Pennsylvania Property Tax Update Archive

UPDATED december 2025

PA Lawsuit Seeking to Declare Base-Year Assessment System Unconstitutional

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

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

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

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

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

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

UPDATED March 2025

Pennsylvania Legislator Proposes Cyclical Reassessment System

In January 2025, Pennsylvania State Senator Wayne Fontana announced that he plans to introduce legislation to move Pennsylvania to a cyclical reassessment system, as is the system in nearly every other state.

This is good news for taxpayers and other stakeholders. Pennsylvania is the only state in the United States to have a “base year” system under which counties can choose to stay in their “base year” (last year of the countywide reassessment) indefinitely. The State of Delaware - the only other state which had a base year system – in a decision by its highest court -- declared in May 2020 that a base year system of assessment is unconstitutional.

Due to Pennsylvania’s base year system, it is not uncommon for counties to fail to reassess for decades or more. The Pennsylvania County with the oldest reassessment year is Franklin County (south central Pennsylvania) which last reassessed in 1961. Pennsylvania is also one of a handful of states that allows government bodies to file increase assessment appeals (labeled “illegal spot appeals” in most states).  These two factors taken together – a county’s failure to reassess coupled with a school district’s right to “cherry pick” some taxpayers for increase appeals – leads to, as a practical matter, a disparate tax experience (especially for commercial taxpayers who tend to be the targets of school increase appeals) and a complete lack of uniformity in taxation, contrary to Pennsylvania ‘s Constitution.

APTC Western Pennsylvania Representative Sharon F. DiPaolo, Esquire, CRE, was invited to testify at Senator Fontana’s July 2024 hearing on the need for cyclical reassessment in Pennsylvania.  Ms. DiPaolo’s testimony called for cyclical reassessment to address the best practices of tax policy, namely, fundamental fairness, transparency, and consistency. As of this writing, the proposed legislation is in the process of being drafted. Siegel Jennings will advise of developments as they occur.

In the meantime, to discuss the specifics of this proposed legislation or your property tax needs in Pennsylvania, please reach out to:

Sharon F. DiPaolo, EsquireSiegel Jennings, Co., L.P.A.
American Property Tax Counsel (APTC)

UPDATED september 2024

Pennsylvania Appellate Court Upholds Taxing Bodies Appealing Only High Value Properties

Consistent with a string of recent rulings from one of Pennsylvania’s intermediate appellate courts, the Commonwealth Court ruled in August that a school district’s “use of monetary thresholds [in selecting what property assessments to appeal] does not per se violate the Uniformity Clause.”  This ruling comes despite the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania having ruled in numerous cases that the use of monetary thresholds in other areas of taxation does in fact violate uniformity, a point not lost on the dissenting judges.

Pennsylvania is one of a very few jurisdictions in which taxing bodies are permitted to file annual appeals against individual properties in effort to raise taxpayers’ assessments.  In Coatesville Area School District v. Chester Cnty. Bd. of Assessment Appeals and Preserve at Milltown Lantern Owner LLC (Commw. Ct. No. 1313 C.D. 2022), a school district appealed only properties which it believed would generate at least $10,000 in additional taxes, which inherently limited its appeals to only commercial properties valued at more than $435,000.  In approving such a scheme, the Commonwealth Court majority agreed with the trial court that the monetary threshold was employed for the purpose of achieving a revenue goal with a “cost-effective and practical solution” and not for the purpose of discriminating against certain property types.

In a well-reasoned dissenting opinion, Judge Lori Dumas highlighted that regardless of its facially neutral intent, “the practical impact of the government’s policy results in disparate treatment.”  Further, in referencing legislatively enacted monetary thresholds which have been ruled unconstitutional by Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court, the dissenting opinion suggested the school district’s threshold is actually more troubling, as it “is subject to the whims of local government officials.”

Taxpayers should watch the case of Downingtown Area Sch. Dist. v. Chester Cnty. Bd. of Assessment Appeals Tax Parcel No. : 33-5-43.3  (“Downingtown III” / Marchwood Apartments Owners) which is currently pending before the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania and which raises many of the same issues.

Brendan B, Kelly, Esq.
Siegel Jennings Co., L.P.A.
American Property Tax Counsel (APTC)

UPDATED june 2024

All Pennsylvania Counties Now on Prospective Appeal Cycle Now that Allegheny County has Changed its Deadline

On June 4, 2024, Allegheny County County Council joined the rest of Pennsylvania’s 67 counties in moving to a prospective appeal deadline.  Council unanimously voted to implement a prospective October 1 deadline for filing assessment appeals for the following tax year.  This change is in effect now.  Accordingly, all Allegheny County assessment appeals for tax year 2025 must be filed by October 1, 2024. 

Prior to this change, Allegheny County had been the only of the 67 counties in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to use a retrospective appeal deadline of March 31st of that calendar year.  65 counties have used August 1st while Philadelphia uses the first Monday in October for their prospective deadlines for assessment appeals for the following calendar year.   The only outlier of this had been Allegheny County which had utilized a March 31st deadline for filing tax assessment appeals for the same calendar year.  With the new change, Allegheny County comes into line with the rest of the Commonwealth.

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 march 2024

Pittsburgh's Property Tax Woes Highlight the Need for Periodic Property Reassessments in Pennsylvania

As Pittsburghers grapple with whether to move forward with their first property reassessment in over a decade, it acts as a great reminder of the need for all Pennsylvania counties to engage in regular periodic reassessments.

Instead of regular reassessments, Pennsylvania employs a county-by-county method, using submitted sales data to create a ratio between current market value and the assessment at the time of the last reassessment. There is a wide range between when each county last reassessed, with Butler County conducting its last reassessment in 1969 and others in the midst of the reassessment process.

Last month, Pittsburgh Public Schools authorized their solicitor to sue Allegheny County to force a countywide reassessment. This came as politicians faced a drop in tax revenue as the office market in Pittsburgh’s Central Business District continued to suffer and successfully appeal outdated County values. This also comes after years of litigation surrounding what Judge Hertzberg in Allegheny County referred to as the County “cooking the books” when submitting sales data to the State, which resulted in higher tax bills for many property owners.

With Pennsylvania acting as the only state in the nation that does not mandate periodic reassessments, this is yet another indication of how this system hurts all citizens and property owners.  Periodic reassessments better reflect market realities and the ebbs and flows of real estate and help both property owners and school districts to budget. Importantly, it also increases uniformity, thereby ensuring that property owners pay only their “fair share.”

As it becomes more difficult to ignore the extreme drawbacks of Pennsylvania’s property tax system, Pennsylvania legislators should join the rest of the country in mandating a system of periodic reassessments to protect its constituents. “Ripping off the band-aid” will surely be painful, but continuing to perpetuate a broken and unequal system is clearly not the answer.

For questions or to discuss the specifics of an appeal and the valuation of your property, please contact Siegel Jennings, Pittsburgh office, at 412-486-2848.

Christina Gongaware
Siegel Jennings Co., L.P.A.
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 june 2023

Pennsylvania’s Annual August 1st Filing Deadline Approaching

Now is the time to evaluate your Pennsylvania properties for potential assessment appeal opportunities.  Pennsylvania’s appeal deadlines are:

• For 65 out of 67 Counties – August 1, 2023
• For Philadelphia County – First Monday in October (October 2, 2023)
• For Allegheny County – March 31, 2023

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, CRE, Esquire

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

UPDATED december 2022

ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PA RATIO DROPS DRAMATICALLY AFTER COUNTY’S FRAUD UNCOVERED

An Allegheny County, PA judge ruled on November 14, 2022 that Allegheny County “cooked the books” in its sales validation process, the impact of which was to artificially inflate the County’s assessment-to-market-value-ratio by over 17 percentage points.  Gioffre v. Allegheny County, G.D. 21-007154 (Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, PA). The artificially high “common level ratio” as it is called in Pennsylvania, means that taxpayers who have participated in assessment appeals since 2017 have assessments which were set artificially high and, thus, have been overpaying their taxes.  The trial court and Allegheny County Council are attempting to institute corrections to remedy the wrong – solutions which Allegheny County school districts (led by the City of Pittsburgh School District) are actively fighting as they attempt to hold onto their ill-gotten gains.

What is a Common Level Ratio? Pennsylvania is the only jurisdiction that uses a “base year” system in lieu of periodic mandatory countywide reassessments.  (The State of Delaware was the only other jurisdiction that used a “base year” system, but in May 2020, the Chancery Court of Delaware declared its “base year” system to be unconstitutional, in violation of Delaware’s Uniformity Clause (See, In re Delaware Public Schools Litigation, 2020 Del. Ch. LEXIS 177, 239 A.3d 451 (Del. Ch. May 8, 2020)).  Under Pennsylvania’s system, the “base year” is defined as the last year in which the county reassessed.  For Allegheny County the base year is 2012.  The “common level ratio” or “CLR” is an assessment-to-market-value-ratio using most recent sales available measured against the year of last countywide reassessment.  The purpose of the CLR is to act as a one-size-fits-all ratio to convert a property’s 2012 base year assessment into current market value.

How is the Common Level Ratio Computed?  Pennsylvania’s State Tax Equalization Board (“STEB”) calculates the CLR for each county each year, based on sales validated by each county.  While STEB publishes guidelines for how counties should validate sales, STEB relies on the counties to perform the validation process honestly.  STEB receives each county’s sales data and performs the calculation that yields each County’s CLR for the year. 

Gioffre Taxpayer Litigation.  In June 2021, Madelyn Gioffre and Shaquille Charles, a young couple who had been targeted by a local school district for an increase assessment appeal following the purchase of their first home, sued Allegheny County alleging, among other things, that Allegheny County’s CLR was fraudulently inflated.  The Gioffre’s attorney noted in the complaint that Allegheny County’s CLR had not moved in relation to other readily available market adjustment indicators and appeared to be artificially high.  For example, from 2012 to 2019 the STEB-published CLR declined by 12.72% whereas sales prices in Allegheny County increased by 29.47%. 

Taxpayers Asked STEB to Correct the CLR.  In addition to filing a lawsuit against Allegheny County, the Gioffre taxpayer group also filed objections to STEB, specifically challenging the 2022 CLR (2020 sales validation), putting STEB on notice about taxpayers’ allegations of the County’s fraud, and asking STEB to open an investigation into the County’s 2020 sales validation and to establish a correct lower common level ratio.  At its August 18, 2021 meeting STEB unanimously voted against opening an investigation, stating that it did not want to “step into the shoes” of Allegheny County.

Allegheny County’s Fraud.  The Chief Assessor is the person, under Allegheny County’s local ordinance who oversees the sales validation process.  The Chief Assessor is required to be a credentialed assessment professional under the County’s Administrative Code.   During the Gioffre litigation, taxpayers uncovered that Allegheny County had terminated the contract of its credentialed Chief Assessor in January 2013.  The County then informed a County Information Technology manager – who did not possess the credentials required by the Administrative Code - that she was the Acting Chief Assessor.   In October 2014, the Acting Chief Assessor was included in a meeting wherein she was directed to write a computer program to auto-validate high ratio sales and filter out low ratio sales.  The computer program that auto-validated high ratio sales was used for sales from calendar years 2015 through 2020, until the County discontinued its use in December 2021 while under investigation in the Gioffre litigation.  The Allegheny County sales validations for calendar years 2015 to 2020, correlated to the CLRs published for tax years 2017 through 2022. 

What is the True 2022 Tax Year CLR?  The STEB-published CLR for tax year 2022 was 81.1% which had been based on the County’s own unsupervised sales validation of 2020 sales data.  The Gioffre taxpayers predicted in their complaint that the true 2022 CLR would be at or near 67.5% (the Gioffre plaintiffs hired a Carnegie Mellon University Ph.D. Candidate in Statistics to re-calculate the 2022 tax year CLR based on correctly validated 2020 sales). The Honorable Alan Hertzberg, the trial judge in the Gioffre litigation, took up the issue of the 2022 tax year CLR (2020 sales validation) first and set an evidentiary hearing for April 27, 2022.  On the day of trial, the County suggested a collaborative “re-do” of the 2020 sales validation process in cooperation with taxpayers’ counsel and experts.  The parties consented.  On September 1, 2022, the Judge Hertzberg received the County’s re-do of the 2020 sales validation process and issued an Order, accordingly, setting the CLR at 63.53%. 

What is the Status of the 2022 CLR?  The City of Pittsburgh School District appealed Judge Hertzberg’s Order to the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court.  The Allegheny County Board of Assessment, Appeals, and Review is holding off on issuing decisions for tax year 2022 until the appellate litigation is complete.  The Allegheny County Board of Viewers (trial court level) has not taken a position as to what CLR it will apply for tax year 2022.  The Allegheny County Council created a Special Committee to Investigate Assessment Practices, following which, a council member introduced legislation to require the application of the 63.53% CLR; that legislation had its first public reading in December 2022.  A second reading is expected for January 2023, after which the full County Council will take a vote.  On November 14, 2022, Judge Hertzberg issued a 10-page opinion summarizing the facts uncovered in the Gioffre litigation and the reasons for his Order. 

