UPDATED March 2018

Alabama Legislature Requires Disclosure of Additional Information for Sales Comps in Tax Appeals

In March 2018, the Alabama Legislature passed a bill requiring certain disclosures for those intending to offer sales or lease comparables in tax appeals. SB182, which will be codified as Ala. Code (1975) §40-3-27, requires any party (taxpayer or taxing jurisdiction) introducing a sales or lease comparable in a tax appeal to disclose the following:

(1) whether the proposed comparable property was occupied or unoccupied at the time of the transaction; and

(2) whether the proposed comparable property was subject to any use, deed, or lease restriction at the time of the transaction that prohibits the property, on which a building or structure sits, from being used for the purpose for which the building or structure was designed, constructed, altered, renovated, or modified.

Under the new statute, the party introducing the sales or lease comparable must disclose this information at the time it offers the comparable into evidence. Failing to disclose the information carries a harsh penalty, resulting in the comparable being deemed inadmissible.

The new bill is effective immediately upon execution by the Governor, so taxpayers, counsel and appraisers must diligently review their sales and lease comps to ensure compliance with the new act.

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

UPDATED march 2020

COVID-19 Potential Relief for Tax Payments

As of April 10, 2020

The second half of property taxes for 2019 are due by May 1st. If not, individuals will be subject to interest penalties and their property taxes will be considered delinquent. Per Arizona State Law, the Counties do not have authority to extend the May 1st deadline. Extensions and changes in due dates can only be enacted by the legislature. County Treasurers have been asking for property tax relief by extending the deadline for property taxes 30 days (https://www.graham.az.gov/DocumentCenter/View/3956/Treasurer-Joint-Press-Release-Move-Deliquency-Date-PDF). If granted, this would allow individuals and businesses to pay the second half of their 2019 property taxes by June 1st, waiving all penalties and interest for payments made after May 1st.

If you have any questions about the status of this legislative effort or options for appealing your property taxes, please contact us at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

If you or your business want to support the Treasurers’ attempt to extend the May 1st deadline, you must reach out to legislators and request property tax relief amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Below is a link to find your state legislators, and links to the rosters for the Arizona State Senate and House of Representatives. Please note you should call or email the senator and representative over your legislative district.

Find My Legislator:
https://www.azleg.gov/findmylegislator/

District Locator: simply enter your address, it will identify your Congressional and Legislative District. Then click on next link to find the senator (use LEGISLATIVE district)
https://azredistricting.org/districtlocator/

List of Arizona Senators and their Legislative Districts:
https://www.azleg.gov/MemberRoster/?body=S

List of Arizona Representatives and their Legislative Districts:
https://www.azleg.gov/MemberRoster/?body=H

Property owners may also want to contact the Arizona Department of Revenue to communicate the need for relief due to the COVID-19 pandemic: (602) 716-6843

Mooney, Wright, Moore & Wilhoit, PLLC
American Property Tax Counsel (APTC)

UPDATED september 2023

California Appellate Court Explains Basis for Deducting Nontaxable Intangible Assets in Valuing Complex Properties

Last August, the California Court of Appeal ruled that a landmark hotel located on San Francisco’s Union Square was entitled to a property tax reduction because the county assessor had not removed the full value of the management agreement between the hotel’s owner and the company the owner had hired to manage the hotel (SHR St. Francis LLC v. City and County of San Francisco).  The key element in the Court’s ruling was the property tax treatment of nontaxable intangible assets, including the hotel’s management agreement.  This is the first published appellate court decision that explains in detail the reasons for removing the full value of the management agreement in the assessment of hotel properties, including the need to deduct a “return on” intangible assets.  The implications of the SHR St. Francis decision are potentially far-reaching as the decision could benefit owners of all types of complex commercial and industrial properties who employ non-taxable intangible assets in operating their properties. 

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Greenberg Traurig, LLP
American Property Tax Counsel (APTC)

Updated July 2017

New Rules in Ontario

The Assessment Review Board (“ARB”), which provides the first and only level of administrative law review of assessment appeals in Ontario, has changed its rules.

The ARB new rules are effective April 1, 2017. There are 122 rules and several Practice Directions.  Most significantly, all appeals will be grouped as either “General” or “Summary”.  General proceedings have a detailed schedule to be adhered to unless it is altered by the parties with the consent of the ARB. All appeals are deemed to be general proceedings unless they are specified as summary proceedings.  The details include specified hard dates for inspections, productions, examinations for discovery, motions, exchange of witness statements and reports.

All of this means that the litigation before the ARB will be increasingly complex and rule-bound. It is not an area for amateurs. 

J. Bradford Nixon
Nixon Fleet & Poole LLP
American Property Tax Counsel (APTC)

Updated March 2015

Colorado Begins Its 2015 Reassessment

Bi-annually, Colorado Assessors perform a revaluation/reappraisal for purposes of assessing the value of Colorado property using a “base period” method. In tax years 2013 and 2014, nonresidential property values were based on sales, income and cost data from a “base period” commencing on January 1, 2011 and ending on June 30, 2012. A new “base period” with its likely higher values now comes into play. 2015 is a revaluation year in which Colorado County Assessors will reappraise the value of real property. Under Colorado law, 2015 and 2016 nonresidential property values will be based on sales, income and cost data from a base period commencing January 1, 2013 and ending June 30, 2014.

Given the general upward trend in real estate values since the last base period ending June 30, 2012, many property owners may expect to see an increase in their property values and consequently, their property taxes for 2015 and 2016. The assessors are required by law, absent significant changes in the property after the base period, to use the same value for tax years 2015 and 2016. Even if an appraised value does not increase, budget demands will likely incentivize cities, counties and other taxing entities to maximize tax revenues by increasing the mil levies that determine the assessed value and the resulting tax, to the extent permissible by a Colorado Constitutional Amendment that limits tax increases called the "Tabor Amendment".

Beginning May 1, 2015, County Assessors will mail the 2015 Notices of Valuation for real property. The property owner will have a very short period of time to evaluate these notices and protest the value set on the property. Protests of valuation for most Colorado counties must be filed by May 31, 2015. Protests of valuation for Denver County properties must be filed no later than November 15, 2015. Our property tax attorneys know the critical legal and business factors that affect real property values and classifications. We are prepared to meet with property owners to assist in evaluating their property tax situation and, when appropriate, plan their strategies for their 2015 property tax protests.

Larry R. Martinez, Esq.
Berenbaum Weinshienk PC
American Property Tax Counsel (APTC)

Updated december 2023

Six Steps Connecticut Property Owners Should Take in the Event of a Revaluation

Six Steps Connecticut Property Owners Should Take in the Event of a Revaluation

Cheshire, Darien, New Canaan and Norwalk are among 44 Connecticut municipalities, listed in our November alert, conducting a general revaluation according to the October 1, 2023 Grand List.

Depending upon the municipality, property owners have either already received their change of assessment notice from their local tax assessor or will be receiving the same within the next month. In a revaluation, the assessor determines the value of every parcel of real property in the municipality as of the October 1 revaluation date.

