"An urgent need exists for better forensic appraisal methods to support property valuations in this time of declining values."

By John E. Garippa., as published by Real Estate New Jersey, November/December 2009

Over the past 18 months, property values have declined significantly for all asset types in New Jersey. While this resulted in record numbers of property tax appeals, actual transactions between buyers and sellers demonstrating this erosion of value are limited. This can be problematic when dealing with the finite valuation dates demanded by the New Jersey Tax Court.

Tax Court judges won't accept opinions of expert witnesses unless they provide supporting evidence that a property's value has declined. Despite the fact that few actual sales are available between buyers and sellers, property values can still continue to erode. The real question is: What steps can a property owner and appraiser take under such difficult conditions?

Events over the past year have proven that valuing property at a specific point in time, a necessity for tax appeals, can be almost impossible using the typical valuation parameters of comparable sales. Under New Jersey tax law, all real property must be valued for the 2009 tax year based on a valuation date of Oct. 1, 2008. But the events of last summer and fall were cataclysmic for all property types.

The entire nation watched as our financial system began a meltdown that culminated in the collapse of Lehman Brothers on Sept. 15, 2008. During this several-month period, the stock market lost almost 40% of its value. This tsunami affected real estate just as much as it did stock portfolios.

To demonstrate this point, consider a hypothetical sale where the deed was transferred on Oct. 1, 2008. In stable times, such a transaction might be the gold standard of defining what a willing buyer would pay and a willing seller would accept for a property on the very date defined by New Jersey tax laws for valuations. However, if this sale were like most others, the parties would have negotiated the terms at least three to six months before.

Looking back to the period six months prior to the Lehman Brothers collapse reveals an entirely different world, from an economic standpoint, than the one America faces today. No one would suggest that value parameters arrived at during that quieter time would reflect the disastrous conditions found on Oct. 1. Under stable market conditions, comparable sales can be relied upon to demonstrate market value. The lack of sales transactions in the past year has rendered comparable sales a limping metric for property tax purposes. Thus, an urgent need exists for better forensic appraisal methods to support property valuations in this time of declining values.

It's easy to forget that the basic laws of economics govern the real estate market. The economic base of a community revolves around businesses generating income from their activity. Therefore, the first step to take in demonstrating eroding values is an examination of the industries and businesses that generate employment and income in a community. Such a study would review changes in employment levels as well as population trends because these issues affect household income and other important factors that ultimately affect the demand for, and worth of, real estate.

In times of great price turmoil, analyze the loss in value in the various stock market indices as this may define how individuals view their wealth. Another important index to study is the Purchasing

Managers Index. The PMI represents a composite of five sub-indicators (production levels, new orders from customers, supplier deliveries, inventories and employment levels) that are extracted through surveys produced by the Institute of Supply Management. These surveys are sent to more than 400 purchasing managers around the country. While this measures only manufacturing trends, it is considered a good predictor of changes in gross domestic product and the economy as well.

John E. Garippa is senior partner of the law firm of Garippa, Lotz & Giannuario with offices in Montclair and Philadelphia. John E. Garippa is also the president of the American Property Tax Counsel. He can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

"Tax assessors usually remain behind the curve of market trends."

By Joel R. Marcus ., as published by Real Estate New York, November/December 2009

All New York City property will be revalued on Jan. 5, 2010. Although that date is not yet here, rest assured that trouble awaits commercial property owners in this revaluation.

First of all, tax assessors usually remain behind the curve of market trends because the Real Property Income and Expense form requires mandatory filing of income and expense statements, which show only the property's calendar year 2008 performance. Since the market fell off a cliff after September 2008, these operating statements don't demonstrate the dramatic loss in real estate value.

Adding to the burgeoning taxes is the five-year phase-in of actual assessments mandated by New York law, whereby each increase over the past five tax years is added to the transition assessment or taxable assessment in 20% increments. Therefore, even if the actual assessment remained the same or was lower, the transition assessment, to which the tax rate is applied, would still reflect the impact of the prior five years' increases.

Hotels took the worst hit in the recession, suffering a 50% decline in earnings. The horrible expense ratio they now exhibit compounds their plunging profits. Instead of expenses approximating 70% of income, hotels find that costs may equal or exceed gross room revenue.