What is Right is Right.  Notwithstanding opposition, litigation and inertia, it seems clear that the accurate 2022 CLR is 63.53%.  Knowledgeable and informed taxpayer attorneys are fighting to apply the true ratio.

For questions or to discuss the specifics of an appeal and the valuation of your property, please contact Siegel Jennings at:

Sharon F. DiPaolo, EsquireSiegel Jennings, Co., L.P.A.
American Property Tax Counsel (APTC)

UPDATED september 2022

PENNSYLVANIA COUNTIES WITH UPCOMING COUNTYWIDE REVALUATIONS

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is one of the only jurisdictions in the country without mandatory periodic re-assessment.  In fact, many Pennsylvania counties have gone decades without performing a county-wide reassessment.  Beyond the obvious issue of property taxation being based on stale data and completely out-of-date market conditions, this also presents a fatal blow to the stated goal of all forms of taxation -- namely uniformity.

What is most troubling, is that, while re-assessments rarely occur in Pennsylvania, the Commonwealth is also one of very few jurisdictions that allow the government taxing bodies to appeal the assessments of their taxpayers’ real estate.  Taxing bodies file appeals seeking to raise the assessments of only certain properties, mostly commercial, to their opinion of current market value, while neighboring properties remain paying taxes on assessments based on data from decades ago.  To this point, the ultimate death-knell to uniformity comes when appeals are filed by taxing bodies based on recent sales, a common practice which clearly shifts more of the tax burden to only those targeted owners from their similarly-situated neighbors.  The constitutionality of this practice is currently under review by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in the case styled, G M Berkshire Hills LLC and GM Oberlin Berkshire Hills LLC v. Berks County Board of Assessment and Wilson School District.  In 2009, the Court thoroughly discussed the issues of this antiquated system previously in the case of Clifton v. Allegheny County whereby taxpayers sued Allegheny County to force a re-assessment and the Court recognized the inherit disparities caused by this “base year” system.

It is useful for taxpayers to be aware of when the last re-assessment occurred and if one is planned in their county.  Without mandatory periodic reassessment, in Pennsylvania most reassessments come as the result of litigation and are court-ordered.  Less frequently, counties decide to reassess on their own initiative.

The following Pennsylvania counties are currently undergoing or preparing for  re-assessments: Beaver (2024), Butler (planning beginning, date TBD), Lackawanna (2026), Mercer (in planning stages, date TBD), Philadelphia (2023), Schuylkill (litigation forced reassessment, in planning stages, date TBD), Tioga (2024), Wayne (2023) and Wyoming (in planning stages, date TBD).

The following is a list of when the last re-assessment occurred county by county:

• Adams 2010
• Allegheny 2012
• Armstrong 1997
• Beaver 1982
• Bedford 2013
• Berks 1994
• Blair 2017
• Bradford 1999
• Bucks 1972
• Butler 1969
• Cambria 1972
• Cameron 1986
• Carbon 2001
• Centre 1995
• Chester 1998
• Clarion 1975
• Clearfield 1989
• Clinton 2009
• Columbia 1992
• Crawford 1969
• Cumberland 2010
• Dauphin 2002
• Delaware 2021
• Elk 1986
• Erie 2013
• Fayette 2003
• Forest 1974
• Franklin 1961
• Fulton 1990
• Greene 2003
• Huntingdon 1978
• Indiana 2016
• Jefferson 1987
• Juniata 1974
• Lackawanna 1968
• Lancaster 2018
• Lawrence 2003
• Lebanon 2003
• Lehigh 2013
• Luzerne 2009
• Lycoming 2004
• McKean 1998
• Mercer 1974
• Mifflin 1999
• Monroe 1998
• Montgomery 1998
• Montour 2006
• Northampton 1995
• Northumberland  1972
• Perry 2011
• Philadelphia 2023
• Pike 1996
• Potter 1977
• Schuylkill 1997
• Snyder 1973
• Somerset 1998
• Sullivan 2004
• Susquehanna 1993
• Tioga 2001
• Union 2006
• Venango 2004
• Warren 1989
• Washington 2017
• Wayne 2023
• Westmoreland 1973
• Wyoming 1988
• York 2006

Ryan J. Kammerer, Esquire
Siegel Jennings Co., L.P.A.
American Property Tax Counsel (APTC)

---

UPDATED June 2022

Pennsylvania’s Annual August 1st Filing Deadline Approaching

Now is the time to evaluate your Pennsylvania properties for potential assessment appeal opportunities.  Pennsylvania’s appeal deadlines are:

• For 65 out of 67 Counties – August 1, 2022
• For Philadelphia County – First Monday in October (October 3, 2022)
• For Allegheny County – March 31, 2022*
  • *While Allegheny’s deadline for 2022 has passed, there is a possibility the filing period will be re-opened as a result of ongoing litigation. Allegheny’s 2022 Common Level Ratio was originally published as 81.1%, but is expected to be revised to less than 70% in the coming months. Look for further updates on this issue throughout this summer.

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 before July 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.  Regarding such government-initiated appeals, the GM Berkshire Hills case (discussed in more depth in the First Quarter 2022 e-blast) is expected to be scheduled for oral argument before the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania this fall.  That case challenges the ability of taxing authorities to file “welcome stranger” appeals against recent buyers, as well as the ability of taxing authorities to use monetary thresholds to file appeals against only highly valued properties.  Owners and/or tenants should vigorously defend themselves against any assessment appeal initiated by a school district or other taxing body in Pennsylvania.

Author:  Brendan B. Kelly, Esquire

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 march 2022

PA SUPREME COURT AGREES TO HEAR ARGUMENT ON CONSTITUTIONALITY OF “WELCOME STRANGER” INCREASE APPEALS

As the Pennsylvania Supreme Court – the oldest appellate court in the nation – celebrates its 300th anniversary in 2022, it has agreed to take a case that property owners throughout the Commonwealth hope will restore meaning to Pennsylvania’s constitutional requirement of uniformity in taxation.

The GM Berkshire Hills case involves “welcome stranger” appeals filed by government bodies seeking to increase the assessments of only some taxpayers.  GM Berkshire Hills v. Berks County Board of Assessment, 257 A.3d 822 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2021), appeal granted Pa. Supreme Court Order at Docket 452 MAL 2021 (Order dated Feb. 1, 2022). Of note, Pennsylvania is the only state in the country that both 1) has a “base year” assessment system which means that there are no regular countywide reassessments, and 2) provides government bodies a statutory right to appeal their own taxpayers to seek assessment increases.  What follows in practice is that it is extremely common in Pennsylvania for school districts to enact policy of selecting only recently-sold properties for appeals.

On February 1, 2022 the Court agreed to hear the case and certified two questions:

1. Do a school district's selective real estate tax assessment appeals violate the Uniformity Clause of the Pennsylvania Constitution when the school district chooses only recently-sold properties for appeal, leaving most properties in the district at outdated base-year values?

2. Do a school district's selective real estate tax assessment appeals violate the Uniformity Clause of the Pennsylvania Constitution when the school district chooses only certain recently-sold properties that would generate a minimum amount of additional tax revenue for appeal, leaving most properties in the district at outdated base-year values?

In GM Berkshire Hills, the property owner purchased a 408-unit apartment complex located in Reading, Berks County for $54 Million in November 2017.  Berks County last reassessed over 25 years ago in 1994.  Thus, the assessment for the subject property that was being carried on the County tax rolls - even after being “equalized” by the one-size-fits-all ratio - was $10.5 Million in fair market value.  The School District conceded that its selection scheme for appeals was based upon sale price. 

Taxpayer challenged constitutionality of the school district’s selection scheme based on, inter alia, the United States Supreme Court’s holding in Allegheny Pittsburgh Coal (WV 1989), which squarely holds that a County assessor cannot raise the assessments only of recently-held properties.

Both the trial court and intermediate appellate court ruled in favor of the government.  The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has over 100 years of unbroken precedent supporting uniformity in taxation, but lower courts routinely issue decisions upholding government appeals where some but not all taxpayers that are similarly situated are appealed.  Taxpayer’s brief was filed March 14, 2022.  The School District’s brief is due April 13, 2022.  No argument date has yet been set.

For questions or 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)
sdipaolo@siegeltax.com
www.siegeltax.com

UPDATED December 2021

DRAMATIC DROP IN ALLEGHENY COUNTY (PITTSBURGH) ASSESSMENT RATIO FOR TAX YEAR 2022 PRESENTS OPPORTUNITY FOR SAVINGS

Taxpayers in the Pittsburgh area (Allegheny County, Pennsylvania) have an opportunity to ring in additional tax savings in the 2022 New Year due a significant drop in the assessment-to-market value ratio.

Pennsylvania does not require regular county-wide reassessments.  It has already been a decade since Allegheny County’s last reassessment in 2012.  Rather than reassess periodically, Pennsylvania uses a one-size-fits-all band-aid by issuing one ratio each year for each county which is intended to approximate the ratio between the current market and the assessment at the time of the last reassessment. 

For tax year 2022, the new ratio is 81.1% - which is a huge drop from the prior 2021 ratio of 87.5%.  Allegheny County’s ratio has been essentially flat for the last 7 years as shown by this chart:

2015    87.1%

2016    87.4%

2017    87.5%

2018    86.2%

2019    87.5%

2020    86.2%

2021    87.5%

Why the dramatic change?  In early 2021 a lawsuit was filed against the County alleging that the County had fraudulently artificially inflated its ratio.  The lawsuit alleges that the County knowingly withheld sales from the State Tax Equalization Board that would have caused the ratio to drop.  (Note how the ratios above were identical every other year – what are the chances of that happening in a changing market?)  When the County’s 2022 ratio was published last summer it had – shockingly – dropped 6.4% in one year, which makes one wonder if the County attempted to clean up its sales as a reaction to the lawsuit.

The impact for taxpayers?  More opportunities to file appeals and seek savings.

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 september 2021

PENNSYLVANIA SLOW TO ISSUE VALUE REDUCTIONS FOR COVID IMPACT

When the COVID 19 virus hit in March 2020, Pennsylvania the first state where taxpayers had the opportunity to file an assessment appeal raising a COVID impact claim valuation, due to Pennsylvania’s early filing deadlines.

In Allegheny County, Pennsylvania (Pittsburgh area), the effective date of value is March 31, meaning that on March 30, 2020, a couple of weeks into the pandemic with businesses shut down by order of the Governor, taxpayers could file tax year 2020 appeals and claim a COVID impact on their property’s value.  For the rest of the state, the filing deadline is August 1 (65 counties) or early October (Philadelphia County), meaning that the COVID impact could fairly be included in the valuation position for tax year 2021.

In practice, County Boards of Assessment have been reluctant to issue reductions in assessment based on the impact of COVID 19.  In the 2020 tax year appeals in Allegheny County, the County Solicitor first argued that the correct effective date of value was January 1, 2020 (It is decidedly not.  There is a statute directly on point and an appellate case confirming that March 31 is the effective date) and that taxpayer claims of COVID impact were “too early.”  The Allegheny County Board of Assessment for the most part denied reductions based on COVID with a blanket “too early for valuation impact to be known” rationale.  At most other County Boards of Assessment, the Boards seemed inclined to take a wait-and-see approach on COVID impact reductions, effectively passing the buck to the trial court level.  Pennsylvania’s de-centralized county trial court system moves relatively slowly, so it remains to be seen how trial judges will weigh the COVID 19 impact on valuation.

In Allegheny County appeals for tax year 2021, with a March 31, 2021, effective date of value, taxpayers encountered arguments from taxing district attorneys that the COVID impact was over.  Read against the prior year arguments, the government lawyers’ position would allow taxpayers zero COVID impact relief.

Market data, of course, supports the position that for many property types, the COVID impact is not only still in effect, it could also be long-lasting.

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 june 2021

Pennsylvania's Annual Filing Deadline Approaching - August 1, 2021

Now is the time to evaluate your Pennsylvania properties for potential appeal opportunities.  65 of Pennsylvania’s 67 Counties have an appeal deadline of August 1, 2021.  While last appeal season, many Pennsylvania Boards of Assessment refused to issue reductions to the impact of COVID due the Boards’ position that there was insufficient market data to support reductions, this year, the impact of COVID – especially on office and hospitality properties cannot be ignored. 

Pennsylvania appeal deadlines are:

• For Allegheny County, PA – March 31, 2021
• For Philadelphia County, PA – the first Monday in October (October 4, 2021)
• For all other 65 PA Counties –August 1, 2021

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.  If you believe the value of your property may be diminished, please contact us before July so that you can properly evaluate the opportunity to reduce your property taxes with adequate time to prepare a winning case.

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 2020

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Taxpayer Constitutional Challenge to Government Increase Appeals

Commercial taxpayers in Pennsylvania may have reason for hope in light of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court granting allowance of appeal on November 3, 2020.  Represented by APTC Founding Member Siegel Jennings, Co., L.PA. Autozone filed a constitutional challenge to a government-initiated increase appeal.  Pennsylvania is known as one of the only states that allow taxing bodies to file increase assessment appeals against its own taxpayers.  In practice, many Pennsylvania School Districts single out only high value commercial owners for increase appeals.  Siegel Jennings and other taxpayer advocates have been seeking to limit those government-initiated appeals.