Connecticut law requires municipalities to conduct a general revaluation at least once every five years. Therefore, in the ordinary course, the assessment established on the revaluation date will be used to determine the taxes to be levied for the next five years. Obviously, taking an appeal immediately after a revaluation maximizes a property owner’s potential tax savings and the importance of challenging a property’s value is emphasized this year given the volatility in the real estate market and in many instances, the shifting of the tax burden from certain market segments to others, e.g. office/retail to multi-family residential/industrial. 

The key issue in a property tax appeal is the property’s true value as of the October 1 revaluation date. Even if an assessment has decreased since the last revaluation, an excessive assessment will result in the property owner bearing a disproportionate share of the tax burden.

Local assessors gather property-related data and information on an ongoing basis but ramp up their efforts in the months leading up to a revaluation. If your municipality is conducting a general revaluation for the October 1, 2023 Grand List you will receive a notice of tax assessment change. Once the notices are issued, there may be a chance to meet informally with someone working with the assessor’s office—usually someone from the revaluation company—in order to discuss the new assessed value; 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, 2024 statutory deadline. There are some situations where this deadline may be extended, but unless your municipality notifies you of this extension, you should assume that the February 20 deadline applies.

What steps should a property owner take when there has been a revaluation?

1. Watch for a notice from the municipality related to the revaluation. This notice usually contains information on the new assessed value, the opportunity to meet informally with the someone from the assessor's office or revaluation company and the deadline to appeal to the local Board of Assessment Appeals. 

2. Review the notice carefully. Does it accurately identify your property? Do you own other parcels for which you did not receive notices? If the assessor’s new value is stated in the notice, do you believe that it reflects the property’s true fair market value as of the most recent revaluation date based on market conditions and property-specific facts?

3. If you believe the new value is too high, assemble information and documentation which supports your position. Recent appraisals, listings for sale and offers to purchase, sales of comparable properties, income and expense statements, leases and the like are all helpful in determining a property’s value. Of course, data close in time to the October 1, 2023 revaluation date will be most relevant.

4. Confer with experienced legal counsel. In consultation with counsel, all matters related to the property’s value as of the revaluation date and appropriate legal and valuation grounds for an appeal will be discussed, and a go-forward strategy will be formulated.

5. Decide whether to attend an informal meeting or to appeal to the Board of Assessment Appeals. Often, factual errors or mistakes may be corrected during an informal meeting with someone from the assessor's office or revaluation company. The formal appeal process, however, begins with filing a written appeal with the Board of Assessment Appeals. Unless extended, the deadline to do so is February 20, 2024, although an appeal should be prepared well in advance of the deadline. Except in unusual circumstances, you will lose the ability to challenge the October 1, 2023 assessment if a timely appeal to the Board is not filed.

6. Once the Board issues its decision, decide whether to appeal to the Superior Court. If a property owner remains dissatisfied with the Board’s decision, the only recourse is to appeal to the Superior Court. A court appeal must be filed within two months of the Board’s decision, or the right to appeal is lost.

As with any contested administrative or court proceeding, the decision as to whether to pursue a tax appeal should not be made lightly. A thoughtful, critical analysis of whether an appeal is warranted in the first instance is essential, and it will usually result in a financial benefit to the property owner, whether an appeal is ultimately pursued or not. Once an appeal is underway, the property owner and counsel must work as a team to prepare a compelling presentation to the Board and if necessary, to the Court, utilizing fact and expert witnesses and documentary evidence to establish that the municipality’s value is excessive, and that the taxpayer’s proposed value is correct.

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. and This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Murtha Cullina LLP
American Property Tax Counsel (APTC)

UPDATED September 2017

Delaware Court Unlocks Opportunities to Reduce Property Tax Burden

Managing expenses is one of the best ways to ensure the long-term profitability of investment properties.  Owners of real property know that achieving reductions in property tax assessments can be challenging under the best of circumstances, and distinctions between state tax systems can make minimizing the real estate tax burden across a commercial or industrial portfolio a daunting task.  But a recent decision by the Delaware Supreme Court provides taxpayers with a new, yet surprisingly familiar, opportunity to reduce the burden of property taxes on their properties in The First State.

Delaware’s tax assessment system shows its age
Under Delaware Law, property must be valued at its “true value in money,” a term interpreted to mean the property’s “present actual market value.”  However, in order to implement the Delaware Constitution’s mandate of tax uniformity, Delaware applies a base year method of assessing property, meaning that all property in a jurisdiction is assessed in terms of its value as of a certain date, then that value remains on the property indefinitely until the jurisdiction performs a general reassessment.  For Delaware’s northernmost county, New Castle County, the last reassessment occurred in 1983, so all property in the County is valued as of July 1, 1983.

A major challenge to contesting property tax assessments in Delaware is that a taxpayer must determine the property’s market value in 1983.  Determining what a property is worth today is not always easy, but proving a property’s value three decades ago has proven increasingly difficult.  Furthermore, because the County makes no regular adjustments to a property’s assessed value, the County asserts that a property should be valued as it existed in 1983 or, if it was built after 1983, as if it is new and undepreciated.

Delaware’s courts have explained that taxpayers have two options in assessment appeals: they can use data from the base year (by, for example, finding sales of comparable properties in or around 1983, or using prevailing market rents and capitalization rates from 1983) or they can calculate the current market value of the property and “trend back” that amount to 1983.  The County Board of Assessment Review has expressed a near-absolute preference for 1983 data, and rarely finds a taxpayer’s trending formula acceptable.

The inequities of this system are blatant.  Under the county’s interpretation of the base year system, a 34-year-old building located next door to a similar new building should be assessed and taxed at the same level, despite that buyers, sellers, and tenants might value the buildings quite differently.  If the owner of the 30-year old building wanted to contest its assessment, the owner would have to identify data for new buildings in 1983.  Of course, as time marches on and years turn to decades, relevant data from the base year becomes increasingly difficult to find.

Taxpayers highlight the system’s obsolescence
Taxpayers have raised many challenges to Delaware’s assessment system, but most successful challenges are fact-specific, and no recent court has gone so far as to order Delaware’s counties to complete a reassessment.  But after several attempts, the taxpayers in Commerce Associates LP v. New Castle County Office of Assessment underscored the largest flaw in the system.

One Commerce Center is an office condominium building in Wilmington, Delaware.  Each office condominium was originally assessed by the County upon construction in 1983.  After keeping the same tax assessment for decades, the owners of several of the condominiums challenged their assessments in 2015.

Before the County Board of Assessment Review, the owners presented five different analyses: two relied on comparable sales transactions (one using 1983 sales of buildings that were about 32 years old, and one using modern asking prices trended back to 1983 using the Consumer Price Index); two relied on income (one using 1983 data, and one using 2015 data trended back to 1983 using CPI); and a cost approach using the original construction costs and reflecting depreciation.  These approaches showed that the properties were overassessed by more than 40%.

The County presented evidence of the condominiums’ sale prices in 1985, when each unit was relatively new.  The County also presented an income approach using 1983 data and a cost approach reflecting no depreciation.  The County’s approaches all supported the original assessed values, and the Board ultimately denied the taxpayers’ appeals.