To create property tax assessments, the city employs a gross income multiplier, which ignores actual expenses. While the occupancy of many hotels has decreased along with their room rates, they still have to provide a level of service, staffing and other expenses that leaves marginal hotels or properties operating in the red. Hotels may find some degree of relief because the Tax

Commission has expressed a willingness to consider expenses in setting tax assessments. However, even here the old 70% ratio method has more traction with the tax authority.

Owners of condo properties with many unsold units find themselves in a tough bind. Condos do not generate rental income and sales are at a virtual standstill, yet condos are valued as if they were rental properties. This squeeze of higher property taxes and little income throws owners into the hands of their lenders.

Since rental income from conventionally rent-producing apartment buildings has only declined 10% to 15%, not much relief in tax valuations can be demonstrated by objective calculations. Moreover, data from luxury rentals is also derived from the 2008 calendar year filings, which, as mentioned, are not yet showing the full measure of market fall-off. Often, too, the burnoff or expiration of abatement programs significantly raises taxes.

Office and other commercial properties will show their decrease in income more slowly because the 10-year lease, which is most common, often masks the drop in fair market rental value. The only reduction seen in the market comes from increasing vacancies and renewals at lower rents. The impact of reduced rents, loss of operating and tax escalation income associated with the signing of a new lease and establishment of a new base year will not be fully realized for several years. In the meantime, income statements mask the problem by showing lease cancellation income and, in the case of new leases, the straight-lining of free rent and the amortizing of leasing commissions and tenant work.

To bring real estate taxes down to a viable level, a difficult task even in normal times, owners will need sophisticated analysis and effective presentation. A compelling presentation to the assessor regarding the rise in capitalization rates is paramount.

Hotels need accurate data to reflect current conditions, including labor and staffing requirements. They must also show the assessor how the increase in new rooms and new hotels precipitates lower rates and higher vacancies.

Condos need to create valuation models using realistic market conditions, high capitalization rates and a broader mixture of comparable assessments and data. Showing condo price reductions will not prove your case.

Office and commercial properties must clearly demonstrate the lack of any net absorption of space, indicating a 15% vacancy and loss factor in a 100% occupied property. In addition, any large vacancy is likely to be sustained for the foreseeable future, thus, the need for downward adjustment of occupancy.

Joel R. Marcus is a partner in the New York City law firm Marcus & Pollack, LLP, the New York City member of American Property Tax Counsel, the national affiliation of property tax attorneys. He may be contacted at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

Valuation of Low Income Housing Tax Credit Properties for Real Estate Tax Purposes — an update from the Ohio Supreme Court

By Cecilia Hyun, Esq., as published by CMBA Journal, October 2009

There is a joke that made the rounds by email and on various real estate blogs awhile ago showing a house through the eyes of five different people: yourself, your buyer, your lender, your appraiser, and your tax assessor. (You can see a version of it here). The first image is of a nice, well kept, single family house with flowers, a nicely landscaped front yard and path. This is how you see your house. The next image shows what your potential buyer sees when looking at the same property: a smaller, more modest home resembling a modern log cabin. The next two images show how your lender and appraiser view the property. The lender sees an even smaller structure, with no lot to speak of, that looks like it was constructed piecemeal. Tarp covers part of the roof; the only thing that looks like it may be a window is boarded up, and there is laundry hanging from a clothesline out back. The appraiser sees a property that looks like it has been in the middle of a severe storm at the very least, if not a hurricane, parts of the walls are missing, there is flooding, and trees have been uprooted. The final picture depicts what your tax assessor sees when he looks at your house: a palatial, walled estate, with acres of land, surrounded by professionally landscaped gardens and trees, multiple wings, and at least one carriage or recreation house.

Like all good jokes, it contains a kernel of truth: property can be and is viewed through different prisms and within different frameworks. Different methods of valuing your property can lead to significant differences in value conclusions, and accordingly, your real estate tax bill.

