tax agent to handle payment. The agent submitted an affidavit swearing that the required tax payments were physically delivered to the post office and deposited in the mail on January 31, before the statutory delinquency date. In both cases, however, the tax office allegedly received the payments later. In the Ashford Pointe case, the envelope itself was postmarked February 1, while in Copper Cove the payment was not received until February 17. Both payments followed a period of severe winter weather affecting mail operations.

Harris Central Appraisal District (HCAD) took the position that the postmark date was dispositive—and that a postmark on or after February 1 automatically meant the payment was untimely. The courts rejected that argument. Instead, they focused on what the Tax Code actually requires: a taxpayer can establish timely payment by showing the payment was properly addressed, postage prepaid, and deposited in the mail before the deadline, even if the postmark reflects a later date.

In both cases, the courts held that the taxpayers met that burden. The affidavits from the tax agent, together with supporting documents such as check copies, payment records, and evidence of mail service delays, were sufficient to raise a fact issue that the payments were mailed on January 31.

Just as significant was a procedural lesson embedded in both decisions. HCAD attempted on appeal to challenge the affidavits and supporting evidence by arguing hearsay and lack of personal knowledge. The courts made clear that those objections are considered defects of form, not substance—and because HCAD did not timely object to the evidence in the trial court or obtain rulings on those objections, the arguments were waived. With controverting evidence of timely mailing in the record, dismissal for lack of jurisdiction was improper due to an unresolved fact issue.

The takeaway from these cases is practical and important. A late postmark is not automatically fatal to a property tax appeal. Taxpayers can carry their burden by proving that payment was actually deposited in the mail before February 1, even if the postmark shows otherwise. At the same time, appraisal districts that believe affidavits or documentary evidence are unreliable must raise those objections promptly in the trial court—waiting until appeal is too late.

 4.   Exemptions, Corrections, and Administrative Exhaustion

Two appellate decisions from the Corpus Christi court this quarter serve as an important reminder that how a taxpayer raises an issue can be just as important as what issue is raised. Both cases reinforce long‑standing principles in Texas property tax law: exemption claims must follow the proper administrative path, and courts will enforce those procedural requirements even where the underlying tax issue may be substantial.

In Molina v. QET Aircraft Services, LLC, the dispute centered on whether aircraft owned by the taxpayer were exempt from taxation. Rather than protesting the denial of the exemption through the traditional administrative process under Chapter 41 of the Tax Code, the taxpayer attempted to challenge the assessment through a motion to correct the appraisal roll under Tax Code § 25.25(c)(3). That provision allows limited corrections for clerical errors or property listed in the wrong form or location, but it is not a substitute for an exemption protest.

The court made clear that exemption determinations must be raised through timely Chapter 41 protests and decided by the appraisal review board before a court can review them. Because the taxpayer did not follow that process, the trial court lacked jurisdiction over most of the claims. The court also rejected an attempt to frame the dispute as an ultra vires action against the chief appraiser, explaining that determining whether property is taxable or exempt involves the exercise of statutory discretion—not conduct outside legal authority. In short, even if a taxpayer believes an exemption clearly applies, failure to exhaust administrative remedies will prevent judicial review.

By contrast, San Patricio County Appraisal District v. Vitol, Inc. addressed a substantive exemption issue that was properly presented. In that case, the appraisal district challenged a ruling holding crude oil inventories exempt from ad valorem taxation because they had entered the “stream of export.” The appellate court reaffirmed that property in the stream of export is constitutionally immune from state taxation under the Import–Export Clause. The appraisal district’s arguments focused largely on procedural and discovery complaints, but the court rejected those arguments as either waived or harmless and affirmed the exemption.

Taken together, these cases illustrate two sides of the same coin. On one hand, courts will strictly enforce procedural rules governing how exemption claims must be raised and preserved. Motions to correct appraisal rolls are narrow tools and cannot be used to sidestep the protest process. On the other hand, where exemption issues are properly presented, courts will not hesitate to enforce well‑established constitutional protections—even in cases involving high‑value inventory.

Kendal L. Carnley
Gray Winston & Hart
American Property Tax Counsel (APTC)

updated june 2022

Proposed Changes to Assessment Appeal Process

In the District of Columbia, the assessment appeal calendar was designed for taxpayers to complete the two-level administrative appeal process prior to the payment of their property taxes. As a result, taxpayers often pay lower property taxes in the first instance as a result of successful administrative appeals, instead of paying higher taxes and then challenging the assessment through an administrative appeal.

The Office of Tax & Revenue (“OTR”) in the District of Columbia has recently proposed significant changes to the administrative appeal calendar, which is governed by the D.C. Code. Although proposed assessments are currently issued by March 1st each year, under OTR’s proposal, new assessments would be issued later in the calendar year. OTR’s justification for the change is that this would purportedly allow the assessors time to review the property’s most recent financial data that is reported annually through the Income & Expense report filing prior to the issuance of the assessment.

OTR's proposal suffers from serious flaws that would weaken the current protections provided to taxpayers. First, issuing assessments later in the year would necessarily push back or truncate the administrative appeal process. This would either result in a compressed administrative appeal calendar that does not provide the opportunity for sufficient review of taxpayers’ claims, or it would place taxpayers in the unenviable position of paying property taxes prior to the issuance of a decision on their administrative appeal. Second, diminishing the effectiveness of the administrative appeal structure that is currently in place would lead to additional appeals filed in D.C. Superior Court and burden the court system with appeals. Third, OTR alleges that its proposal would result in more “accurate” assessments. In our experience, however, more “accurate” assessments from OTR mean an unjustified increase in taxpayers’’ liability.  

In sum, the D.C. Code’s administrative appeal process was carefully crafted to provide a robust administrative appeal process for taxpayers, and there is no legitimate justification for tinkering with the current appeal calendar.

Wilkes Artis, Chtd.
American Property Tax Counsel (APTC)

Updated March 2025

Wisconsin Tax Appeals Commission Rejects State’s Attempt To Divest It Of Jurisdiction Over Large Tax Appeals

In a decision issued on March 11, 2025, the Wisconsin Tax Appeals Commission rejected an attempt by the Wisconsin Department of Revenue to divest it of subject matter jurisdiction over a large group of manufacturing assessment appeals involving millions of dollars in value.

The jurisdictional statute (Wis. Stat. 70.995(8)(c)1) states that objections to manufacturing assessments must be made “on a form prescribed by the department of revenue that specifies that the objector shall set forth the reasons for the objection … and the basis for” the objector’s opinion of value. The appeal form the Department of Revenue created under this statute includes a section for the objector to provide these two pieces of information. That section contains two adjacent boxes, one designated for the reason for the taxpayer’s objection and the other for the basis of the taxpayer’s opinion of value.

In the appeals in question, the taxpayers’ agent had placed text encompassing both pieces of information in the first box and left the second box blank. The State argued that leaving the second box blank per se divested the Commission of subject matter jurisdiction irrespective of whether all the required information was in the other box or elsewhere on the form.

The Tax Appeals Commission firmly rejected the State’s position, holding that as long as a taxpayer provides all the information required by the statute on the Department’s form the taxpayer has satisfied the jurisdictional requirement, whether or not the taxpayer has placed text in every box. The Commission’s decision was unusually harsh, finding one of the Department of Revenue’s arguments to be “frankly ridiculous,” and admonishing the Department to “restrain itself from making such frivolous and overreaching arguments” in future cases.

The case is Badger Mining Corporation and Smart Sand, Inc v. Wisconsin Department of Revenue.

Bryan J. Cecil
Hansen Reynolds LLC
American Property Tax Counsel (APTC)