Delaware’s Court approves a decrease in value
After having their appeals denied by the Superior Court, the taxpayers brought their challenge to the Delaware Supreme Court.  In a tersely-worded decision, the Supreme Court reiterated that all relevant factors bearing on the value of a property in its current condition must be considered.  While the County argued that no depreciation was needed because the properties were brand new in 1983, the Court noted that the properties were, in reality, more than 34 years old.  Failing to account for their age and the resulting depreciation (or appreciation) resulted in a flawed value.

Although the Court’s decision has yet to be implemented by the County, its effects will likely be widely felt.  Most properties in New Castle County built after 1983 are assessed without any depreciation.  Because each tax year brings with it a new opportunity to challenge an assessment, property owners can bring a new appeal to the Board every year reflecting the property’s current depreciation.  Ultimately, this could result in the downfall of the decades-old base year assessment, as the County finds it necessary to update assessments for a larger number of properties.

A number of questions remain unanswered by the Court’s ruling.  How should properties be valued in areas that were rural in 1983 but are now highly developed?  How can appreciation and depreciation be quantified and reconciled?  Future cases will need to resolve these questions, but for now, owners of Delaware property should evaluate their portfolios and determine whether opportunities exist to improve profitability by reducing property taxes.

Benjamin A. Blair
Faegre Baker Daniels LLP
American Property Tax Counsel (APTC)

UPDATED december 2023

Transferring a Property to an LLC? Think Twice Before Doing So!

In Florida, property tax assessments cannot increase more than 10% annually, except for the school board part of the tax rate.  Upon a “change of ownership or control” of the property, however, the 10% assessment limitation cap is removed and the assessed value resets to market value. In defining a “change of ownership or control” the statute excludes conveyances that merely transfer title between legal and equitable title.

A recent Third District Court of Appeal case addressed whether a transfer from individuals to an LLC, wholly owned by those same individuals and where no monetary consideration was exchanged, constitutes a “change of ownership or control” which requires removal  of the 10% assessment limitation cap or if it falls withing the exception for a transfer between legal and equitable title, allowing the cap to remain in place. 

The court held that the transfer was a change of ownership or control because the LLC is a distinct and separate entity from its individual members. The court mentioned that the point of the transfer was to separate the individuals from their ownership of the property to absolve them of tort liability for occurrences on the property. Finally, the quitclaim deed employed to transfer the property from the individuals to the LLC, by law divested the individuals of any interest in the deeded property with such interest vesting in the LLC. Thus, as a result, the 10% assessment limitation cap was removed, resulting in a sizable tax increase.

Dan Wolfe and Julie Schwartz
Rennert Vogel Mandler & Rodriguez, P.A.
American Property Tax Counsel (APTC)

UPDATED December 2023

LIHT'S Addressed Again in Georgia

In Freedom Heights, LP v. Lowndes County Board of Tax Assessors, Case No. A231103 (decided on October 26, 2023), the Court of Appeals reviewed a trial court’s decision concerning rent restricted apartments which found that the sales comparison approach is not to be used unless there is evidence of sales of other Section 42 properties with unused tax credits; the income approach to valuation is inapplicable due to the application of O.C.G.A.§ 48-5-(3)(B)(vii), and the cost approach (if applied correctly) can be used to value property; the trial court’s decision was affirmed.

In Gateway Pines Hahira, LP v. Lowndes County Board of Tax Assessors, Case No. A23A1370, the Court of Appeals decided on November 3, 2023 that the question of whether the exclusion of tax credits from the valuation of property violates the taxation uniformity provision of the Georgia Constitution may lie within the jurisdiction of the Georgia Supreme Court, and transferred the case there.

Lisa F. Stuckey.
Ragsdale, Beals, Seigler, Patterson & Gray, LLP
American Property Tax Counsel (APTC)

Updated june 2020

Looking at Taxable Value Increase Limits

Employees of the Idaho State Tax Commission recently published an analysis of property tax value limits.* Idaho assessors must assess property at market value as of January 1 each year. Unlike some states, there is no cap on how much the value can increase each year. According to the article, this promotes transparency because caps on value mislead taxpayers. Lower taxable values give the illusion of lower taxes. “Taxpayers have nothing to appeal (i.e., their values will not exceed market value),” so they believe they are paying less than without the cap. Caps also place a greater burden on owners of properties whose values are not keeping pace with the increases contemplated by the cap. 

In 2006, Idaho considered adopting a cap. But no property tax changes are on the horizon now. Legislative work is likely done for 2020 (despite recent efforts of some legislators, backed by armed supporters, to convene a special session). And dropping market values makes limits of less interest now. The article, however, provides a thoughtful framework for evaluating proposals for value limits in the future. 

*Alan S. Dornfest, Kathlynn Ireland, and Mark Southard, Taxable Value Increase Limits – Revisited, Journal of Property Tax Assessment & Admin. 49 (Vol. 17, Issue 1).

Michelle DeLappe & Norman J. Bruns
Foster Garvey PC
American Property Tax Counsel (APTC)

Updated March 2015

The Story of Real Estate Taxes - 2015

Chicagoans should be wary about their 2015 Real Estate Tax Bills. Up to now, Chicago Taxpayers have fared much better than their suburban neighbors when it comes to real estate taxes. Tax Year 2015 may well mark the beginning of a “Perfect Tax Storm” in Chicago.

In 2015, all property lying within Chicago will be re-valued. It seems very clear that the Assessor has determined that the Great Recession has become an event of history and that most segments of the real estate market are well on the way to recovery.

Thus far, new valuation Notices have only been sent to the property owners in one of the eight townships that comprise the City of Chicago. We have been able to review the new values. On average, the assessed values in that township have increased approximately fifteen (15%) percent. Multi-family residential properties have increased beyond twenty (20%) percent, single family residences and condominiums have risen to triple digit increases in some cases. Based on what we have seen in the first townships, we have to forecast even greater increases for most of the other townships.

Real estate values are only one component in the calculation of real estate taxes. The other critical component is the Tax Rate. The Tax Rate is determined by dividing the total budgets of all the Municipal and County agencies which provide services to the public by the total taxable value of the service area. That will include school districts, police, fire, park districts and more.

In 2015 and 2016, the pension deficits of the City agencies are about to reach catastrophic proportions. The Mayor’s staff is looking to Real Estate Taxes to reduce these deficits.

A PERFECT TAX STORM!

James P. Regan
Fisk Kart Katz Regan & Levy, Ltd.
Telephone:  (312) 726-1833
American Property Tax Counsel (APTC)

UPDATED March 2019

The Time to Negotiate Iowa Property Tax Assessments is Now

On April 1, 2019, assessors around the state of Iowa will release their property tax assessment values.  This starts the clock for negotiations.

Pursuant to Iowa Code § 441.30, from April 2 until April 25, aggrieved taxpayers may contact local assessors and make an informal request that the assessment be changed.  This can result in a written agreement with the assessor to correct or modify the assessment, or an agreement by the assessor to file a recommendation with the local board of review that the assessment be changed.  Assessors around Iowa take this period seriously.  The time to consider negotiations is now.