The Ohio Supreme Court recently clarified how to value property constructed pursuant to federal low income housing tax credits ("LIHTC")1. The property in Woda consisted of sixty separate parcels of land improved with sixty detached, single family, homes containing two, three, or four bedrooms. The houses were built in 2002 pursuant to Section 42, Title 26 of the United States Code2 ("IRC 42"). As the court explains, under this program, federal tax credits are given to passive investors in low income housing developments. In return for these credits, rent restrictions are imposed on the property for a minimum of thirty years. These rent restrictions are binding on successive owners and must be recorded in the chain of title. Violations of these restrictions can lead to the recapture of the tax credits with penalties and interest.3 The Supreme Court held the use and rent restrictions are encumbrances that must be considered when valuing these types of properties for real estate tax purposes.

The owner-taxpayer of the low income housing property in Woda filed a complaint contesting the value the Fayette County Auditor placed on the property for tax year 2004. After a hearing at the local county board of revision ("BOR"), the Auditor's value was retained. The taxpayer then filed an appeal of the BOR decision to the Ohio Board of Tax Appeals ("BTA") located in Columbus.4 The BTA held that the taxpayer's evidence was unpersuasive and determined that the Auditor's value was correct.5 After reconsideration by the BTA, but no change in its decision, the taxpayer appealed the BTA decision to the Ohio Supreme Court.

At the BTA hearing, the taxpayer had offered the report and testimony of a state certified general real estate appraiser. The appraiser did not develop a cost approach or sales comparison approach to value, using only the income approach to determine value. (The Ohio Adm. Code Section 5703-25-07 outlines the three recognized approaches to value: 1) the market data or sales comparison approach, 2) the income approach, and 3) the cost approach). In the income approach, the appraiser developed a net operating income for the property, then directly capitalized that income to arrive at an overall value. He also developed a discounted cash flow analysis as if the units could be subdivided and sold to individual buyers (similar to an apartment conversion to condominium units) to serve as a check on the direct capitalization method.

The BTA rejected the appraiser's evidence based on the two main reasons: 1) the Board thought that the highest and best use of the property was for sale as individual units, rather than for continued use as rentals operated as one economic unit; and, 2) the cost approach was not utilized even though the subject property was relatively new, only having been constructed two years before tax lien date.

The Supreme Court reverses and remands the case to the BTA, holding that the effect of the LIHTC use restrictions must be considered when valuing the subject property. In past cases involving subsidized housing, the court had generally held that the properties were to be valued as if unencumbered by lesser estates, deed restrictions, or restrictive contracts with the government.6 Similar to the Woda property, the Alliance Court noted that without the federal loan guarantees, favorable mortgage terms, rent subsidies, and tax advantages associated with these properties, the properties would not have been built because the market rents would prohibitively low. The Alliance Court also notes that the tax shelter advantages associated with such properties are intangible items that do not add any value to the real estate.The Woda Court makes a similar point with respect to the tax credits, explicitly stating that the value of the low income tax credits should not be valued as part of the real estate. The court reasons that the credits are transferable apart from the underlying real estate and the value of the credit is determined by the tax situation of the purchaser, rather than any anticipated value from the real estate itself (or the "bricks and sticks").

On the other hand, the Supreme Court holds that the federal use restrictions in Woda must be taken into account when valuing a low income housing tax credit property , even if the value of the credits themselves are separate from the value of the real estate. In so holding, the Woda Court distinguishes between private e and involuntary government limitations to the estate such as eminent domain, escheat, police power, and taxation.7 The court finds that the LIHTC use restrictions are imposed by the government for the general welfare, qualifying as "police power" restrictions which express the judgment of Congress concerning public policy.8 Therefore, such use restrictions must be taken into account when valuing the property. The case is remanded by the Supreme Court bank to the BTA to receive additional evidence if necessary.

After the Woda decision was announced, the Ohio Department of Taxation issued a memorandum to all county auditors summarizing the holding and indicating that the Department read Woda as requiring the consideration of the use and rent restrictions that run with the land and prohibiting the inclusion of the value of the intangible tax credits when valuing LIHTC property for real estate tax purposes.