From late 2019 through early 2020, the Commonwealth Court (Pennsylvania’s intermediate appellate court responsible for matters involving state and local governments) issued a series of seven pro-government decisions in cases where taxpayers challenged whether taxing districts’ systems of selecting increase assessment appeals violated constitutional uniformity.  Four of those taxpayers filed requests with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to hear the cases, but the Supreme Court allowed only one appeal to proceed: Kennett Consolidated School District v. Chester County Board of Assessment, 63 MAP 2020.

In Kennett Consolidated, the School District delegated its selection of assessment appeals to a commercial appraiser who used a threshold to recommend appeals on thirteen (13) commercial properties which he believed to be under-assessed by at least $1 Million fair market value.  The Supreme Court certified the issues of: 1) whether the use of a monetary threshold automatically violates uniformity; 2) whether the result of appealing only commercial properties “in operation and effect” violated uniformity; and 3) whether the Commonwealth Court applied an improper standard by requiring the taxpayer to prove the government intentionally discriminated against a subclass of property owners.  That case is currently being briefed at the Supreme Court, and oral argument is expected to be scheduled in 2021.  We will continue to provide updates on the progress of this significant case.

As we look ahead to 2021, owners of property in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, should be aware that the deadline to appeal assessments is March 31, 2021.  Reducing your property taxes will require filing an appeal before the deadline, and winning that appeal will require evidence of your property’s market value as of the date of filing.  Importantly, 2021 appeals should take into consideration the impacts of the COVID-19 crisis. Therefore, property owners should act now to collect the necessary data and evaluate the potential for an appeal with qualified counsel. 

If you  believe the value of your property has been diminished by the COVID-19 crisis or that your property is otherwise overvalued by the county, please contact Siegel Jennings at:

Sharon F. DiPaolo, Esquire
Brendan Kelly, Esquire
Siegel Jennings, Co., L.P.A.
(412) 486-2848
American Property Tax Counsel (APTC)

UPDATED June 2020

Pennsylvania Taxpayers Uniquely Positioned to Argue Now for Value Reducations Based on COVID 19 Impact

Pennsylvania property owners who have been financially impacted by the pandemic should act now to evaluate and potentially request relief on their property taxes.

With respect to the impact of the COVID 19 pandemic, owners in Pennsylvania have an advantage over most other states because the date on which the market value for an appeal is based—known as the “effective date of value”—is earlier than in other states. In Pennsylvania, the effective date of value is:

• For Allegheny County, PA – March 31, 2020
• For Philadelphia County, PA – the first Monday in October (October 5, 2020)
• For all other 65 PA Counties – Between August 1, 2020 and September 1, 2020 (we recommend filing before August)

By comparison, in nearly every other state, the effective date of value is either January 1, 2020 (at which point, the impact of the pandemic was largely unknown in the market) or January 1, 2021 (at which point assessors will likely argue that the effect of the pandemic is already behind us).  Assessors in other states are already pushing back against requests for property assessment reductions based on arguments of what was known on those dates.

Thus, Pennsylvania property owners are uniquely positioned to use information about the effect of the pandemic to seek a reduction in property taxes.  For 65 of Pennsylvania’s 67 counties, the operative question in seeking to reduce your property taxes will be:  “What would someone pay for my property on August 1, 2020 based on what information was known in the market?”

Reducing your property taxes will require appealing your assessment; winning that appeal will require evidence of your property’s market value. Therefore, appraisals used to support assessment appeals filed in Pennsylvania this year should incorporate the impacts of the COVID-19 crisis.

Hotel operators in particular should evaluate the potential to reduce their property taxes this year. Even in a typical year, valuation of hotels presents a unique appraisal problem that requires a specialized appraisal expertise.  For this year, the expectation is that the impact of the current crisis will impair hotels’ real estate values in most cases.  Further, as market participants in some sectors are looking to the 2009 financial crisis as a point of reference, there seems to be general agreement that demand for hotel rooms will be slower to return this time around.  This unknown timeline increases the risk to potential investors, further driving down property values.   

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, a current balance sheet, and a recent monthly STAR Report. In addition, STAR Reports from 2018 and 2019 will be helpful to compare and estimate the impact of the pandemic on 2020 performance.

If you believe the value of your property may be diminished by the COVID-19 crisis, please contact us before July so that you can properly evaluate the opportunity to reduce your property taxes with adequate time to prepare a winning case.

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

Sharon F. DiPaolo, Esquire
Brendan Kelly, Esquire
Siegel Jennings, Co., L.P.A.
sdipaolo@siegeltax.com
bkelly@siegeltax.com
American Property Tax Counsel (APTC)

UPDATED march 2020

Pennsylvania Property Tax Relief Related to Coronavirus

Pennsylvania has provided limited relief, to date, with respect to real estate taxes related to the coronavirus.  Unfortunately, Pennsylvania has a decentralized assessment system; thus, there is no central decision-making or repository of information on relief that has been provided.  In addition, because Pennsylvania has no mandatory reassessment cycle, assessed values typically remain the same for years -- or even decades -- which makes appeals by owners the primary way to seek relief and reductions.

Allegheny County, Pennsylvania stands alone with an effective date of value of March 31, 2020 for tax year 2020.  For properties in Allegheny County on which appeals were filed before that date, owners will be able to advance arguments that incorporate the effect of the coronavirus on the value of the real estate.  For properties located in Pennsylvania's 66 other counties, the first opportunity for relief is tax year 2021 and the filing deadline is August 1, 2020.

To a limited extent, some counties and municipalies have extended deadlines to pay real estate taxes or provided a longer period to pay taxes at discount.  School districts in Pennsylvania issue real estate bills on July 1, 2020, and thus, any information on deadline extensions for schools is expected to be determined in the coming months.  The following is a partial, non-comprehensive list of counties and municipalities where we have been able to get information about the deadline to pay real estate taxes for 2020:

Jurisdiction

Philadelphia County
Discount period ended Feb 29; face period extended to April 30

Allegheny County
Discount period extended to April 30

Montgomery County
No extension will be granted; existing discount period ends April 30

Bucks County
Discount period ends April 30; face period extended to July 31

Delaware County
Discount period extended to April 30

Lancaster County
No extension announced; existing discount period ends April 30

Chester County
Discount period ended March 15 for County, March 31 for munis; no extension

York County
Discount period ends April 15; no extension announced

City of York
Discount period extended to May 15

Berks County
No extension announced; existing discount period ends April 30

Lehigh County
Administered by municipalities; discount deadlines vary based on mailing date

City of Allentown
Discount period for RE tax extended to May 5; BPT extended to July 15

Washington Co
Discount period extended to April 30

Erie Co
Discount period extended to April 30

Cumberland Co
No extension announced; existing discount period ends April 30

Dauphin Co
No extension announced; discount period ended March 31

Lackawanna Co
No extension announced; discount period ends 60 days after bill date

Luzerne Co
No extension announced; existing discount period ends April 17

City of Wilkes-Barre
30-day extension to payment periods shown on bill

Sharon F. DiPaolo, Esquire
Siegel Jennings. Co., L.P.A
American Property Tax Counsel (APTC)

UPDATED december 2019

Pennsylvania Appellate Court Issues Conflicting Back-to-Back Decisions Holding Government to a Lower Standard than Taxpayers

In two unreported decisions issued in October 2019, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court (Pennsylvania’s intermediate appellate court) held that taxing districts may use sale price as evidence of market value for the purpose of identifying properties on which to file increase assessment appeals, but that taxpayers cannot rely on sale price as evidence of properties that the government should have, but did not appeal, to demonstrate that a district’s selection scheme is not uniformly applied.  

In East Stroudsburg Area School District v. Dallan Acquisitions LLC, 529 CD 2018 (Pa. Commw. 2019), the school district used a consultant to analyze property sale prices to target assessment appeals against properties which would result in additional taxes of at least $10,000.  Taxpayer was one of only 46 properties who the school district cherry picked by the district.  At trial, the taxpayer adduced evidence that neither the district nor Keystone performed any calculations to ensure that the properties it selected met its threshold.  In support of its case, the taxpayer proffered expert testimony analyzing recent sale prices within the district to demonstrate that fully half of properties which would meet the purported threshold were not appealed. In fact, taxpayer’s evidence demonstrated that the district did not appeal a single residential property, despite 12 residences meeting the district’s threshold.  Thus, taxpayer argued, the district’s selection scheme targeted only commercial properties in violation of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s 2017 Valley Forge Towers decision.  The trial court ruled against the taxpayer, finding the school’s methodology to be constitutional, and the Commonwealth Court affirmed.  In rejecting the taxpayer’s evidence, the Commonwealth Court observed, “On cross-examination, [taxpayer’s expert] acknowledged he did not investigate the actual market value of any of the properties he identified; he merely used each property's sale price as ‘a stand-in’ for market value.”  Left unsaid was what kind of evidence the taxpayer could have possibly introduced – short of securing separate appraisals on the 30-40 properties – that would have demonstrated that the school did not uniformly implement its own policy.

Twelve days later, a different panel of the Commonwealth Court also ruled in favor of the government in Punxsutawney Area School District vs. Broadwing Timber, LLC, 1209 CD 2018 (Pa. Commw. 2019).  There, the school district appealed the assessment of a recently purchased property based on its recent sale price.  As summarized by the Commonwealth Court, “After comparing the sale price to the Property’s assessed value, [the district] believed the Property was underassessed.”  In its defense, taxpayer adduced evidence that the school district had only appealed the assessments of commercial properties and challenged the district’s selection scheme as violative of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s 2017 decision in Valley Forge.  The trial court ruled for the school district, and the Commonwealth Court affirmed.  In affirming the increase, the Commonwealth Court approved of the school district’s reliance on sale price as a substitute for a property that was under-assessed, characterizing its methodology as “financial analysis” and even “expertise.” 

While the two opinions rely on evidentiary burdens and credibility determinations, two unwritten rules emerge.  First, a sale price is a sufficient basis on which a district may pursue an assessment appeal, yet is insufficient for the property owner to use as evidence to defeat such appeal. Second, school districts in Pennsylvania are free to appeal only commercial properties as long as they take an official stance that they consider all property types, including residential, and do not intend to exclude residential.  

Ironically, the Punxsutawney panel included a summary of taxpayer’s argument in its opinion as follows: “Recognizing that there has been no direction that appeals only be filed for commercial properties, Broadwing maintains the de facto effect of the practice results in the District appealing only a sub-classification of properties.  If this practice is allowed to continue, Broadwing argues, Valley Forge would be rendered meaningless.”  Indeed, as 2019 draws to a close roughly eighteen months after the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued Valley Forge, it would appear the Commonwealth Court has rendered that seminal decision meaningless.

Brendan B. Kelly, Esquire
Siegel Jennings, Co., L.P.A.
American Property Tax Counsel (APTC)

UPDATED September 2019

Pennsylvania Appellate Court Hears Argument in a Series of Taxpayer Constitutional Challenges to School District's Schemes to Select Taxpayers for Appeals Based on Economic Thresholds

In a series of arguments heard or scheduled to be heard in the summer and fall of 2019, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court will repeatedly address the issue of whether school districts’ schemes for selecting which taxpayers to appeal meet constitutional uniformity. 

The cases follow the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in July 2017 in Valley Forge Towers Apts. LP v. Upper Merion Area School District, 163 A.3d 962 (Pa. 2017).  In Valley Forge, taxpayers alleged that the school district filed increase appeals only against commercial property owners and not against residential owners. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held in Valley Forge that all real estate is one class, that taxing districts cannot divide property into sub-classes, and that all real estate must be taxed uniformly which is a requirement of Pennsylvania’s Constitution.  Taxpayers read Valley Forge broadly based on its language, reasoning and policy.  Taxing districts read Valley Forge extremely narrowly, essentially limiting its reach to the facts of that case and taking the position that so long as the school district establishes a facially neutral policy in which it “considers” appealing residential properties even if it did not, in fact, appeal any residential properties, its policy is constitutional.

Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Valley Forge there have been a series of taxpayer challenges to school selection schemes for increase assessment appeals where the schools’ schemes are based on some form of economic threshold.  In Pennsylvania, there is an appeal as of right to the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court; there have been at least five (5) post-Valley Forge cases filed to the Commonwealth Court challenging school’s selection schemes including:

• The School District of Philadelphia v. Philadelphia Board of Revision of Taxes, 1493 CD 17 (Pa. Commw. Ct, August 22, 2019). Here, the City of Philadelphia School District used consultant New Jersey-based Keystone Realty Consultants to create scheme whereby the School purported to select properties for appeal where the additional taxes that could be created were at least $7,500. The trial court dismissed approximately 140 school-initiated appeals because the trial court found this policy to be unconstitutional. The Commonwealth Court heard argument on the school district’s appeal; on August 22, 2019 the Commonwealth Court issued its decision refusing to affirm or reverse the trial court and, instead, remanded back to the trial court to make an evidentiary record on the school’s selection scheme.