Here is a brief overview of the Iowa appeal deadlines:

• January 1 – Assessment date (Iowa Code § 441.46)
• April 1 – Assessor’s release assessment values (Iowa Code § 441.23)
• April 2-25 – Time to negotiate with assessors (Iowa Code § 441.30)
• April 30 – Iowa Board of Review protests due (Iowa Code § 441.37)
• Later date of May 31 or 20 days after board of review opinion – Deadline to file appeal with PAAB or district court (Iowa Code §§ 441.37A, 441.37B, 441.38)

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. and Elizabeth Carter
Faegre Baker Daniels LLP
American Property Tax Counsel (APTC)

Updated june 2021

Two pieces of legislation were enacted into law: HB2104 & SB13

HB 2104: 

The bill makes several clarifications/changes to the property tax appeals process. Including (1)  All appraisals must comply with USPAP; (2) Parties can request electronic service of all correspondence/orders from the Board of Tax Appeals; (3) Your valuation cannot be increased at the informal level or by the Board of Tax Appeals; (4) The burden of proof is on the county in cases filed by the taxpayer to the District Court de novo; (5) IAAO certifications will no longer be accepted as qualifying to be a county appraiser; and (6) All courses for county appraisers must be coursework approved by the Kansas Real Estate Appraisal Board.

 http://www.kslegislature.org/li/b2021_22/measures/documents/hb2104_enrolled.pdf

SB13: 

This bill authorizes county treasurers to set up a payment plan for property taxes. The bill also prohibits a valuation increase for normal repair, replacement, or maintenance of existing structures, equipment, or other improvements on the real estate.

http://www.kslegislature.org/li/b2021_22/measures/documents/sb13_enrolled.pdf

Linda Terrill
Property Tax Law Group, LLC
American Property Tax Counsel (APTC)

UPDATED september 2023

Kentucky's New Affordable Multifamily Housing Law

Kentucky has enacted legislation designed to provide more certainty to assessments of affordable multifamily housing, though questions remain about the implementation and application of the law.

KRS 131.191(5) states that the value of multi-unit rental housing that is subject to government restriction on use may be determined in two ways.  The first is an income approach using actual income and stabilized expenses.  The capitalization rate is to be determined annually by the Department of Revenue, subject to specified parameters.  Second, the value may be determined by adjusting the unrestricted market value of the housing, based on a ratio of restricted rents to unrestricted rents.  The statute specifically prohibits income tax credits from being included in any determination of the property's income.

The law places new obligations on the taxpayer.  The property owner is required to notify the county property valuation administrator of any government restrictions on use, or if the property is no longer subject to those restrictions.  More importantly, the property owner will be required to file with the property valuation administrator the information necessary to value the property under the methods described above, meaning that the owner will be required to submit income and expense information and rental rates to the county. Failure to comply with these notification and reporting requirements could subject the property owner to a penalty not to exceed $200.

The Department of Revenue is tasked with promulgating the necessary regulations and forms to implement the new program.  To date, neither the regulations nor the forms have been published.

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.Morgan Pottinger McGarvey
American Property Tax Counsel (APTC)

Updated june 2021

Louisiana Supreme Court issues opinion resulting in big property tax win for industry

On October 20, 2020, the Louisiana Supreme Court issued a major decision in an ad valorem (property) tax case.  D90 Energy, LLC v. Jefferson Davis Parish Board of Review, 2020-C-200 (La. 10/20/2020).  This ruling is a key Louisiana tax decision on the scope of authority possessed by Assessors in ad valorem (property) tax matters and for the Louisiana Tax Commission (“LTC” or “Commission”) as a reviewing body. 

In 2012, D90 Energy, a multi-state, independent oil and gas operator, purchased two gas wells and one salt-water disposal well for $100,000.  Facing a fair market valuation by the Assessor of over $3 million, the operator paid $110,000 in taxes under protest for the first two tax years (2013 and 2014) – more than it paid for the property – and appealed the Assessor’s decision. D90 Energy did not pay under protest for the last two tax years – 2015 and 2016 - because it prevailed at the Tax Commission for the first two tax years.

D90 relied upon the purchase price of $100,000.00 for the three wells, until 2016, in which it sought the 90% reduction provided for shut-in wells under LTC Rules and Regulations. The Assessor determined fair market value using tables in the LTC Rules and Regulations providing estimated “cost new” values for well properties, but the assessor refused to consider any adjustments for allowance of economic obsolescence based upon the $100,000 purchase price and the subsequent shut-in of the wells.

The Tax Commission ruled in favor of D90 Energy in three separate hearings covering the four tax years.  The LTC conducted three (3) full evidentiary hearings, heard live testimony and received documentary evidence, made written findings of fact, and issued Reasons for Decision for the four (4) tax years.  In these rulings, the LTC assigned a value of $235,000.00 for each of the 2013-2015 tax years, considering (1) the purchase price of $100,000; and (2) estimated plug and abandon liability costs of $135,000.00 for the three wells. For the 2016 tax year, the LTC arrived at a value of $145,000.00, based upon a 90% shut-in reduction in the purchase price to $10,000.00, and an additional $135,000.00 for the plug and abandon liability costs. For all tax years, the Louisiana Tax Commission reduced the fair market value, heavily weighing a Tax Commission regulation that requires valid, properly documented sales to be considered by an Assessor as a measure of fair market value.^[1] 

The Assessor’s suits for judicial review were consolidated by the District Court in Jefferson Davis Parish. The District Court affirmed the LTC decisions, finding no basis to overturn the LTC’s decisions. The Assessor appealed to the Third Circuit Court of Appeal, which reversed the decisions of the District Court and the LTC and reinstated the Board of Review decisions to set fair market value according to the original denominations made by the Assessor.  The Third Circuit Court of Appeal reasoned that the Tax Commission should have afforded “much discretion” to the Assessor’s determination of value.  As a consequence, the Court of Appeal overturned the LTC’s finding that the arms-length sale price of $100,000, together with future plug and abandonment costs, should be the measure of fair market value.  In addition, for the 2015 and 2016 tax years, the Court of Appeal found that D90 Energy had no right to appeal the fair market valuation because no payment under protest was made for those specific years.  The Assessor filed an exception of no right of action asserting that because D90 failed to pay the disputed tax amounts under protest for the 2015 and 2016 tax years, that it was barred from disputing the valuations and assessments for those years. The Louisiana Supreme Court granted D90 Energy’s writ application to review the Third Circuit’s decision.

In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal’s decision and reinstated the Tax Commission’s decisions in favor of D90 Energy. The Supreme Court found that the Tax Commission properly corrected the Assessor’s fair market value determination by considering the recent arms-length sale from Goldking to D90 Energy.  The Supreme Court found that the Tax Commission possessed the authority to correct the Assessor’s valuation, and the record evidence supported the correction.  The recent sale, as opposed to regulatory tax tables, was a proper measure of value for D90 Energy’s well properties under the facts.  The Supreme Court also found that the Tax Commission was not limited to reviewing only the information provided to the Assessor, but could take evidence, hear testimony, and consider the administrative record established before it in an appeal of an Assessor’s determination of value. The Assessor argued that he had the sole right to determine fair market value under the La. Constitution, and that the Tax Commission’s valuations deserved no deference. The Supreme Court found that the La. Constitution clearly provided the Tax Commission the right of review and that the evidentiary hearing required by law in an appeal to the Commission indicated that the Commission could hear new evidence as part of the scope of its responsibilities. The Court noted, “If the Commission can only review and consider the evidence submitted to an Assessor, a hearing is meaningless.”