It clearly makes a material difference to value if the sixty parcels are valued as sixty individual homes, rather than as one economic unit consisting of rental units, or if the construction cost is used to determine value in a case like Woda. It will also matter in many cases whether contract rent, which could be higher or lower than market rent, is used to determine the income produced by a property. Intangible items unrelated to the value of the real estate, such as the value of the tax credits also must be separated out from the real property value to be taxed. As the joke demonstrates, appraising a property is not an exact science. A property is going to be valued differently by someone who is currently using the property, compared to someone who is considering buying the property, compared to someone who is going to lend you money for its purchase. Similarly, the value conclusion for your property and your resulting tax liability will be different based on what appraisal approach is used and which data is considered.

References:

1. Woda Ivy Glen Ltd. Partnership v. Fayette Cty. Bd. of Revision (2009), 121 Ohio St.3d 175, 2009-Ohio-762.
2. 26 USCA §42.
3. Woda at 179.
4. Woda Ivy Glen Ltd. Partnership v. Fayette Cty. Bd. of Revision (Sept. 21, 2007), BTA Case No. 2005-A-749, unreported.
5. Woda Ivy Glen Ltd. Partnership v. Fayette Cty. Bd. of Revision (Jan. 11, 2008), BTA Case No. 2005-A-749, unreported.
6. Alliance Towers, Ltd. v. Stark Cty. Bd. of Revision (1988), 37 Ohio St.3d 16, 523 N.E.2d 826.
7. Woda at 181 (citing Appraisal Institute, The Appraisal of Real Estate (12 th ed. 2001).
8. Woda at 181.

Cecilia Hyun is an associate attorney with Siegel Siegel Johnson & Jennings Co, LPA, the Ohio member of American Property Tax Counsel. She can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

Stock price offers a reliable indicator for assessed value.

"Prediction of a property's ability to generate income is precisely what the income approach to value in property assessment attempts to accomplish."

By Stephen Paul, Esq., as published in National Real Estate Investor July/August 2009

Assessing the value of REIT assets for property tax purposes has historically been an ordeal for assessors, as well as for owners challenging their work. Published data indicates that property values have dropped over the past two years, but the lack of sales leaves relatively little to prove the declines.

Without an active market of REITs buying and selling property, the sales comparison approach to value loses its usefulness. Even if taxpayers and assessors agree that properties in most REIT sectors are best valued under the income approach, decisions about estimates of future income streams, capitalization rates, and other factors required under the income approach often breed intense discord.

These difficulties are amplified in today's market due to lower predictability of occupancies, lease terms, and percentage rents. Thus, REIT owners need new ways to substantiate for the tax authorities the decline in their property values.

Stock prices are telling

In many REIT sectors, declining stock values actually have the potential to provide suitable proof of decreasing property values. Since the trend in a REIT's stock price represents the market's prediction of the direction in which the capitalized funds from operations of the REIT likely will move, readily available stock market data could be used to show an assessor that assessed values should be reduced.

This methodology is particularly appropriate for REIT properties. The stock price for any ordinary non-REIT company, in effect, states how the market values the company's assets, but any indication of the value oPrediction of a property's ability to generate income is precisely what the income approach to value in property assessment attempts to accomplish.f the real property itself is unclear.

REITs are different. By definition, REIT assets comprise investments in real property. To qualify as a REIT, at least 75% of income must come from real estate sources, and at least 95% of income must be derived from interest, dividends, and the property itself. The trend in the value of a REIT stock thus reveals how the market values the income-producing capability of the REIT's real property.

Prediction of a property's ability to generate income is precisely what the income approach to value in property assessment attempts to accomplish. The income approach estimates future benefits from ownership of the property. But this estimate requires extensive market research to evaluate risk factors in order to accurately predict income streams and expenses.

Examples of these risk factors include whether tenants and locations are favorable, whether acquisitions were prudent, the likelihood that locations will go dark, and the extent to which rent collections might be in jeopardy. Evaluating such risks is problematic during a deep recession like that experienced currently.

In setting the stock price, however, the market already has evaluated the risk factors associated with the properties of a particular REIT. The market has performed the research that is so troublesome in a difficult economic climate.

Because the trend in a REIT's stock price represents a statement by the market in direct relation to the real property itself, the trend in value of the stock price can provide valuable support for reduced assessments and input for analysis under the income approach.