• Martel v. Allegheny County Board of Assessment Appeals, 568 CD18 (Pa. Commw. Ct. August 14, 2019(reported, amended opinion). Here, City of Pittsburgh School District filed on sale price.  Taxpayer filed a challenge, citing the Allegheny County local rule and Valley Forge.  The trial court ruled against the taxpayer; the taxpayer appealed.  The Commonwealth Court ruled against the taxpayer in early summer 2019, then rescinded and reissued its decision August 14, 2019 in which it ruled that the taxpayer had failed to exhaust its administrative remedy.  The taxpayer has filed a petition to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court seeking to have the Court take the case on appeal.  Taxpayer awaits the decision of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court as to whether to take the appeal.

• East Stroudsburg Area School District v. Dallan Acquisitions LLC, 529 CD 2018 (Pa. Commw. Ct.)(aka “Marshall’s Crossing”). Here, the Stroudsburg Area School District used consultant Keystone Realty Consultants as well.  The School took the position at trial that it had a policy of appealing properties where the additional taxes that could be created were at least $10,000.  However, the taxpayer adduced evidence that neither the school nor Keystone performed any calculations to ensure that the properties it selected met this threshold, and that the school did not appeal any residential properties even though taxpayer produced expert testimony that at least 12 houses met the criteria.  The trial court found the school’s methodology to be constitutional and taxpayers appealed.  This case was argued before the Commonwealth Court on September 9, 2019 and the parties await a decision.  Siegel Jennings, Co., L.P.A. is co-counsel for taxpayers on this appeal.

• Kennett Consol School District v. Chester Co. Board of Assessment, 253 CD 2019 (Pa. Commw. Ct.)(aka “Autozone”). Here, the school district admitted in discovery that it did not have a policy of its own, but rather, delegated its authority to set a threshold to a third party appraiser functioning as its consultant; the appraiser-consultant set a threshold of properties that are under-assessed by at least $1 Million and recommended 13 appeals. Based on this advice, the school filed increase appeals on 12 properties, none of which were residential. The school then engaged the same consultant-appraiser to prepare the appraisals.  The school appraisal on the subject property concluded that the property was under-assessed by $800,000 (thus, by its own evidence, the appeal did not meet its own threshold).  Taxpayer filed a motion to quash the appeal on the basis that the school’s appeal policy was unconstitutional.  The trial court denied the taxpayer’s motion and set the assessment based on the school district’s appraisal.  Taxpayer appealed to the Commonwealth Court.  This case, being handled by Siegel Jennings, Co., L.P.A. is scheduled for argument on November 12, 2019 before the Commonwealth Court.

• Bethlehem Area School District v. Northampton County Board of Revenue, 357 CD 2019 (Pa. Commonwealth Court)(aka “Lehigh Crossing”). Here, the school district consulted with Keystone Realty Consultants and set a policy of selecting properties that would yield at least $10,000 of additional taxes.  Minutes from school board meetings indicated that part of the reasoning for setting this threshold was to recoup tax dollars that had been lost by virtue of appeals filed by commercial property owners which the school believed shifted the tax burden to residential owners.  Since 2012, the school’s scheme yielded no appeals on residential properties.  The trial court granted the taxpayer’s motion for summary judgment, finding the school’s selection scheme to be unconstitutional, notwithstanding the fact that the policy was facially neutral. The school district appealed to the Commonwealth Court.  The case is tentatively scheduled for argument on December 9, 2019.

• CF PA Owner LLC. v. North Allegheny School District, (632 CD 2019(Pa. Commw. Ct.)(aka “Sherbrook Apartments”). Here, the school district filed based on a recent sale price.  Taxpayer filed a separate action asking the court to declare a selection scheme based on sale price alone to be unconstitutional.  Following briefing and argument, the trial court ruled against the taxpayer in a one-sentence decision without any reasoning.  Taxpayer appealed to the Commonwealth Court where the case remains pending; argument has not yet been scheduled.  Siegel Jennings Co., L.P.A. represents the taxpayer.

To discuss the specifics of these pending appeals and how they might affect the assessment on your property, please contact Siegel Jennings at:

Sharon F. DiPaolo, Esquire
Siegel Jennings, Co., L.P.A.
American Property Tax Counsel (APTC)
sdipaolo@siegeltax.com

UPDATED JUNE 2019

PENNSYLVANIA SUPREME COURT ISSUES ANOTHER DECISION IN A SERIES OF UNIFORMITY RULINGS PROTECTING TAXPAYERS

In an April 2019 decision, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued yet another ruling in a series of decisions over the last decade consistently upholding the constitutional requirement of uniformity in taxation in favor of taxpayers.  In Sands Bethwork Gaming, LLC v. Pennsylvania Department of Revenue, 216 MM 2017 (Pa. Apr. 26, 2019), the Supreme Court ruled that a statute that taxed gaming revenue at different thresholds and then re-distributed the proceeds violated the Uniformity Clause.

The Pennsylvania Constitution provides “All taxes shall be uniform, upon the same class of subjects, within the territorial limits of the authority levying the tax. . . .”  In Sands, all seven Justices agreed in the result, declaring the statutory section to be unconstitutional; five Justices made up the majority and two Justices concurred.  The concurrence, authored by Justice Wecht (who was the author of the Court’s 2016 Mount Airy decision) is particularly strong.  Justice Wecht begins with a refresher that Pennsylvania’s Uniformity Clause was adopted in the late 1800’s in a “populist backlash against the preferential tax treatment that the legislature often had extended to favored industries and individuals.”  He noted that as a result of those preferential laws “[t]he burden of maintaining the state had been, in repeated instances, lifted from the shoulders of favored classes, and thrown upon the remainder of the community.”  The  Uniformity Clause was the specific remedy fashioned by the delegates to the constitutional convention to prevent “certain groups from having to shoulder the benefits of progress from which all would benefit.”

Unfortunately, in Pennsylvania, most local school districts, some local assessors and some trial courts seem to have lost sight of the requirement of constitutional uniformity in taxation.  Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court, refreshingly, has not.

The Sands decision follows the Court’s recent decisions in:

• 2017, Nextel v. Commonwealth, 171 A.3d 682 (Pa. 2017)(declaring that a corporate income tax statute that required corporations that met an income threshold to pay an income tax, whereas corporations that did not meet the threshold wholly escaped taxation, violates the Uniformity Clause);
• 2017, Valley Forge Towers v. Upper Merion School District, 124 A.3d 962 (Pa. 2017)(declaring that a school district policy targeting only commercial property owners for increase assessment appeals violates the Uniformity Clause);
• 2016, Mount Airy #1 v. Pennsylvania Department of Revenue, 154 A.3d 268 (Pa. 2016)(declaring that a gaming statute setting a graduated-rate income tax violates the Uniformity Clause)
• 2012, Tech One v. Allegheny County, 53 A.3d 685 (Pa. 2012) (acknowledging the “logic and force” of the trial court’s finding that treating some real estate as exempt from taxation solely because it is owned as a leasehold interest rather than in fee simple would violate the Uniformity Clause, but deferring a ruling on those grounds because it had already ruled that real estate cannot be classified differently for purposes of taxation based on the manner in which it is owned)
• 2009, Clifton v. Allegheny County (Pa. 600 Pa. 662 (Pa. 2009)(ruling that “base year” system of assessment was unconstitutional as applied in Allegheny County because it did not consider real estate valuation changes; and ordering county to re-assess);
• 2006, Downingtown Area School District v. Chester County Board of Assessment, 913 A.2d 194 (Pa. 2006)(ruling that a taxpayer may bring evidence of assessment-to-value ratio of similar shopping centers in challenging uniformity of taxpayer’s assessment);

We have called the Uniformity Clause the “fourth approach to value”.  The Uniformity Clause is the underpinning of all taxation and should inform the strategy of every assessment appeal.

To discuss the specifics of your property, please contact Siegel Jennings at:

Sharon F. DiPaolo, Esquire
Siegel Jennings, Co., L.P.A.
sdipaolo@siegeltax.com
American Property Tax Counsel (APTC)

UPDATED december 2018

PA APPELLATE COURT RULES BILLBOARD GROUND LEASES (BUT NOT STRUCTURES) TAXABLE

In one of its last decisions of 2018, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court overturned a trial court in a decision issued December 27, 2018 concerning the taxability of billboards for property tax purposes.  See Consolidated Appeals of Chester-Upland School District, 633 C.D. 2017 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 12-27-2018).

In 2011, Pennsylvania legislators passed a statute excluding billboard structures from the definition of “real estate” for purposes of property taxation.  The Chester-Upland School District case is the first case to reach Pennsylvania’s appellate courts regarding the interpretation of the statute.

For tax year 2015, two school districts in Delaware County collectively filed 26 real estate assessment appeals; each of the 26 appeals were of properties containing an outdoor advertising sign.  The school districts sought to value the properties based on revenue the property owners realized through ground leases or grants of easements to outdoor advertising companies.  The trial court consolidated all 26 appeals on the legal issue of “whether a taxing authority can use the presence of an outdoor advertising sign to increase the real property tax basis of the property.”  Citing the statute, the trial court ruled in favor of the taxpayers, concluding that the statutory exclusion of outdoor advertising signs from real estate taxation, “prevented the existence of an outdoor advertising sign on a property from being considered in any manner to raise that property’s real estate tax basis.” 

The school districts appealed to the Commonwealth Court.  The school districts argued that the sign-and-structure exclusion does not preclude the assessment of the land on which a billboard sits.  Taxpayers responded that “the amount of rent paid here by billboard operators to the property owners pursuant to leases or easements necessarily ‘reflect consideration’ of the billboards and that taxing the rent that is paid by the operators will operate as a ‘subtle-but no less real – assessment.” The Commonwealth Court ruled that the trial court erroneously interpreted the statute to foreclose any consideration of any potential income that a property owner may receive from the placement of a billboard on its property.  The Commonwealth Court interpreted prior decisions of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in its Marple and Tech One decisions to support its holding that the appraiser must considered the “economic reality” of a long-term lease on a property that provides revenue to the property owner.  The Commonwealth Court limited its ruling to the effect of the outdoor advertising structure on the land value.  With respect to the advertising revenue itself, the Commonwealth Court held “We agree that an appraiser must not indirectly value an existing billboard on a property by, for example, considering the revenue generated from the number of advertisements that are placed on that billboard in a given year.”

To discuss the specifics of your property, please contact Siegel Jennings at:

Sharon F. DiPaolo, Esquire
Siegel Jennings Co., L.P.A.
American Property Tax Counsel (APTC)

UPDATED september 2018

LATEST PENNSYLVANIA NEWS ON UNIFORMITY IN ASSESSMENT

In the summer of 2017, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in Valley Forge Towers, restoring meaning to the constitutional requirement of uniformity in taxation.  Pennsylvania, like nearly every state, has a constitutional requirement of uniformity in taxation.  One hundred years of decisions from Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court consistently underscore the primacy of uniformity as the foundational concept in taxation.  However, decades of intermediate appellate decisions failed time and again to apply the concept correctly.

Post-Valley Forge, the decisions out of trial courts on uniformity are mixed – and the first cases are making their way to argument at the intermediate appellate court, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court, in October 2018.  In Philadelphia County, the trial court threw out 138 school-initiated appeals, finding that the school’s scheme for selecting taxpayers for appeals (purportedly a monetary threshold) violated constitutional uniformity.  Oral argument in the Philadelphia appeal is tentatively scheduled before the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court for November 2018.  (Interestingly, last week the City of Philadelphia filed its notice of  non-participation in the appeal, leaving the school district to defend its scheme alone.)  Unfortunately, a uniformity case decided against taxpayers arising out of Allegheny County (Pittsburgh-area) is scheduled for argument first before the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court on October 15, 2018.  The uniformity argument in the Allegheny County case is framed to ask for enforcement of an esoteric administrative rule as opposed to being framed as an outright challenge on the “welcome stranger” practice of Pittsburgh-area school districts to select recently-sold properties for increase appeals (which practice is not constitutional under the United States Supreme Court case in Allegheny Coal.)

It is frustrating and unfortunate that the first case that the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court will hear on uniformity post-Valley Forge is framed on such narrow grounds.  Other appeals from trial courts around the state have been filed to the Commonwealth Court, but are not yet scheduled for argument.  In addition, several trial courts have ruled favorably on threshold issues such as allowing discovery into the school’s methodology for selecting taxpayers for appeal and in requiring that the uniformity issue be resolved before forcing the taxpayer to defend on market value.  We will continue to provide updates as the law develops.