Finally, the Supreme Court addressed the effect of a taxpayer’s failure to pay under protest when it is successful at a Tax Commission hearing, finding that such payment under protest is not required to preserve a taxpayer’s right to dispute a valuation and assessment when the taxpayer prevails before the Tax Commission.

This ruling is a key Louisiana tax decision on the scope of authority possessed by Assessors in ad valorem (property) tax matters and for the Louisiana Tax Commission as a reviewing body. 

^[1] “Sales, properly documented, should be considered by the assessor as fair market value, provided the sale meets all tests relative to it being a valid sale.”  See LAC 61:V.907(A)(6)(e).

Angela W. Adolph
Kean Miller LLP
American Property Tax Counsel (APTC)

Louisiana Supreme Court Holds Taxpayers Could Not Appeal Assessment Directly to Louisiana Tax Commission

The Louisiana Supreme held in Comeaux v Louisiana Tax Comm’n, No. 2020-CA-01037 (La. May 20, 2021) that the Louisiana Tax Commission (the “Commission”) did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal of the taxpayers’ 2017 property tax assessment even though the Commission accepted the appeal as a way to enforce its 2016 ruling for the same taxpayer.  The Court determined that Commission’s assertion of jurisdiction over the appeal violated the Louisiana Constitution because the taxpayers had not first appealed to the parish board of review.

The fair market value of the taxpayers’ property had been lowered by the Commission for 2016 but the Lafayette Parish assessor failed to use the lower value for 2017. The taxpayers went back to the Commission to try and force the assessor to use the lower valuation for 2017 and the Commission ruled that it had jurisdiction to hear the 2017 appeal under La. R.S. 47:1990^[1] because it was enforcing its 2016 ruling instead of reviewing the 2017 assessment.  The Commission then determined that the assessor was required to follow the 2016 revised value for 2017.

The assessor appealed the Commission’s decision regarding the 2017 assessment, arguing that La. R.S. 47:1990, as applied by the Commission, was unconstitutional because it violated La. Const. art. VII, §18(D) and (E), which provide that an assessment must be reviewed first by the board of review and then by the Commission and that the parish assessors “shall determine the fair market value of property” for purposes of property taxation.. 

The Supreme Court agreed with the parish assessor, holding that La. R.S. 47:1990 did not give the Commission jurisdiction to review the 2017 assessment because the taxpayers had not first appealed to the board of review.  The court disagreed with the Commission’s argument that it was not “reviewing” the 2017 assessment but instead was simply enforcing its determination regarding the 2016 assessment.

Importantly, however, the Court also found that based on its prior holding in D90 Energy, LLC v. Jefferson Davis Par. Bd. of Review, 2020-00200 (La. 10/1/20), the Commission did not exceed its rulemaking authority in requiring that the assessor apply the 2016 valuation, as determined by the Commission, in assessing the taxpayer for 2017.  The Court reaffirmed that the Commission has the authority pursuant to La. Const. Art. VII, §18(D) and under La. R.S. 47:1837(D) and La. R.S. 47:2323 to establish uniform rules related to appraisal of property, the parish assessors must abide by these rules, and the rule at issue did not unconstitutionally infringe upon the powers of the assessors provided in La. Const. art. VII, §18(D) and did not unconstitutionally conflict with the requirements set forth in La. Const. art. VII, §18(F). 

Angela W. Adolph
Kean Miller LLP
American Property Tax Counsel (APTC)

Updated December 2014

Ignoring The Assessor's Inquiries Can Be Fatal To Your Appeal

In Maine the assessor may require the taxpayer to answer in writing all proper inquires as to the nature, situation, and value of the taxpayer's property liable to be taxed. This request can include income, expenses, manufacturing or generational efficiencies, manufactured or generated sale price trends, or other related information. A taxpayer has thirty days to respond to the inquiring. Upon written request a taxpayer has an automatic thirty day extension to respond to the inquiring. The failure to supply the information will bar the taxpayer the right of appeal. Please be aware that some assessors use this provision of the law to inundate the taxpayer with inquires. The property of some of these inquires is questionable and some inquires appear to be patently improper. These inquires can be a cynical attempt to have the taxpayer's appeal dismissed for failing to comply with an inquiry.

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

UPDATED September 2019

Upcoming 2020 Reassessment and Mid-Cycle Appeal Deadline

Major markets in Maryland set to be reassessed as of 1/1/2020 are Bethesda & Chevy Chase (Montgomery County), Laurel & Bowie (Prince George’s County), Hanover & the BWI Airport area (Anne Arundel County), Mount Vernon & Midtown (Baltimore City) and Towson (Baltimore County).  Even if your property is not set to be reassessed, a mid-cycle appeal can be filed.  It must be noted by January 2, 2020.  Please contact Wilkes Artis to review your property to determine if a mid-cycle appeal is warranted.   

Kevin E. Kozlowski, Esq.
Wilkes Artis, Chartered
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 2023

Transfer of Ownership Definition Expanded

A recent ruling from the Michigan Court of Appeals could cause significant property tax increases for property owned by limited liability companies, corporations, partnerships and other legal entities.

Generally in Michigan, the annual increase in a tax parcel’s taxable value is capped to the lesser of inflation or 5% each year until there is a “transfer of ownership,” which is statutorily defined to include the transfer of over 50% of the ownership interest in a legal entity that owns property.   

In Resort Properties Co-Operative v Waterloo Twp, ___ Mich App ___; ___ NW2d ___ (2023) (Docket No. 364744), minority shareholders who owned 24% of the share in a corporation purchased an additional 48% of the shares and then subsequently sold 20% of the shares in a calendar year.  The assessor believed that these transfers constituted a transfer of more than 50%, and “uncapped” the property’s taxable value resulting in higher taxes.  An appeal ensued, arguing that there was not a “transfer of ownership” because original entity ownership of 52% did not change.  The Court agreed with the assessor, holding that adding together the transferred shares, totaled over 50% and therefore there was a transfer of ownership.  So, even though the purchase of the 48% interest was not a “transfer of ownership” the second 20% transfer of some of those shares caused a taxable value uncapping. 

While the the normal public trading of stock of a corporation does not constitute a transfer of ownership, this decision means the owners of minority interests can cause taxable value uncappings to occur.

Stewart L. Mandell
Honigman LLP
American Property Tax Counsel (APTC)

Deadlines to File for Exemptions and Appeals

There have been several appellate court decisions this year underscoring the need for property owners to carefully abide by filing deadlines or risk denial or dismissal.    The latest case, Proquest, LLC v Township of Ypsilanti, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued November 30, 2023 (Docket No. 362977) involved a taxpayer who mailed its claim for the Eligible Manufacturing Personal Property Exemption (EMPP) via USPS.   The form was postmarked before the statutory deadline but was ultimately returned to the taxpayer for inadequate postage.    By the time the form was resubmitted, the Township’s Board of Review had adjourned and the assessor claimed to have no way of granting the exemption.   On appeal, the Tax Tribunal and Court of Appeals agreed that the postmark date of the form only applies if the form is actually delivered to the assessor. 