Understanding that REITs generally own many properties, often in multiple states or even worldwide, it should be acknowledged that stock price cannot determine with precision assessed values of individual properties. But the correlation between a REIT's stock price and its property value can be employed to demonstrate the necessity for some assessment reduction on individual properties.

Here's how

A simple linear regression analysis provides an ideal tool to prove the correlation between a REIT's stock price and the value of its properties. To illustrate the point, let's use data from an actual REIT property in the Midwest.

Assume the REIT appeals the 2008 assessment of one of its properties. That property is assessed for 2008 at $5.6 million when the REIT's stock is trading at $11.50 per share. Assume further that the assessed values and stock quotes have been as follows over the last six years

Plotting the stock quotes on the x-axis and assessed values on the y-axis of a graph produces a scatter diagram as shown in the accompanying chart. Using a simple linear regression formula, a trend line can be drawn through the data.

Because the trend line so closely matches the assessments across the six year period, it clearly illustrates that the stock price correlates very closely to the assessed values. Thus, stock price is a reliable predictor of assessed value.

This demonstrated correlation is not exhibited, however, by the 2008 assessment on which the REIT has filed an appeal. During the period illustrated in the chart, the increase in stock price from $9.95 in 2002 to $22.16 in 2007 had been matched by increases in assessed value from about $3.7 to $5.4 million.

But a further increase in assessed value to $5.6 million for 2008 is inconsistent with the stock losing nearly 50% of its value and falling to $11.50 per share.

Therefore, the REIT owner should urge the assessor to reduce the property's 2008 assessment.

In the current market, demonstrating that assessed values should be reduced demands resourcefulness. Absent comparable sales and easily identified factors under the income approach, analysis of the correlation between stock performance and assessed value can help demonstrate a necessary reduction in assessed value.

Stephen Paul is a partner in the Indianapolis law firm of Baker & Daniels, the Indiana member of the American Property Tax Counsel. He can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

"..the lesson here shows that whenever there may be a doubt as to the status of a property, always respond to assessors' requests for income and expense data, called Chapter 91 requests. It's the only way to protect your right to a tax appeal..."

By John E. Garippa, Esq., as published by Globest.com - NJ Alert, August 2009

Recent New Jersey case law has made it easier for assessors to thwart tax appeals filed by commercial property owners. One of the most potent weapons in the tax assessor's arsenal is the use of their power to request income and expenses associated with the taxpayer's property.

New Jersey law requires that on receipt of a written request from the assessor, every owner of income producing property in a taxing district must provide:

• A full and true account of the owner's name.
• The location of the real property.
• The income produced by the property.
• The expenses generated by the property.

In the event the taxpayer fails to timely respond to this request, any tax appeal filed by that owner for that tax year will be dismissed.

The statute imposes three strict obligations upon the assessor. First, the letter must include a copy of the text of the statute. Second, it must be sent by certified mail to the owner of the property. Third, the letter must spell out the consequences of failure to comply with the assessor's demand. The courts have strictly applied these standards to the tax assessor by indicating that the "government must speak in clear and unequivocal language where the consequence of non compliance is the loss of the right to appeal assessments."

In a recent case, the Tax Court of New Jersey faced the unusual issue of a property that historically produced income, but during the year in question, the property was vacated in order to make significant physical improvements. Thus, no income was produced by the property that year.

When the assessor sent the taxpayer a request for income and expense, the owner failed to respond. The taxpayer believed that no response was necessary because the property was owner occupied and non-income producing at the time of the request.

The Tax Court dismissed the taxpayer's appeal based on the New Jersey statute. The court concluded that this property never lost its character as income producing property. Temporary vacancies brought about by renovations are no different than the temporary loss of a tenant, or a tenant that has withheld rent. The flow of rental payments that ceased for the year in question was brought about by the taxpayer's business decision to renovate the income producing property.

Since the tax assessor previously recognized the property as income producing, and had received no response to her information request, she was left to formulate assessments for the property without economic data concerning the operation of the property. The assessor was unaware that the building was vacant and uninhabitable during the year in question, a factor that would have been important in developing the assessment.

For taxpayers, the lesson here shows that whenever there may be a doubt as to the status of a property, always respond to assessors' requests for income and expense data, called Chapter 91 requests. It's the only way to protect your right to a tax appeal. Appropriate responses can include explanations of major vacancies and ongoing renovations, thereby providing the assessor with valuable information for his use in developing assessments.