To discuss the specifics of your property, please contact Siegel Jennings at:

Sharon F. DiPaolo
Siegel Jennings, Co., L.P.A.
American Property Tax Counsel (APTC)

UPDATED june 2018

PHILADELPHIA COUNTY, PA’S BACK-TO-BACK-BACK REASSESSMENTS MEAN INCREASES FOR COMMERCIAL TAXPAYERS

After three decades without countywide reassessments, Philadelphia County is now planning to do a reassessment on every property in the county every year.  This is a huge change in typical Pennsylvania practice where counties often go decades between county-wide reassessments.  (The counties are allowed to assess annually, but this is the first county to do so).  Starting in 2014, Philadelphia had a countywide reassessment for all properties – its first countywide reassessment in thirty years.  Then in 2016, Philadelphia reassessed residential only, in 2017 vacant land only, and in 2018 commercial properties only. 

The increases on 2019 assessments for commercial properties vary widely.  County-wide the 2018 reassessments for commercial properties increased the aggregate assessment of commercial properties by 50%, so the 2019 notices are increases on just-issued-last-year gigantic increases.

Notices with 2019 assessments are now out.  Even if you have a pending appeal from a prior tax year, we are advising property owners to file new appeals from these 2019 notices to avoid waiving any rights.  The deadline to appeal for tax year 2019 is the first Monday in October 2018.

Sharon F. DiPaolo, Esquire
Siegel Jennings, Co., L.P.A.
American Property Tax Counsel (APTC)

UPDATED march 2018

Pennsylvania Taxpayers Enjoying Favorable Rulings in Appeals by Taxing Districts

In July 2017, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in Valley Forge Towers Apartments wherein the Court ruled that in government-initiated assessment appeals (Pennsylvania is one of a handful of jurisdictions where taxing districts have a statutory right to file increase appeals), the government’s selection scheme for choosing properties to appeal must meet constitutional uniformity.  Above all, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision mandated that all real estate is a single class and that taxpayers must be uniformly treated, whether they are residential or commercial taxpayers.  It follows that the government may not create sub-classifications of property for different tax treatment, a holding which the Court stated ten times in its decision.

In the eight short months since the Supreme Court decision, taxpayers have been putting the Supreme Court’s decision to good effect.

First, taxpayers are pushing back by taking discovery from the taxing districts as to their methodology for selecting properties for appeals.  In the four counties where the issue has been contested, the trial courts have agreed that whether or not the taxing district’s scheme meets constitutional uniformity is a threshold issue before the valuation phase of the case can proceed.  Trial court decisions as to whether or not a particular taxing district scheme is uniform so far are mixed – as to be expected in a fact-based inquiry.  Of note is a Philadelphia trial judge’s decision to jettison 130 school-initiated appeals for failure to comply with constitutional uniformity in taxation.  Appeals to the Commonwealth Court (Pennsylvania’s intermediate appellate court) have been filed on this threshold issue already in at least two counties. 

More broadly, the Supreme Court’s decision underscores the need for a standard as to how all realty is to be taxed in Pennsylvania regardless as to whether it is residential or commercial.  In current practice, residential and commercial properties are taxed on different standards, thus the need for clarifying definitions in Pennsylvania’s statutes. 

[A]ll property in a taxing district is a single class, and as a consequence, the Uniformity Clause does not permit the government, including taxing authorities, to treat different property sub-classifications in a disparate manner.  Second, this prohibition applies to any intentional or systematic enforcement of the tax laws and is not limited solely to wrongful conduct.  Valley Forge Decision at 18 (emphasis added).

Currently, in Pennsylvania assessment practice, commercial properties are valued differently than residential properties.  If a commercial property is leased, the taxing districts answer not “what would a hypothetical buyer pay for this commercial realty on the open market” but rather, “what would a hypothetical buyer pay for this commercial realty on the open market, encumbered by this lease?” The only interest that is uniform across all categories is the fee simple unencumbered value.  Functionally, residential properties are taxed on a fee simple standard and commercial properties are not.  As Valley Forge makes clear, there can only be one standard because all realty is a single class.  The only uniform standard for all realty is to be taxed on the basis of fee simple unencumbered.  The Court in the Valley Forge decision lays out the roadmap that that the key is to tax all realty uniformly. 

Valley Forge holds that systematic disparate treatment (which is exactly what we have in practice now) between residential and commercial property taxpayers is unconstitutional.  The only way to get one uniform standard in Pennsylvania all realty is to include a definition in the statute that the standard is the same for all realty – fee simple unencumbered.

Sharon F. DiPaolo, Esquire
Siegel Jennings, Co., L.P.A.
American Property Tax Counsel (APTC)

UPDATED December 2017

Pennsylvania Voters Pass Constitutional Amendment Allowing Legislature to Exempt Homes from Property Taxation

On November 7, 2017, Pennsylvania voters approved a constitutional amendment which would allow the Pennsylvania legislature to entirely exempt primary residents from property taxes.  In recent years, there has been a grassroots effort in Pennsylvania to eliminate property taxes, although there has been no credible source of funding proposed to replace property taxes.  If this constitutional amendment were to move forward to legislation, it would mean a transfer of the property tax burden from homeowners (who vote) to commercial property owners (who cannot vote).  But additional steps would be needed for the tax shift to become a reality.

Voters were asked:  “Shall the Pennsylvania Constitution be amended to permit the General Assembly to enact legislation authorizing local taxing authorities to exclude from taxation up to 100 percent of the assessed value of each homestead property within a local taxing jurisdiction, rather than limit the exclusion to one-half of the median assessed value of all homestead property, which is the existing law?” 

But for a tax shift to occur, two things would need to happen:  Pennsylvania’s legislature would have to enact a statute enabling local taxing districts to exempt residential owners.  And, then, local taxing districts would have to enact ordinances or resolutions exemption residential owners from tax.  As a practical matter, the local taxing districts would have to replace the lost revenue.

Sharon F. DiPaolo
Siegel Jennings Co., L.PA.
American Property Tax Counsel (APTC)

UPDATED SEPTEMBER 2017

PA Supreme Court Issues Landmark Ruling Favoring Taxpayers

Widely considered the most important property tax decision in 25 years, on July 5, 2017, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated decision in Valley Forge wherein the Court took up the issue of constitutionally guaranteed uniformity in taxation in the context of school-initiated assessment appeals.  Fittingly, the Court’s decision – which reestablished the primacy of constitutional uniformity protections to taxpayers in the strongest possible language -- issued just one day after the July Fourth holiday.

In Pennsylvania, unlike most states, taxing districts have a statutory right to file annual assessment appeals seeking to increase property owners’ assessments. Because Pennsylvania has no mandatory reassessment cycle – some counties have gone more than fifty (50) years without a reassessment – many schools turn to increase appeals as a way to generate more revenue. When they do, schools frequently target just certain commercial property owners for appeals. The result is that schools’ selective or “spot” appeals disrupt constitutionally-required uniformity in assessment. This violates fundamental fairness and puts targeted commercial owners at a competitive disadvantage with owners of properties whose assessments are not increased. It also shifts more of the tax burden from residential to commercial property owners, since most schools are loathe to sue residential property owners (who vote) to increase their assessments.

In Valley Forge Towers Apts., LP v. Upper Merion Area School District, 135 A.3d 1017, (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2015), the Upper Merion Area School District (“School”) filed increase appeals only against commercial property owners and not against residential owners. The School selected properties for appeal after consultation with Keystone Realty Advisors (a New Jersey-based tax consultant which employs trained appraisers) which takes a 25% contingent fee on any increase in taxes as a result of the appeals. Four apartment building owners (“Taxpayers”) who had been targeted for these appeals challenged the School’s selection of only commercial owners for appeals as violating Pennsylvania’s Constitution which mandates uniformity in taxation. Both the trial court and the first-level appellate court denied Taxpayers’ challenge, holding that the School need only satisfy a “rational basis” test and that the School’s goal of “increasing revenue” justified the selective nature of the appeals.

Taxpayers sought review by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. The Supreme Court agreed to take the case on the following issue:

[The School District] deliberately chose commercial properties, such as Petitioners’, for selective assessment appeals, but did not appeal assessments of any single-family-home properties, although the latter are significantly underassessed. The Uniformity Clause of the Pennsylvania Constitution prohibits disuniformity in taxation. Is a school district’s decision to appeal property assessment insulated from review because, inter alia, the school district has a statutory right to file appeals and can identify an economic reason for its appeals?

Above all, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision mandates that all taxpayers must be uniformly treated, whether they are residential or commercial taxpayers.  The Court held that there can be no assessment scheme that systematically treats residential and commercial taxpayers differently.  The Court stated no less than 13 times that all real estate is a single class. In making this point, the Court observed that this constitutional tenet had been in place since 1909, was reaffirmed by the Court on multiple occasions and – emphatically -- “this Court plainly had no intention of discarding it.”  Valley Forge Decision at 23 n. 17.  It follows that the government may not create sub-classifications of property for different tax treatment, a holding which the Court stated 10 times in its decision.

The Court’s decision makes it abundantly clear that all realty must be taxed uniformly and that this Constitutional protection is for the benefit of the taxpayer.  Residential and commercial taxpayers cannot be treated differently.   In the Court’s own words:

“First, all property in a taxing district is a single class, and as a consequence, the Uniformity Clause does not permit the government, including taxing authorities, to treat different property sub-classifications in a disparate manner.  Second, this prohibition applies to any intentional or systematic enforcement of the tax laws and is not limited solely to wrongful conduct.”  Valley Forge Decision at 18 (emphasis added).

The Court then remanded the case for discovery to determine if there was a violation of uniformity.  The discovery process will help to establish the facts either to prove or disprove that there was a systematic disparate treatment of the taxpayers in the Valley Forge case.  It will not be necessary to show that the school intended to treat the taxpayers differently from the other taxpayers.

The principal holding that we can take away from the case is that all taxes must be uniformly assessed and that no purposeful or unintentional systematic assessment that treats taxpayers in a disparate manner is constitutional.

What’s Next?: The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the need for a standard as to how all realty is to be taxed in Pennsylvania regardless as to whether it is residential or commercial.  In current practice, residential and commercial properties are taxed on different standards, thus the need for clarifying definitions in Pennsylvania’s statutes. 

Pennsylvania’s legislature has been taking up the issue of property tax reform in its current session which ends July 7, 2017.  Among other proposals under consideration was a definition to set the standard for valuation as “fee simple unencumbered.”  With Pennsylvania’s budget and financing still under consideration for the current session, it is not expected that legislature will enact property tax reform in the session that ends tomorrow, but we will be watching to for more developments when the legislature returns for the fall session.

The need for a uniform standard is best illustrated by example.

A residential property is valued as follows:  1) Pennsylvania’s case law definition of “actual value” presumes a hypothetical willing buyer and a willing seller even though the actual homeowners are still living in the house.  In other words, the presumption in an assessment appeal is that the homeowners move out and put their house on the open market. 2) The house is, of course, vacant at the time of the hypothetical sale.  It is not being leased.  It is unencumbered.  3) The question asked in the assessment appeal is “what would a hypothetical buyer pay for this house on the open market?”  The taxpayer and the taxing districts may have different opinions as to what the price would be, but both are answering the same question.  “What is the value of the real estate interest unencumbered by any lease or private restrictions?” The same standard – fee simple unencumbered is always sought in residential assessments.

Currently, in Pennsylvania assessment practice, commercial properties are valued differently than residential properties.  If a commercial property is leased, the taxing districts answer not “what would a hypothetical buyer pay for this commercial realty on the open market” but rather, “what would a hypothetical buyer pay for this commercial realty on the open market, encumbered by this lease?” Moreover, because commercial property trades quite often as part of an ongoing business or with long term leases or with deed restrictions or with non-public use restrictions, etc. it is imperative to have a single defined interest to be valued for tax purposes.  And the only interest that is uniform across all categories is the fee simple unencumbered value.  Functionally, residential properties are taxed on a fee simple standard and commercial properties are not.  As Valley Forge makes clear, there can only be one standard because all realty is a single class. 

The only uniform standard for all realty is to be taxed on the basis of fee simple unencumbered.  The Court in the Valley Forge decision lays out the roadmap that that the key is to tax all realty uniformly. 

Valley Forge holds that systematic disparate treatment (which is exactly what we have in practice now) between residential and commercial property taxpayers is unconstitutional.  The only way to get one uniform standard in Pennsylvania all realty is to include a definition in the statute that the standard is the same for all realty – fee simple unencumbered.

To read the decision in its entirety, go to http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Supreme/out/J-14-2017mo%20-%2010315970920113108.pdf?cb=1

If you have specific questions about this case or how Pennsylvania law applies to your property, please contact Siegel Jennings at:

Sharon F. DiPaolo, Esquire
Siegel Jennings, Co., L.P.A.
American Property Tax Counsel (APTC)

 

UPDATED JULY 2017

Philadelphia PA Increases Commercial Assessments by Fifty Percent

Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania posted new commercial assessments online on April 1, 2017 which – in the aggregate – increase values fifty percent (50%) over the County’s 2014 reassessment figures.

In 2014, Philadelphia conducted a countywide reassessment.  Before that, some of the County’s 580,000 parcels had not been reassessed since the 1980s because Pennsylvania does not have a mandatory reassessment cycle.  The 2014 reassessment was conducted under what Philadelphia called its “Actual Value Initiative.”  One of the tenets of the Actual Value Initiative was that the County would commit to period reassessments.