This decision prompts the question of what happens if a filing is “lost in the mail”, and illustrates the importance of being able to track and verify important Michigan property tax filings.

Stewart L. Mandell
Honigman LLP
American Property Tax Counsel (APTC)

2024 Assessments

For 2024, the Proposal A property tax inflation cap is 5%.   Except for parcels that transferred during 2023, the taxable value for each parcel of property, excluding “additions”, may not increase greater that 5% for the 2024 tax year.  Generally, 2024 assessments will be established during the first quarter.

For Michigan properties that the assessors have classified as commercial real or industrial real, the 2024 appeal deadline is May 31.   Property owners concerned about their property taxation, whether because of a valuation, exemption or other issue, should confer with their property tax counsel as soon as possible in 2024. 

Stewart L. Mandell
Honigman LLP
American Property Tax Counsel (APTC)

Updated december 2020

Assessors Struggle with COVID Valuations

In Minnesota, the valuation date for pay ’21 taxes was January 2, 2020.  Assessors have taken the position that COVID impacts for 2021 were neither known nor appreciated at that date, and that pay ’21 tax appeals should not consider the impacts from COVID. 

Now, assessors are faced with making valuations for the January 2, 2021 assessment for pay ’22 taxes, with no argument about the presence of the coronavirus.  Some jurisdictions are asking taxpayers to voluntarily produce sensitive income and expense information about their properties, with the suggestion that cooperation could lead to reduced valuations for the upcoming assessment.

While the prospect of influencing value and taxes downward for pay ’22 is enticing, taxpayers should understand that information they provide may be exposed to other property owners with active tax appeals if used by the assessor or its agent in an appraisal.  Assessors also may misunderstand what property operating information means when it is provide without context.  For example, retail properties have been among the hardest hit by the pandemic.  Tenants have often stopped paying rent, or are paying reduced amounts. However, that information may not be apparent from a rent roll that continues to list face rates pending resolution of the tenancy issues.  An assessor considering this information might assume that impacts on that property have not been significant.

Taxpayers are advised to consult their property tax representatives when approached by an assessing office for proprietary operating information.  Otherwise, they might find their sensitive income information is being used in a way that was not intended.

Mark Maher.
Smith, Gendler, Shiell, Sheff, Ford & Maher
American Property Tax Counsel (APTC)

Updated June 2016

Personal Property Statute

On August 28, 2015 the Missouri Legislature enacted Section 137.122.1 which requires county assessors to apply the “standardized schedule of depreciation” to determine assessed value of personal property which will be “presumed to be correct.”

Owners may challenge the assessment by presenting substantial and persuasive evidence of value.

It appears many county assessors are resisting using the depreciation concept in setting assessed value. Only time will tell how this plays out.

Jerome Wallach
The Wallach Law Firm
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 2019

New Jersey Tax Court Analyzes Freeze Act Invocation and Waiver

A recent New Jersey Tax Court opinion analyzed whether a tax payer waived N.J.S.A. § 54:51A-8 (“Freeze Act”) protections pursuant to a settlement agreement that expressly invoked Freeze Act application only for the freeze year immediately following the appealed tax year. In 160 Chubb Properties, LLC v. Township of Lyndhurst, the Tax Court held that the taxpayer did not waive Freeze Act application to the second freeze year because Freeze Act protections must be deliberately and intentionally waived. Although the settlement agreement invoked Freeze Act protections for the first freeze year, the agreement did not expressly mention the waiver of application to the second freeze year. Importantly, the Freeze Act is self-executing, thus, invocation is not necessary for its application. Without any indication that the taxpayer requested or agreed to waive Freeze Act protection rights, application to both freeze years was enforceable. 160 Chubb Properties, LLC v. Township of Lyndhurst, 30 N.J. Tax 613, 624-25 (N.J. Tax Ct. 2018).

Gregory S. Schaffer, Esq.
Garippa, Lotz & Giannuario P.C.
American Property Tax Counsel (APTC)

Updated june 2021

Recent Case Law in Property Valuation

The court, in the recent case of Sleepy Hollow County Club against The Town of Ossining, held that the Income Capitalization Method is the appropriate method to value the subject property of Sleepy Hollow Country Club, a Westchester golf course. Sleepy Hollow argued that the assessment should be reduced using the estimated daily fee rate, rejecting the Town’s argument that the club’s exclusivity and trophy-esqe qualities should be taken into account in assessing the property.   

An important hotel valuation case won by Joel Marcus and Philip Azarian of Marcus & Pollack LLP, held that the Marriott Courtyard near LaGuardia Airport was overvalued by the city. The challenge, which is for the fiscal years 2014-2015 through 2018-2019, reduced the hotel’s tax bill by more than $11 million. According to Joel, the city overvalued the hotel because, rather than rely on the property’s actual expenses, it calculated what the hotel’s expenses would have been using a market average. The city also used comps for hotels in Washington and Boston, cities that Joel believes have little relevance to the New York market. Cross examination of the City’s appraiser revealed that his report failed to adequately detail the methodology and data used from comparable properties. (GCP Realty II, LLC, against The Tax Commission of the City of New York and the Commissioner of Finance of the City of New York.) 

Joel R. Marcus
Marcus & Pollack LLP
American Property Tax Counsel (APTC)

Updated December 2002

Hijacking the Assessment Review Process 

New York consistently ranks as one of the highest taxed states in the nation, and local property taxes are 79 percent higher than the national average. Boards of Assessment Review face high rates of complaints and increased pressure by the local governing body to control refund liability.

The evidentiary demands of many Boards have escalated sharply and many initiatives have been criticized as mere attempts by the local governing body to deliberately discourage taxpayers from exercising their right to seek a fair assessment, in conflict with the spirit of New York's Real Property Tax Law.

Perhaps the most flagrant attempt to hijack the review process as a tool to curtail the property owner's right to a fair assessment is found in a recently proposed local law by the new Nassau County Executive. The controversial proposed law requires only commercial property owners who file appeals of their property's assessments to submit a certified appraisal as a condition precedent to reducing an assessment. In the alternative, owners may submit a "bona fide" counteroffer - defined as no less then 85 percent of the County's assessment, or withdraw the appeal altogether. Owners who fail to exercise one of the above options forfeit their right to judicial review and are subject to a $5,000 fine.

Nassau County spends approximately $150 million annually to pay down a $1.1 billion debt from past tax refunds even as taxpayers file more than 100,000 protests annually. More than 80 percent of the annual refund liability goes to commercial property owners. The proposed law by the new County Executive seeks to punish commercial property owners for exercising their constitutional right to a fair assessment and equitable tax burden.

The controversial law must be codified by the Nassau County Legislature as well as the New York State Legislature, which must issue a "home rule" message to authorize the change. However, State Senator Craig Johnson (D-Port Washington) has rejected the County Executive's request to introduce the state legislation, citing concerns that the legislation would be unfair to commercial property owners and was unconstitutional on its face. Of the many concerns with the proposed law, it was rejected by Sen. Johnson because it is punitive and bullies commercial property owners to settle within a 15 percent margin that deprives the owner of the right to a fair assessment and an opportunity to be heard.