John E. Garippa is senior partner of the law firm of Garippa, Lotz & Giannuario with offices in Montclair and Philadelphia. Mr. Garippa is also president of the American Property Tax Counsel, the national affiliation of property tax attorneys, and can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

Tips to help affordable housing owners control their tax burden

"Being a unique property type established largely as a creature of government funding/subsidy programs, affordable housing assessment challenges should not take a cookie-cutter approach."

By Elliott B. Pollack, Esq. as published by Affordable Housing Finance, in a Web Exclusive AHF Newsletter, June 2009

When it comes to property tax considerations for affordable housing, one expert summed it up well. He wrote: "Opinions on the proper assessment of affordable housing real property are varied, and decisions on the best method to use in developing these assessments vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction."

Thus, controlling the tax burden of affordable housing properties is a difficult matter about which to generalize. However, based on available guidance and experience, a number of questions should be researched by owners in all jurisdictions:

• Is there a state statute of general application that addresses the valuation of affordable housing for ad valorem purposes? If so, is the statute applicable to the type of financing/subsidy arrangement in place at the property? For example, what income or asset tests must be met by residents for the project to qualify?
• Has the local assessment authority issued any regulations dealing with this issue?
• Has a state agency with oversight authority over the local assessment practices carried out its duties?
• What restrictions are imposed on the owner? How long are these restrictions in place?
• If the nature of the financial benefit derives from mortgage financing, when do these restrictions expire?
• How have the courts of the applicable jurisdiction ruled on valuing these properties? What are the reported decisions from the highest appellate court or various trial courts?

Finding highest and best use

With those questions in mind, let's look at the approaches to real estate valuation: costs, sales, and income. With each methodology, determination of value requires understanding, first, and concluding what the highest and best use may be.

In this analysis, the highest and best use finding must be able to include the fact that the property is in some fashion or other rent-restricted and/or return on investment (ROI) limited and dependent on the government subsidy, guaranty, or concession for its creation and ongoing existence.

The cost approach is usually not helpful to value an affordable housing property. For older developments, depreciation and obsolescence generally become difficult to measure. For newer properties, construction cost is irrelevant unless the same government subsidy or program can be determined to be in place to support a new property. In these economically stressed days, that assumption may not hold.

The sales approach contains many of the same deficiencies since most market transactions will not be government-subsidized properties, but rather market-rate projects. Affordable housing projects tend not to trade frequently. By the same token, lack of comparable rent structures and locations will usually render the sales approach of little help.

In most circumstances, the income approach is the best methodology. As Richard E. Polton, MAI, points out, a property in the early years of its rent/net operating income (NOI) restriction covenants is probably best valued using a direct capitalization methodology. However, he continues, a project nearing the end of these restrictions, with a reasonable opportunity to revert to a market rental structure, might be better valued using a discounted cash flow approach.

In order to keep property assessment (and therefore taxes) as low as possible, a very careful analysis of the regulatory regime in place must be undertaken by the expert appraiser. Extraction of relevant provisions from the project documents, which support the restricted rent/NOI theme, usually constitutes a wise approach. Inclusion of applicable federal/state statutes and regulations to support the highest and best use conclusion will make the appraiser's report more credible and readable.

What's the cap rate?

Since the NOI of an affordable housing project should be fairly easy to establish, the key analytical challenge becomes developing and supporting a cap rate in order to express the correct market value.

The most convincing data are cap rates extracted from the sales of other affordable housing projects. If sales cannot be located in the immediate or surrounding jurisdictions, regional or national data should be obtained and examined since many larger affordable housing developments trade in the national market. This national activity typically takes place after the original developer extracts development fees and any applicable tax credits for itself and its investors.