Following the appeals on the 2014 reassessment, the County’s 60,000 commercial properties had an aggregate assessment of $30.23 Billion.  Based on the preliminary values posted for commercial properties on April 1, 2017, the new aggregate assessment for commercial properties is $45.3 Billion – a fifty percent increase in assessment on commercial properties in only three years.  On these new assessments, the City of Philadelphia and Philadelphia School District will share in $118 Million additional taxes from commercial property owners.  (In contrast, when Philadelphia reassessed its residential properties last year, only 15% of residential properties had an increase in assessment.)  What’s more, unlike every other county in Pennsylvania, in Philadelphia there is no requirement that the reassessment be “revenue neutral” meaning that (absent the appeals that are sure to come) the taxing districts will pocket the $118 Million windfall from commercial property owners. 

 Anecdotally, land values are one reason for the increases.  The 2014 assessment was criticized as undervaluing land and the 2017 values are intended to address land values among other things.  The increase in land assessments disproportionately affects the County’s 15,000 parcels in abatement programs.  Philadelphia has a 10-year 100% abatement of real estate taxes on the improvement component on new construction; for properties in abatement, only land value is taxed.  The reassessment’s increase in land values affected 12,000 of the 15,000 abated parcels.

Formal notices on commercial properties were mailed on April 14, 2017, but the County only issued notices on properties where the assessments have changed.  New assessments take effect for tax year 2018.  Formal appeals are due October 2, 2017. 

Sharon F. DiPaolo, Esquire
Siegel Jennings Co., L.P.A.
American Property Tax Counsel (APTC)

 

UPDATED MARCH 2017

(WESTERN) PA Court Issues Decision Reinforcing Confidentiality of Client Information

Siegel Jennings recently scored a win for taxpayer rights in Pennsylvania in two back-to-back decisions from two separate trial judges in Lehigh County, Pennsylvania.  The judges issued nearly identical decisions requiring that the taxpayer’s confidential business information be kept confidential in real estate assessment appeals filed by local school districts.

Pennsylvania is one of a handful of states in which school districts have an annual right to file assessment appeals seeking to increase its own taxpayers’ assessments.  While it has been fairly common practice for school districts to file appeals chasing recent sale prices, increasingly – especially in eastern Pennsylvania – school districts have been targeting commercial taxpayers with perceived deep pockets and national branding for increase appeals.  Behind this trend is a realty consultant firm from which has been approaching school districts and offering to select cases for districts on a contingent fee basis.

The consulting firm moved into Lehigh County last year and coordinated with a local school district to file 35 increase appeals, then immediately filed discovery of the commercial taxpayers’ leases and other confidential financial information.  The school district refused to sign confidentiality agreements.  Siegel Jennings led the effort to coordinate all property tax counsel in defending against the attack.  Siegel Jennings successfully argued that any information disclosed ought to be held as confidentiality and – critically – ought not to be shared with the behind-the-scenes consultant which has been using such information to build a database, which it then uses to solicit other school districts and uses against the property owner in new appeals.  Essentially, the consultant has been using property owner’s own confidential information to fund its business model and to initiate new litigation against the property owner. 

The 35 cases were divided between two trial judges, who determined that they would coordinate the motions and arguments surrounding the issue of confidentiality so that there was a uniform standard in the county.  Recently, both trial judges issued decisions requiring that information produced be kept confidential and expressly prohibiting the information from being disclosed to the consultant.

Sharon F. DiPaolo, Esquire
Siegel Jennings, Co., L.P.A.
American Property Tax Counsel (APTC)

 

Updated September 2016

PA Supreme Court Accepts Case on Uniformity in Taxation

Pennsylvania’s highest court recently agreed to hear a taxpayer’s uniformity challenge to a school district’s appeal of taxpayer’s assessment. In Valley Forge Apartments N. LP v. Upper Merion Area School District, 124 A.3d 363 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2015), the school district, working with a consultant, selected certain commercial properties for appeal, including taxpayer’s apartment building, but did not appeal any residential properties.

The taxpayer filed suit against the school district contending the school district’s actions were part of a scheme between the school district and its consultant to generate more tax revenue for the school district which, in turn, would benefit the consultant since it was paid a contingency fee of 25% of any increased revenue it generated for the school district. The taxpayer claimed that the school district’s appeals of solely commercial properties violated the Uniformity Clause. The taxpayer argued, among other things, that the school district intentionally avoided appeals of residential properties because the owners of those properties were voters.

The trial court dismissed the taxpayer’s case. On appeal, Pennsylvania’s appellate court ruled that the school has a statutory right to file appeals and need only have a “rational basis” for its selection of properties for appeals. The appeals court wrote: \"it is easy to envision a rational basis for [the school district] taking these appeals: sufficient increased revenue to justify the costs of appeals. Judicious use of resources to legally increase revenue is a legitimate governmental purpose.\"

Contingent-fee based consultant-recommended school appeals are rampant, particularly in Eastern Pennsylvania and there have been several commercial taxpayer challenges to the constitutionality of these appeals. Pennsylvania’s appellate courts have ruled against taxpayers in every instance. Thus, it is promising news that Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court agreed to hear Valley Forge case. Specifically, the issue the Pennsylvania Supreme certified in Valley Forge is: “The School District] deliberately chose commercial properties, such as Petitioners\', for selective assessment appeals, but did not appeal assessments of any single-family-home properties, although the latter are significantly underassessed. The Uniformity Clause of the Pennsylvania Constitution prohibits disuniformity in taxation. Is a school district\'s decision to appeal property assessment insulated from review because, inter alia, the school district has a statutory right to file appeals and can identify an economic reason for its appeals?”

The case is getting plenty of attention. Amicus briefs were filed in favor of the commercial taxpayers by the Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry, the Pennsylvania Retailer’s Association, the Pennsylvania Manufacturer’s Association, Pennsylvania Economy League, the Pennsylvania Apartment Association and others. Oral argument has not yet been scheduled.

Sharon F. DiPaolo
Siegel Jennings Co., L.P.A.
American Property Tax Counsel (APTC)

 

Updated June 2016

Annual Pennsylvania Appeal Deadline Approaching - August 1, 2016
Watch for New Assessments for Washington County, PA

It is time to get ready for annual appeals in Pennsylvania. Sixty-five (65) of Pennsylvania’s sixty-seven (67) counties have the same appeal deadline: August 1, 2016 for the 2017 tax year. (The deadlines for Philadelphia County is October 4, 2016 and the deadline for Allegheny County is March 31, 2017).

Of special import this year is Washington County, PA which is in the midst of its first revaluation in thirty-five (35) years. Washington County is mailing final notices with new 2017 assessments on July 1, 2017 with the appeal deadline also anticipated for August 1, 2017. Our review of the preliminary 2017 assessment notices reveals that property owners are seeing huge increases in their assessments. Newer office buildings and industrial properties are particularly hard hit.

Sharon F. DiPaolo, Esq.
Siegel Jennings, Co., L.P.A.
American Property Tax Counsel (APTC)

Proposed Bill Seeks to Curb Spot Appeals of Property Assessments

In April, Representative Warren Kampf along with 14 other House members introduced legislation to limit the overwhelming number of spot appeals of property assessments. House Bill 1993 (2015-2106) arises out of the belief that taxing jurisdictions have overused their ability to appeal assessments to a point that they have begun to resemble spot assessments. Spot assessments are expressly prohibited in the state of Pennsylvania by Title 53 Section 8843. Representative Kampf stated that the practice is “unfair to many landowners, homeowners, and businesses.

The bill aims to enact change by prohibiting spot appeals based on the sale of a property. It also prevents appeals arising out of significant improvements to a property if those improvements were in furtherance of safety elements of the property (security alarms, lighting, fire suppression) or if the improvements were required by fair housing or disability laws. Under the proposed bill, spot appeals are only acceptable if filed timely during a countywide reassessment, if the land is subdivided, or if a change has occurred in the productive use of the property. The bill has been referred to the Committee on Urban Affairs and is currently pending a decision. Stay tuned.

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

 

Updated March 2016

Pittsburgh City Council Passes Resolution to File Appeals for Property Owners Seeking Reduction in Assessments

Politics makes strange bedfellows. Pittsburgh’s City Council recently passed legislation mandating its own Director of Finance to draft policies to protect taxpayers from appeals by the City, and even to file appeals on behalf of taxpayers.

In a strange twist, first-term City councilman Dan Gilman recently introduced legislation to limit the City’s ability to file increase appeals and, in some cases, to even direct the City to file appeals to decrease property assessments. The resolution passed and was signed by the Mayor of Pittsburgh on February 23, 2016.

The resolution starts off with two self-limiting provisions. First, the resolution directs the City to cease appealing assessments of properties that sell for at least two years after the sale date. Second, the resolution prohibits the City from using a property’s sale price as the basis for an appeal seeking an assessment increase. These provisions restrict the City from doing what it is permitted to do by Pennsylvania statute: “[A]ny county, city, . . . school district . . which may feel aggrieved by any assessment of any property . . . shall have the right to appeal” an assessment the same as the property’s owner.

The resolution further limits the City to appealing a property’s assessment to once every three years. Pennsylvania’s statute allows taxing authorities to appeal annually

Perhaps most unusual, is the resolution’s requirement directing the City to generate a list of properties whose assessment is 50% greater than their market value and to “appeal values downward on behalf of those owners.” This provision turns current practice on its head. In a taxpayer-initiated appeal seeking an assessment reduction, the City Law Department has historically defended the assessment and fought against reductions. Now, the City will be required to file appeals seeking reductions on behalf of taxpayers.

What happens next is open for debate. Even though the resolution was passed by the Council and enacted by the Mayor, one City Councilwoman on February 22, 2016 introduced new legislation to repeal the resolution. The new proposal has been referred to committee, where it remains. All appeals for properties located in the City of Pittsburgh are due March 31, 2016. Hearings will begin in May and June 2016.

Sharon F. DiPaolo, Esq. Partner
Siegel Jennings, Co., L.P.A.
American Property Tax Counsel (APTC)

 

Updated December 2015

Washington County, Pennsylvania Conducts First Countywide Reassessment in 35 Years

Washington County, Pennsylvania (about an hour south of Pittsburgh) is conducting its first reassessment since 1981; the reassessment will become effective for tax year 2017. Because Pennsylvania does not have a mandate for counties to reassess on a periodic basis, reassessments are most often triggered by litigation. That is the case in Washington County.

What should taxpayer’s expect?

If experience is any predictor, commercial office and industrial properties – especially those located in Southpointe Business Park -- will likely be hit hard. The same outside company that handled Allegheny County’s reassessment is handling Washington County’s reassessment.

There is a tendency to want to put very high values on the commercial buildings. In Pittsburgh, we saw a 71% increase in assessment for commercial buildings in the City of Pittsburgh, and that was with only a ten-year interval between reassessments. Also, there was a huge shift in the tax base in the City of Pittsburgh from more heavily residential to more heavily commercial. Based on our analysis, in the Allegheny County reassessment, the revaluation company used too high rents for their modeling on commercial office and industrial, especially.

What are key dates?

Property owners will be mailed their notices in February 2016. Informal reviews with representatives from the revaluation company will occur in March and April 2016. Next, formal appeals are due September 1, 2016. One trap for the unwary is that in some counties filing an informal appeal does not obviate the need to file a formal appeal. As a precaution, we file both.

The County will set hearings and will try to resolve the appeals before year-end 2016 with the idea that the 2017 bills will be mailed on more correct values. That might be ambitious given that the formal appeal filing date is so late. Of course, a fair percentage of the appeals, especially commercial appeals, will end up at court.

Sharon F. DiPaolo, Esquire
Siegel Jennings Co., L.P.A.
American Property Tax Counsel (APTC)

 

Updated September 2015

Disturbing Trend in PA: Courts Finding Appraisers Not Credible

There is a disturbing trend in recent Pennsylvania decisions where trial courts are finding that one party’s appraiser is not credible as a threshold issue to making a valuation determination. Even worse, Pennsylvania’s Commonwealth Court upheld these credibility determinations in the two recent decisions of Council Rock School District v. Bucks County, No. 826 C.D. 2014 (Pa. Commw. Ct. Jan. 6, 2015) and City of York v. York Wallpaper, 1198 CD 2014 (Pa. Commw. Ct. May 29, 2015). There is no requirement in law that the trial court must find one appraiser credible and one appraiser not credible, in order to select one valuation conclusion over another. But that is exactly what the courts are doing.

In the two cited decisions, both times it was the property owner’s appraiser that was named not credible. Based on the appraisal methodology described in the decisions (and based on first-hand experience with these two appraisers), it appears that not only were the two appraisers’ methodologies grounded in good appraisal practice, it also appears that theirs were the better supported appraisals. By way of illustration, in Council Rock the property at issue was the 52 -acre campus of a Lockheed Martin division located in a suburban setting. The facilities include a 69,000-square-foot office building, a 335,000-square-foot research and development building and a conference center. The property owner’s appraiser, a well-respected MAI with a national expertise in industrial valuation, did not locate comparable sales of corporate campuses in Pennsylvania and, thus, used sales comparables from out-of-state. The property owner’s appraiser concluded a value of $35 Million. The school’s appraiser used sales comparables of high-rise office buildings. Also, the school’s appraiser failed to deduct any functional or external obsolescence in the cost approach. The School’s appraiser concluded to a value of $72 Million. In finding in favor of the school’s valuation conclusion, the trial court first held that the property owner’s appraiser was not credible. Accordingly, in April 2014, the trial court set the fair market value at $72 Million.