Michael Martone
Koeppel Martone & Leistman, L.L.P.
American Property Tax Counsel (APTC)

Updated September 2015

North Carolina

The North Carolina General Assembly has enacted legislation which exempts from property tax the increase in the value of real property held for sale by a builder. Effective for tax years beginning January 1, 2016, and applicable to improvements made after July 1, 2015, improvements to single family or duplex residential real property held for sale by builders and commercial real property held for sale by builders are excluded from taxation as long as the property is held for sale. Applications for exclusion must be filed annually.

Charles B. Neely, Jr.
Nancy S. Rendleman
Williams Mullen
American Property Tax Counsel (APTC)

UPDATED december 2023

House Bill 126’s Challenges Continue: Tenth District Court Second to Reverse Board of Tax Appeals Decisions Regarding HB 126, Constitutional Claim Progresses at Franklin County Court of Common Pleas

Ohio Governor DeWine signed House Bill 126 into law on April 21, 2022. The law went into effect on July 21, 2022. The bill imposes limitations on when a school district can file a property tax complaint with an Ohio county board of revision (BOR).  The bill amended Ohio Revised Code 5715.19, which regulates who may file a tax valuation complaint.  The bill also amended code section 5717.01, which governs appeals from BOR decisions.

Introduced and passed quickly, the bill has been subject to extensive scrutiny. 

The Ohio Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) decided in October of 2022 that a political subdivision that has filed a 2021 tax year complaint or counter-complaint cannot appeal any BOR decision issued after July 21, 2022.

The BTA’s October 2022 decision was challenged, and the Third District Court of Appeals recently issued a decision reversing and remanding the BTA decision.  In relevant part, the appellate court held:

“there is no plain reference whatsoever in the amended statute to its applicability to appeals filed prior to the effective date of the statute or, as is the case here, to appeals in pending actions. The General Assembly’s failure to include such language means that the amended version of R.C. 5717.01 can only be applied prospectively.

On August 2, 2023, the Taxpayer appealed the Third District decision to the Supreme Court of Ohio, and the Supreme Court has since accepted jurisdiction over the matter.

On October 19, 2023, the Tenth District Court of Appeals likewise reversed 12 BTA dismissals related to HB 126.  The Court found the new appeal exception from RC 5717.01, that went into effect on 7/21/22, "applies only to appeals from decisions on 'original complaints' or 'counter-complaints' filed after 7/21/22.”  Because the school boards filed their complaints in these cases while the former version of R.C. 5715.19 remained in effect, they are not 'subdivision[s] that file[d] an original complaint or counter-complaint' and are therefore not subject to the exception added to R.C. 5717.01 by H.B. 126. R.C. 5717.01. 

Finally, the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas has a trial assigned for March 12, 2024 related to HB 126.  Six Franklin County school boards and one individual property owner have challenged the bill’s constitutionality, claiming it violates both equal protection and due process clauses of the Ohio and United States Constitutions, along with claiming the bill is violative of the Ohio Constitution’s uniform taxation rule.  Motion practice is ongoing, and Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost has filed a motion to dismiss, citing, among other things, a lack of standing, an inability for the school boards to bring due process or equal protection claims against the state, and a lack of injury in fact suffered by the school boards.

Updates will follow as these matters continue to be litigated.

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

UPDATED december 2023

Paying Taxes Under Protest

In Oklahoma, a taxpayer who has appealed from a decision affecting the value or taxable status of property must comply with mandatory payment-under-protest procedures set forth in 68 O.S. § 2884. To properly make payment of taxes under protest in compliance with § 2884, a taxpayer must: (1) pay by December 31, 2023, either one-half or the full amount of taxes owed under the tax bill; (2) include with such payment an executed OTC Form 990 Notice of Payment Under Protest; and (3) include a copy of the Petition or Complaint filed in the Court. If the taxpayer elects to make just a half payment by December 31, 2023, the same payment-under-protest procedures must be followed when making the second-half payment by March 31, 2024. Taxpayers must strictly comply with these procedures to avoid having their appeal dismissed.

Brady R. LippoldtElias, 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).

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Foster Garvey PC
American Property Tax Counsel (APTC)

UPDATED december 2023

Allegheny County, Pennsylvania 2024 Tax Year Filing Period Opening

Now is the time to evaluate your Allegheny County, Pennsylvania properties for potential assessment appeal opportunities.  Allegheny County’s 2024 filing deadline is March 31, 2024. 

Allegheny County taxpayers now have a unique opportunity in 2024 to obtain assessment reductions as a result of recent corrections to the Allegheny County process made after the County was caught in fraud in how it calculated the ratio needed for the assessment process.  The assessment ratio for 2024 has dropped 9 points to 54.5% which should provide opportunities for appeals.

Now is the time to start collecting the data and documents that will be necessary to evaluate your property’s assessment to see if there is an opportunity to reduce your real estate taxes.  Owners should gather three years of income and expense statements.  Please contact us now so that we can evaluate any opportunities to reduce your property taxes with adequate time to prepare a winning case.

It is also worth noting that Pennsylvania is one of very few states that permits taxing authorities to file assessment appeals.  Owners and/or tenants should vigorously defend themselves against any assessment appeal initiated by a school district or other taxing body in Pennsylvania.

To discuss the specifics of an appeal and the valuation of your property, please contact Siegel Jennings at:

Sharon F. DiPaolo, Esquire
Siegel Jennings, Co., L.P.A.
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 June 2011

South Carolina Enacts New Point of Sale Law

On June 14, 2011, Governor Nikki Haley signed a new law significantly amending South Carolina's controversial "point of sale" law requiring tax reassessment of properties whenever a sale has occurred. The prior law adopted in 2006, commonly known as "Act 388," placed a fifteen (15%) percent cap on reassessed values as part of the five (5) year countywide reassessment programs but sought to make up for the loss of revenue by requiring that properties be reassessed whenever there is a change of ownership.

Many in the commercial real estate market had expressed that Act 388 placed buyers of commercial properties at a significant competitive disadvantage with competitive properties whose property taxes had not increased. The new law, which does not apply to owner occupied residential properties, creates an exemption equal to twenty-five (25%) percent of any increase in valuation resulting from a change in ownership. The exemption does not permit a reduction in market value below the prior assessed value.

The new legislation leaves several important legal arguments unresolved, most notably the date of valuation for property owners whose properties have decreased in value during the middle of the countywide reassessment cycle. Although the current law calculates property taxes based on the state of the property as of December 31st of the prior year, the South Carolina Attorney General's Office issued an advisory opinion in June 2010 stating that the valuation for any mid-cycle appeal was to refer back to date of the last countywide reassessment. Many South Carolina counties are not adhering to this advisory opinion. The new legislation does not address this issue.

Morris A. Ellison
William T. Dawson
Womble Carlyle
American Property Tax Counsel (APTC)

UPDATED december 2023

The Importance of Proper Representation

Many taxpayers ask their property tax attorneys to take over appeals after an unsuccessful hearing with the county board of equalization. 

In one recent case, an unrepresented taxpayer introduced into evidence excerpts from an appraisal report, but failed to provide the entire appraisal or have the appraiser appear for cross examination.  In his decision, the administrative judge reluctantly affirmed the assessor’s value, while stating that “additional evidence could possibly support a significant reduction in value.”  In other words, the taxpayer’s property warranted a reduction in value, but the evidence was not properly presented.  Unfortunately, the taxpayer did not timely appeal further, and the case was not preserved.

Taxpayers should engage counsel early in the process when seeking a property tax reduction, because there are many pitfalls in the appeal process that can deprive them of the tax savings they deserve.

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Evans Petree PC
American Property Tax Counsel (APTC)

Updated december 2023

End-of-Year Property Tax Reminders

The Texas property tax calendar remains active throughout the year, particularly in January. Two crucial dates are January 1st and January 31st. January 1st holds significance as the lien date in Texas, serving as the valuation date when an automatic tax lien is attached to all properties in the state. Property owners challenging the market value of their property reference January 1st as the valuation date. The automatic lien attachment implies that if taxes are unpaid, the government need not establish a lien; instead, it is automatically enforced. This connection leads to another vital deadline, January 31st, which marks the final day for paying property taxes for the previous year. Even if an owner has initiated a lawsuit, they must pay the uncontested tax amount by this date. Failure to do so results in accruing penalties and interest, and if a lawsuit is pending, the court loses jurisdiction. Additionally, January 31st is the deadline for filing a late protest, allowed under specific conditions such as "clerical error," "multiple appraisals," "incorrect ownership," "mismatched property details," or "property valued at 1/3 or more over market value." If a property falls under one of these categories and hasn't undergone the standard tax protest, the late protest will be considered.

Stephen Grant
Popp Hutcheson, PLLC
American Property Tax Counsel (APTC)

Updated march 2020

Possible Property Tax Relief Due To COVID-19 Pandemic

Owners of business properties in Utah may qualify for property tax relief as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. 

Generally, Utah law requires property to be taxed at its fair market value as of January 1 each year.   Because COVID-19 had not impacted Utah communities as of January 1, 2020, it is unlikely that any negative impacts from the COVID-19 pandemic will be reflected in 2020 assessments.  However, Utah law contains a provision for “access interruption” that occurs after January 1 and allows an adjustment to the current year’s assessment even though the events causing a decrease in fair market value occurred after January 1. 

Utah Code Ann. § 59-2-1004.6 states, “if, during a calendar year, property sustains a decrease in fair market value that is caused by access interruption” then the property owner may apply for an adjustment to the property’s fair market value.  “Access interruption” is defined as “interruption of the normal access to or from property due to any circumstance beyond the control of the owner.” Id.  Owners may have properties, the values of which have been negatively impacted by proclamations, orders or actions denying or substantially limiting “normal access” to, or full use of, those properties during the COVID-19 pandemic.  These interruptions should qualify as “access interruption” and entitle the owner to potential property tax relief.  To obtain relief, the property owner must file an application with the County Board of Equalization “on or before September 30” and must prove “that the property sustained a decrease in fair market value during the applicable calendar year, that was caused by access interruption” and the amount of such decrease.  Id. 

Owners of business properties should pay particular attention to their property assessments to ensure that proper treatment is given to the property to account for any negative impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic.  If the assessment does not take into account a reduction in value caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, the owner may wish to seek the relief explained above. 

If you have any questions regarding this potential property tax relief, please do not hesitate to contact us.

David J. Crapo & John T. Deeds
Crapo Deeds, PLLC
American Property Tax Counsel (APTC)

UPDATED december 2020

Virginia Property Tax Liability Likely to Increase

With most Virginia jurisdictions in the midst of finalizing their 2021 assessments, municipal budget woes precipitated by COVID-19 are likely to result in a higher real estate tax burden for Virginia property owners in the coming year.

While most of the large Virginia jurisdictions delayed projected tax rate increases in 2020 as a result of the Coronavirus lockdowns, the most recent budget forecasting sessions have emphasized the rising costs of programs and services.  With retail vacancies projected to see significant increases and office and multi-family rents flat to declining, most jurisdictions are looking at projected revenue that is not sufficient to cover existing debt service, compensation and prior commitments, even before addressing any further priorities.

For real estate tax purposes, this is likely to result in assessors relying upon atypical transactions to draw broad market conclusions in order to justify above-market assessments for specific properties.  Combining this valuation approach with the likelihood of tax rate increases, results in an increase in tax liability for many owners. 

For guidance on your specific property, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Ilene Baxt Boorman
Mark Rogers
Wilkes Artis, Chtd.
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 june 2020

Property Tax Relief Proposed for Commercial Real Estate

While many types of commercial real estate have been hit hard by the COVID-19 pandemic, immediate property tax relief has been in short supply. Immediate tax reductions are available in the event of unexpected physical destruction, such as by fire or flood, but the application of that statute to the pandemic is less clear. Another statute gives relief for government restrictions that cause a loss in value, but the timing of that relief is problematic. The King County Assessor recently proposed legislation to address the problems with current law:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYkb0f4QLnc. 

The next regular session of the state legislature convenes in January 2021, but the governor may call a special session sooner in order to work on a large budget shortfall. Now is the time to be in touch with your legislator to press the view that property tax relief for commercial real estate should be high on the list of priorities.

Norman J. Bruns & Michelle DeLappe
Foster Garvey PC
American Property Tax Counsel (APTC)

Updated March 2018

Wisconsin Court Of Appeals Holds That Agricultural Land Classification Does Not Require That Crops Be Grown For A Business Purpose

In a decision issued on March 7, 2018, State of Wisconsin ex rel. The Peter Ogden Family Trust v. Board of Review, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals rejected the assessor’s position that crops must be grown for a business purpose for land to qualify for agricultural classification, which requires assessment at significantly below market value.

Beginning in 2012, the land at issue was classified as agricultural and agricultural forest based upon pine trees, apple trees, and hay the landowners planted on the property. In 2016, the assessor concluded that the property failed to meet the agricultural and agricultural forest classifications and reclassified the property as residential.  This resulted in an increase in the assessed property value from $17,100 as agricultural land to $886,000 as residential land.

The landowners objected to the 2016 assessment, and the board of review upheld the residential classification. The landowners filed an action for certiorari review, arguing that the change was erroneous because it was based upon the mistaken belief that for land to qualify as agricultural land, crops grown on the property must be grown for a business purpose. The circuit court upheld the assessment, and the landowners appealed.

The Court of Appeals examined Wisconsin statutes defining “agricultural land” and “agricultural use,” as well as the relevant Department of Revenue rule, and concluded that the plain language of the statutes and rule refers to “growing” the relevant crops, not marketing, selling, or profiting from them. The Court found that the board of review’s position that the land could not be “devoted primarily to agricultural use” without “minimal sales,” “valid economic activity,” and crops being “marketed for sale” was unsupported and contrary to law. The Court further rejected the board’s argument that the assessor did not impose a “business standard” when evaluating the use of the property, concluding that a review of the transcript of the board hearing demonstrated that the assessor and the board clearly—and erroneously—equated “agricultural use” with growing crops for a business purpose.

The Court thus held that to qualify for agricultural classification, it is sufficient that the land be devoted primarily to growing qualifying crops, whether or not those crops are grown for a business purpose.

Marie Bahoora
Michael Best & Friedrich LLP
American Property Tax Counsel (APTC)