The Lockheed Martin facility closed in early 2015. It sold in the summer of 2015. Asking price was $30 Million. The property sold to a user-occupant for $12.5 Million.

Sharon F. DiPaolo
Siegel Jennings
American Property Tax Counsel (APTC)

 

Updated June 2015

August 1 Filing Deadline In Almost All PA Counties

Sixty-five of Pennsylvania’s 67 counties have filing an annual filing deadline that is right around the corner. The deadline is August 1, 2015 for the 2016 tax year, for all Pennsylvania counties except Philadelphia County (October 5, 2015) and Allegheny County (March 31, 2016). Tentative ratios for 2016 just issued last week and ratios are predicted to drop in more than half of the counties, meaning that County fair market values are rising and there are more opportunities for successful appeals this year.

Of note, Indiana and Washington Counties are both preparing for revaluations. Indiana’s reassessment takes effect in 2016 and change notices will be mailed in early July 2015. Washington County’s reassessment is for tax year 2017; notices are expected to go out in February 2016. These counties have been sending letters to property owners requesting information. Property owners should not share financial information with the counties. While the counties’ letters seem to imply that submissions are mandatory by including deadlines, in fact, submissions are purely voluntary.

Sharon F. DiPaolo
Siegel Jennings Co., L.P.A.
American Property Tax Counsel (APTC)

 

Updated March 2015

Appeal Changing Pittsburgh Office Market

Change is on the horizon in the office market in Pittsburgh’s central business district. Pittsburgh’s office market did not suffer as much as other cities during the recession, because the occupancy rate was extraordinarily high. That’s because in 2007 health care giant University of Pittsburgh Medical Center moved from its offices from the Oakland neighborhood to downtown Pittsburgh, taking half a million square feet of the priciest Class A space in the iconic USX Tower. That one move took occupancy into the high 90s where it has stayed ever since. For the last few years sales of office buildings in Pittsburgh have been at record highs.

Now, in 2015, Pittsburgh is experiencing a boom in new construction of office space downtown. With projects already under construction and those that have been announced, Pittsburgh could see 3.5 Million square feet in new office space in the next two to three years. Among these projects are US Steel Corporation’s new 268,000 square foot headquarter building set for 2017 occupancy, Millcraft Industries’ mixed-use Gardens at Market Square which will add 128,000 square feet of office by the end of this year, and PNC’s new 33-story headquarters building scheduled to open in 2015. With new space flooding the market, occupancy and rental rates will be affected throughout the central business district.

Sharon F. DiPaolo, Partner
Siegel Jennings Co., LPA
American Property Tax Counsel (APTC)

 

Updated December 2014

Pittsburgh Property Owners Have Unique Appeal Opportunity in 2015

Pittsburgh property owners have an opportunity to appeal their assessments for a healthy reduction in 2015 due to a change in the county’s ratio. Appeals are due by March 31, 2015.

What changed? Allegheny County, where Pittsburgh is situated, had a countywide reassessment in 2013. At that time, commercial assessments in Pittsburgh’s central business district saw their assessments increase on average by a whopping 71%. Over 100,000 assessment appeals later, most of those assessments appeals have been completed and the properties’ assessments corrected to market value for 2013 and 2014. The applicable ratio for 2013 and 2014 was 100%. For 2015, the applicable ratio is 90.8%, meaning that many property owners will be able to appeal and argue for a 10% reduction in their assessment.

What should I do now? Gather information. If it is an income-producing property, gather your year-end 2014 income and expense statement and January 2015 lease(s) or rent roll. Did the property experience a major change in 2014 – for example, the loss or addition of a major tenant? If it is an owner-occupied property, were there any physical changes in 2014 – additions, demolitions, purchases or sales or excess land? If so, gather the costs for these items. Did you add any properties to your portfolio in 2014? If so, you’ll need to gather copies of the sale documents and any costs associated with getting the property into shape for your needs.

What if I bought in 2014 and paid more than the current assessment? Expect an appeal from the school district in 2015. Under Pennsylvania statutory law, taxing districts have the same right as property owners to file annual challenges to assessments. (Unlike many states, Pennsylvania County assessors cannot automatically raise an assessment to the sale price). Pennsylvania schools aggressively chase sale prices via assessment appeals. You should budget for the increase, but defend vigorously to keep the assessment as low as possible.

Sharon F. DiPaolo
Siegel Jennings
American Property Tax Counsel (APTC)

 

Updated September 2014

Appeals by Taxing Districts on the Rise in Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania property owners (especially those perceived to have deep pockets) are experiencing an unwelcome surprise – appeals by taxing districts to raise their assessments and their taxes.

Under Pennsylvania statutory law, taxing districts have the same right as property owners to file annual challenges to assessments. Usually, it is the school districts that file because they receive the largest piece of the tax pie. And, usually, school-initiated appeals are filed in order to chase a sale price on the property from the prior year. (Unlike many states, Pennsylvania County assessors cannot automatically raise an assessment to the sale price). Those post-sale appeals by districts are still being filed, but in recent years, schools have started filing appeals even without sales.

Faced with cutbacks in state spending on schools, schools are desperate for new sources of revenue without raising taxes. In the last three years, schools have hired on with real estate consultants who select cases for the schools in exchange for a contingent fee on any resulting increase in taxes. The schools and consultants are passing over residential owners and targeting commercial owners for appeals – particularly the largest taxpayers in the County. They do typically do not put on any evidence at the administrative hearing, then file the case to court where they are permitted to take discovery.

The trend started with school districts in eastern Pennsylvania counties surrounding Philadelphia, and, each year, we are seeing more districts sign on moving westward. Property owners are well-advised to vigorously defend, because property owners who are consenting to increases quickly are essentially inviting future appeals from other school districts.

Sharon F. DiPaolo
Siegel Jennings
American Property Tax Counsel (APTC)

 

Updated June 2014

PA Legislature Contemplates Property Tax Reform

In what most are referring to as election-year politicking, the Pennsylvania legislature is once again considering a bill to reform property tax. Entitled the "Property Tax Independence Act," Senate Bill 76 would allow individual school districts to vote to eliminate school property tax and replace it with other forms of taxes. County and borough property taxes would remain unchanged.

For schools that vote to eliminate the property tax, the legislation would allow levying a greatly expanded sales tax and also increasing the earned income tax to unspecified levels. The sales tax would be expanded both in scope and amount. The sales tax would apply to categories of purchases which are now exempt, for example, purchases of necessities such as food and clothing. Currently, the sales tax is 1% and the proposal would raise the sales tax to 7%.

Reading the bill closely, the earned income tax would include "net profits." While most taxpayers equate "earned income tax" with "wage tax", it is clear that the drafters intend to bring business profits within the tax as well. One candidate for the Pennsylvania house says he favors increasing retail and income taxes to fund education.

Missing from the commentary about the proposed legislation are any details as to whether swapping property tax for the other taxes would be financially feasible. At a public hearing in May 2014 – the fourth hearing on the legislation – some participants pointed out that this proposal comes at a time when the state is already dealing with a significant revenue shortfall, in part because income and sales taxes have come in below estimates. Sources close to the legislation say that no financial feasibility analysis has been provided and they give the legislation little chance of success. Reportedly, the Senate may consider the legislation in the current June session, but to date that has not occurred.

Sharon F. DiPaolo
Siegel Jennings
American Property Tax Counsel (APTC)

 

Updated March 2014

Pennsylvania County with Oldest Assessments Values Announces Revaluation

Blair County in Pennsylvania announced in early March 2014 that it will undertake a county-wide revaluation of its assessments to take effect in 2017, at an estimated cost of $3 to $4 Million. Blair County last reassessed in 1958 and had been – until this announcement -- the county in Pennsylvania with the oldest assessed values. Any new structures constructed in Blair County after 1958 had their assessments set in 1958 dollars.

Pennsylvania has no mandated periodic revaluation cycle and no centralized funding for revaluations. When revaluations do occur, they are paid for by the individual counties and taxpayers are often outraged. Accordingly, Pennsylvania’s 67 counties have little incentive to conduct revaluations. Other Pennsylvania counties with imminent revaluations are Indiana County, (2016) and Washington (2017). With Blair County’s announcement, Franklin County will now enjoy the dubious distinction of the county having the oldest assessments. Franklin County last conducted a revaluation in 1961.

Sharon F. DiPaolo
Siegel Jennings
American Property Tax Counsel (APTC)

 

Updated December 2013

New Pittsburgh Property Owners Should Be Alert for 2014 School Appeals

Property owners who bought real estate in Pittsburgh in 2013 should watch their mailboxes in January for appeals filed by the Pittsburgh School District seeking to increase their assessments. Pittsburgh is located in Allegheny County, PA which, for 2013, had a countywide reassessment. Commercial property values – especially in Pittsburgh's Central Business District – were set at egregiously high values during the reassessment project, but most were corrected during the assessment appeal process. The School District underestimated the success rate of commercial appeals and now faces a budget shortfall for next year of more than $10 Million. To make up for the shortfall, the School has vowed to track and appeal all properties in the City with sale prices that exceed their current assessment. Both property owners and taxing districts have the right to file a 2014 assessment challenge. The deadline to do so is March 31, 2014.

Sharon F. DiPaolo
Siegel Jennings
American Property Tax Counsel (APTC)

 

Updated September 2013

Pennsylvania – Legislative Proposals to Revamp Assessment System

It's déjà vu in Pennsylvania as state legislators propose various measures to reform property tax assessment. The state does not have a mandatory reassessment cycle, nor does it provide state-based funding when a court orders a reassessment. The result is a very uneven reassessment pattern with some counties (e.g., Blair County) not reassessing since 1958 and other counties (e.g., Allegheny) having 4 court-ordered reassessments in 12 years.

When reassessments do occur they are so expensive (Allegheny's cost $12 Million; Washington County's next reassessment is estimated at $8 Million) and the increases are so dramatic there is across-the-board outrage from voters and government officials alike. What usually follows is a bevy of tax reform proposals in the legislature which invariably suggesting to 1) eliminate property tax altogether, or 2) shift more of the tax burden to commercial owners
There are two other reasons for the proposals: First, three years ago the legislature passed a law that caps the amount by which school districts can raise taxes each year. Second, the current administration de-funded a lot of the state support for local school districts. So, school districts are looking for new sources of revenue, but do not want to alienate the voters (i.e., the residential property owners).

One pending proposal is the inaccurately named "Property Tax Elimination Act", which would allow the local school districts – without requiring voter approval – to set new taxes which would shift the tax burden primarily to commercial owners. Districts would be able to levy new taxes on either gross profits or sales which, of course, would be borne only by commercial owners. Plus, the act would not necessarily eliminate the current property tax in place because it provides the option for the local school district to just add the new taxes, without eliminating the property tax.

If history is any predictor, these will proposals will get little traction because the likely result would be to drive businesses from the state.

 

Updated June 2013

PA Appeal Deadline Approaching in 65 Counties

The deadline to file 2014 tax appeals in 65 Pennsylvania counties is August 1, 2013. Historically, some counties had a deadline of August 1, while others had a deadline of September 1. A couple of years ago, Pennsylvania changed the law to allow counties to move their deadline up to August 1 with very little notice to the public. Afterwards, several counties have passed under-the-radar deadline changes. Accordingly, we advise property owners to file their appeals by August 1, 2013 to be safe.

That deadline does not apply to Philadelphia and Allegheny Counties, which have their own deadlines. The deadline for 2014 appeals in Philadelphia is October 7, 2013. The deadline for 2014 appeals in Allegheny County will be March 31, 2014.

 

Updated March 2013

Revaluations Are On Their Way

Pennsylvania's two largest counties – Allegheny (where Pittsburgh is located) and Philadelphia are both in the midst of revaluations. Allegheny County completed a revaluation for 2013; the deadline to file appeals is March 31, 2013. Over 100,000 appeals were already filed in Allegheny County for 2013.

Philadelphia County just issued notices with preliminary values for 2014; the deadline to request an informal review meeting to discuss the preliminary values is also March 31, 2013. There will be another opportunity to appeal after final values are certified.
Because Pennsylvania does not mandate periodic revaluation, counties only undertake revaluation when a taxpayer files suit or, more rarely, on the county's own initiative. Washington County, just south of Allegheny, is in on-again off-again litigation to force a reassessment. While Washington County officials have been fighting against a reassessment, the school attorneys who brought the lawsuit were in court last week, suggesting that the Judge could hold the County in contempt for thwarting her Court Order requiring a reassessment. The Washington County Judge has set a conference for June 2013 at which time we anticipate the reassessment date for Washington County will be set.
Across the state, Erie, Lehigh and Lebanon Counties completed reassessments for 2013 without nearly the political upheaval and media attention seen in Pennsylvania's larger counties.

 

Updated December 2012

Revaluations Are On Their Way

Pennsylvania's two largest cities are both in the midst of revaluations – Allegheny County (where Pittsburgh is located) is just completing a revaluation and Philadelphia is just starting one. Because Pennsylvania does not mandate periodic revaluation, counties only undertake revaluation when a taxpayer files suit or, more rarely, on the county's own initiative.

Allegheny County's revaluation takes effect for 2013. 2013 values were set prospectively and 116,000 appeals were filed. Approximately 65% of the appeals have been heard, with the balance expected to be heard through the first quarter of 2013. Taxing districts were granted an extension to January 31, 2013 to set 2013 tax rates. Consequently, with appeals unresolved and tax rates up in the air, many property owners are having difficulty budgeting for 2013 real estate taxes.

Across the state in Philadelphia, officials are gearing up for a revaluation which is scheduled to take effect in 2014. Philadelphia expects to mail preliminary notices in February 2013.

 

Updated March 2012

First Quarter 2012 Revaluation Update in Pennsylvania

Four Pennsylvania Counties are reassessing for tax year 2013:

• Allegheny County's (Pittsburgh area): Final notices all mailed. Deadline to file appeals is April 2, 2012. Commercial owners are seeing huge spikes in their assessments (71% on average in the central business district) and we have seen increases as high as 300% to 400%.
• Erie County: Effective for tax year 2013, preliminary notices are being mailed now, with final notices being mailed July 1, 2012. The County's assessment base increased, in the aggregate, by 25%.
• Lehigh County: Effective for tax year 2013, preliminary notices mailed out, with final notices being mailed July 1, 2012. Deadline to request an informal review extended to March 23, 2012.
• Lebanon County: Effective for tax year 2013, preliminary notices not yet out. Final notices should be mailed July 1, 2012.

In the pipeline for future reassessments are:

• Washington County: Originally slated to reassess for 2014, now tied up in appellate litigation.
• Bedford County: In January 2012 signed contract with revaluation company to conduct reassessment.

Lancaster County: Originally slated to reassess for 2013, now on hold until at least 2017.

 

UPDATED February 2011

Allegheny County Deadlines
February 6, 2012 – Given the ever-changing deadlines to file appeals of new 2013 reassessments in Allegheny County, here is a roundup of where things stand:

Formal v. Informal Appeals
There has been a lot of confusion surrounding these two types of appeals. Very recently, the Judge overseeing the reassessment took the position that the County is not mandated to have informal hearings. The Judge's hands-off approach means the County can handle informal appeals however it wants without supervision.

Timing. Commercial owners should not delay filing their formal appeal, even if the owner is planning to file an informal appeal. It is extremely unlikely that owners will receive outcomes from their informal hearings before it is time to file a formal appeal. Moreover, a commercial owner is unlikely to receive the full outcome it desires at an informal hearing and, even if it does, the taxing district can challenge the reduction by a formal appeal. Finally, many commercial properties will need an appraisal for their formal hearing and the best appraisers are getting booked. For these reasons, we are advising commercial owners to file formal appeals now.

Evidence. Not only are the deadlines different for formal and informal appeals, evidence that will be accepted each is different. Of even greater concern for commercial owners, is that any evidence submitted in an informal hearing will be scanned into the County system and will become a public record. Owners are well-advised to consult with counsel to strategize as to what evidence can and should be submitted.

Deadlines to Appeal New Assessments
Deadlines are different for taxpayers in different parts of the County. The County sent, or will send, notices with new assessments in four separate mailings by municipality. The City and Eastern suburbs will share the same deadlines. The Southern and Northern Suburbs will have a different deadline. You can look up your municipality in the chart here.

 

Updated January 2011

Commercial Owners in Allegheny County Dodge Bullet

Commercial Owners Have a Right to a Board of Assessment Hearing. On Wednesday of this week (January 25) we learned that a draft court order was under consideration in Allegheny County's reassessment case, which would have deprived commercial owners of their right to a hearing before the Board of Assessment Appeals (what the County calls the "formal appeal"). Put simply, if a commercial owner filed an appeal to the Board of Assessment, this order would have allowed taxing districts to unilaterally move the case immediately to the next level (Board of Viewers) without having a hearing at the Board of Assessment. No commercial property owner is a party to the lawsuit.

One of our commercial clients agreed to step forward with us to fight for commercial property owners. By Wednesday evening, we prepared court papers seeking to intervene in the lawsuit. First thing Thursday morning (January 26) we filed a Petition to Intervene and took it before Judge Wettick; it will be heard on February 2. In the meantime, immediately following yesterday's court conference, the lawyers in the case met with Judge Wettick behind closed doors in a working meeting. When the Judge issued an Order late yesterday afternoon, the troubling problem for commercial owners was removed – rather, under the Order, commercial owners (but not taxing districts) will have an option to move their case to the next level if they wish. The language which would have allowed taxing districts to eliminate Board of Assessment hearings for commercial properties was eliminated, we think as a direct result of our raising the issue.

Dearth of Data for Commercial Owners. Commercial owners who have taken a look at their new values – commercial property in the City saw an average increase of 70% -- might be wondering what data the County used to set these new values. Keep wondering. The County says they used sales from 2008 through 2010 and general financial information. But, unlike residential properties, there is no data available to commercial owners as to the specific data the County relied on. Residential property owners can view the County's comparable sales for their properties online; commercial owners can't. Residential owners can go online to view square footage and other building characteristics that the Country tracks for their properties; commercial owners can't. And, while the County does maintain Property Record Cards on commercial properties (available only by going to the County Office Building in person and asking for them), our check of some Property Record Cards this week revealed that information for commercial properties is outdated and ties to the old assessment values. In other words, there is absolutely no data available to commercial owners as to how the County arrived at their new assessment, which places a huge – some might say impossible – burden on the commercial owner to figure out why it is wrong. Part of our request to intervene in the lawsuit is to force the County to provide the same data for commercial owners as it does for residential owners.

Fighting the Good Fight. We still think commercial property owners need a seat at the table to avoid any other "solutions" that deprive commercial owners of their right. We will ask the Judge next Thursday February 2 to allow us to take part in the case.

 

Updated December 2011

First Wave of Allegheny County, PA Revaluation Notices Due By Year-End

Allegheny County (Pittsburgh is the County seat) will start mailing 2012 notices on December 27 (City residential properties) and December 31, 2011 (City commercial properties), with the rest of the County’s 600,000 properties to follow in late spring 2012. Changes to the deadlines occur daily, so even these dates could slip.

After the County repeatedly missed deadlines, the local trial judge took close control of the project. The County has announced at least ten target dates for the mailings, all of which have come and gone. Last Monday, the County said it would start mailing notices on December 19; by Thursday, the County said the 27^th.

The outgoing County Executive and the new County Executive – who takes office in January 2012 – continue to actively fight the revaluation order, by filing last week a fourth request to the PA Supreme Court to stop the reassessment. The Supreme Court denied the request. To manage last-minute details of the reassessment, the trial judge issued a schedule of conferences for December 23, 28, 30 and December 31 (a Saturday).

 

Updated September 2011

Revaluation Update in Pennsylvania

Right now, five of Pennsylvania's 67 Counties are undergoing reassessment. Allegheny County is under order from the Supreme Court to revalue every property in the county. Erie and Lebanon Counties are reassessing for 2013. Washington County is in on-again, off-again litigation and currently preparing a 2014 reassessment. Lancaster County just pulled its reassessment for 2013 and will not reassess until 2017, even though millions were spent getting ready and all the preparatory work will have to be redone. Philadelphia County just announced it will reassess for 2013, after an unexpected change in ratio drove up 2012 implied market values more than 50%.

Allegheny County is significantly behind on the revaluation project. The Judge overseeing the reassessment ruled law week: 1) the reassessment will absolutely take effect for 2012 (despite conflicts with deadlines for taxing districts to set tax rates, set budgets and send tax bills), 2) the notices will issue in two phases (first, the City of Pittsburgh, and second, properties outside the City) and, 3) the Judge will hold weekly conferences to manage the pace of the reassessment project.

 

Updated June 2011

Revaluation 2012

For the last decade, most reassessment law in PA has arisen from cases coming out of Allegheny County (Pittsburgh is the county seat). Now is no different. Pennsylvania has no mandated reassessment cycle; reassessments occur only when a taxing authority files a lawsuit forcing the issue. While Allegheny County is undergoing its 4th reassessment in the last ten years, many PA counties have not reassessed in 30 years or more.

Right now, Allegheny County is preparing for the 2012 revaluation. At a conference with the local judge last week, the County reported that it is well underway on preparations, although work on residential properties is outpacing work on commercial properties. Notices with preliminary values will issue on a rolling basis between July and October 2011. The County’s plan also calls for an informal hearing process prior to the values taking effect in January 2012.

Recently, local politicians have been advocating for legislation seeking a moratorium on reassessments until the state legislature mandates that all of Pennsylvania’s 67 Counties reassess. Over the past five years, numerous attempts have been made try to stop the reassessments. Just this month, Allegheny County Council authorized its solicitor to file a request to the PA Supreme Court. A similar motion filed two years ago to the PA Supreme Court was denied. The expectation is that the Allegheny County revaluation will occur on pace.

 

Updated September 2010

Reappraisal Efforts in Allegheny County to Meet Pennsylvania Supreme Court Order

Allegheny County is continuing its efforts to complete the county wide reappraisal scheduled to take effect in 2012. The county is under an order by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to reappraise the county. The county has thus far completed its sales ratio study and continues to add to their database of sales as the new sales occur.

It is estimated that preliminary values for residential and commercial properties will be complete by April 2011 and that notices will be sent starting as early as July 2011 with a goal of completion by October 2011. After notices are received the county will hold informal hearings between July and November.

What can taxpayers do in preparation for the reassessment? Taxpayers should be ready with evidence to submit at the local hearings and be prepared on larger properties with appraisal evidence. Where the county has established a particularly low value taxpayers should also prepare to defend against unwanted appeals coming from the school district.

 

Updated June 2009

Fee Simple and Leased Fee

The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania has recently decided Tech one Associates v. Bd of Property Assmnt and Rev. of Allegheny Cnty..No. 103 C.D. 2008 (June 1, 2009). In Tech One, the court stated that "fee simple, a fee simple determinable, a leasehold interest, or month to month lease are irrelevant." The Court went to state that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court did not recognize "that leased property and non-leased property could be treated differently for real estate tax purposes" Further interpreting the Supreme Court in Maple Springfield, regarding uniformity stating that "a tax must be applied upon similar kinds of property with substantial equality of the tax burden on all members of the class."

What does all of this mean? According to the dissenting opinion the court is requiring both the lease fee and the leasehold to be valued. Because the fee simple interest is the combination of both leased fee and the leasehold interests in the property; the state of Pennsylvania may require a fee simple approach to valuation. Although not startling to many taxpayers outside of Pennsylvania, this is a departure from nearly 17 years of leased fee decisions. Finally, it should be noted that the decision indicates that Marple Springfield is still good law. The case may not be final as the tax payer may have taken an appeal to the Supreme Court.

 

Updated September 2008

Pennsylvania Courts Review Reappraisal System

Pittsburgh, Pa played host to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court this September. The issue brought to the Court by Clifton et al, and Pierce v. Allegheny County was whether the state law that permits a county to establish a base tax year is unconstitutional. Currently state law permits the County to establish a base tax year. In 2005 Allegheny County decided to ignore the reassessment and use 2002, the date of the last reassessment as a base year. A great number of the counties in Pennsylvania use base years. The result of the base year is that counties do not have regular reassessments; and they rely on a sales ratio study to create perceived uniformity.

A ruling against the use of base years will likely create some short term drastic changes to the tax system in Pennsylvania and a flood of reassessments.

Also of interest is the Tech One case which is pending in the Commonwealth Court. The Tech One case challenges yet another ruling that is peculiar to Pennsylvania. The case seeks to overturn a 15 year old practice of utilizing long-term contract rents to establish market value. As that case develops APTC will keep you posted.

 

Updated September 2007

Contract v. Market Rent Will Pa continue to have two versions of Market Value

At present a case in Allegheny County is challenging the long held Pennsylvania standard of using contract rather than market rents to value property. The current system creates an unintended uniformity problem. Currently two theoretical properties can be assessed at drastically different values. The first property is occupied by a net lease tenant enjoying a long-term below market lease. Under present law that tenant should be taxed based on the value attributed to the lease payments.

The second property is owned by a competitor however the competing company owns the property rather than leasing. The current law provides that the owner of real estate be assessed based fair market value. And therefore market rents and market sales of like property would be used to establish value.

This system would have then two competing companies taxed at different amounts interestingly enough the company that enjoys the below market rents would also be taxed at a lower amount. As developments in this matter progresses APTC member firms can help you to plan or fight excessive taxation.