Many experts do not think cap rates derived from market sales of non-restricted properties are terribly relevant in developing rates for income/NOI-restricted units. While restricted projects tend to be perceived as carrying lower risk due to assured income streams, appreciation is nonexistent, and major value upgrading potential such as condo conversion is usually impossible. Therefore, non-restricted properties as a group tend to sell at lower cap rates, meaning higher unit values because of the far greater upsides. Affordable housing owners should determine whether the assessing jurisdiction has attempted to place a separate value on the federal housing assistance contract, low interest rate mortgage, or rent subsidy. While these efforts may inflate value, they usually fail to meet state assessment law requirements, which reject adding the value of intangible financial assets to real estate assessments. In most jurisdictions, an attack on the effort by the authorities to assess intangibles will produce a winning assessment appeal.

The devil's in the details

Everyone would agree that a "fair" assessment should be accepted by an affordable housing project. The "devil" of achieving this goal is in the nitty-gritty associated with relating assessments to the ability of a property to carry a particular tax load.

An owner's inability to pass tax increases through in the form of rent subsidy increases or other financial offsets frequently can convince the assessor to reduce his or her expectations. In one circumstance, a tax professional found it very helpful in the prosecution of an affordable housing tax appeal to ask the owner to send leaflets to the property's 300-plus elderly residents about the tax increase concerns. The dozens of letters to the local assessor expressing concern about potential rent increases presumably had some impact in enabling the case to be settled.

Owners should also review for compatibility and consistency the assessments of affordable housing in their jurisdiction or neighboring communities. Occasionally, a tax appeal asserting lack of equalization will be victorious.

Being a unique property type established largely as a creature of government funding/subsidy programs, affordable housing assessment challenges should not take a cookie-cutter approach. An intimate knowledge of the property, applicable financing and restrictions, and market conditions become critical to keeping an assessment under control and thereby bringing taxes down. In the absence of legally binding guidelines or assessment practices and protocols applicable to affordable housing projects, an owner seeking assessment justice has much homework to do.

Elliott B. Pollack is chair of the Property Valuation Department of the Connecticut law firm Pullman & Comley, LLC. The firm is the Connecticut member of the American Property Tax Counsel, the national affiliation of property tax attorneys. He can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

States cut homeowners a property tax break, leaving commercial owners to fill the gap

The conventional wisdom is that lower valuations result in lower taxes. Many commercial owners and tax practitioners expect property values to decline this year due to a depressed economy.

By Linda Terrill, Esq., as published by National Real Estate Investor, June 2009

Will Rogers once said: "The only difference between death and taxes is that death doesn't get worse every time Congress meets." Commercial property owners could say the same thing of state legislatures when it comes to property taxation.

In the beginning, most states provided a "uniform and equal" rate of assessment and taxation for all classes of property. Today, the vast majority of states still have the basic "uniform and equal" framework, but all have tinkered with it to shift the weight of taxation to commercial property.

Once the local tax base and budget are determined, a mill levy is set. Some states apply the mill levy against the 100% value of the property. The math is: 100% value a— mill levy = tax due.

Other states have an intermediary level, generally referred to as the assessed value, which is a percentage of the 100% value. In those cases, the mill levy is applied to the assessed value and the computation is as follows: 100% value a— assessment rate a— mill levy = tax due.

Altering the equation?

Several states have adopted "classification legislation" that provides for differential assessment rates for commercial real estate versus residential. In most cases, the commercial taxpayer carries the larger load.

This disparity grows wider if the residential owner also qualifies for other preferential treatment that some states may provide to seniors, veterans or low-income property owners. Here are examples of the tax system in practice:

In Colorado, all property is assessed at 29%, except residential, which is assessed at 7.96%. In terms of tax dollars, this disparity means that for every $1 paid by the residential owner, a commercial property owner will pay $3.64.

To further illustrate, assume a mill levy of .075 and a commercial and residential property each valued at $200,000. In Colorado, the property taxes for the homeowner are calculated as follows: $200,000 a— 7.96% = $15,920 a— .075 = $1,194. The commercial owner, however, pays 3.6 times as much: $200,000 a— 29% = $58,000 a— .075 = $4,350.

Arizona legislates commercial assessment rates at 22% and residential rates at 10% (see chart). Thus, for every $1 paid by the residential property owner, a commercial property owner will pay $2.20.

Tennessee commercial property owners fork over $1.60 for every $1 paid by a residential property owner, and in Kansas commercial owners pony up $2.17 for every $1 paid by residential owners. The ratio in Minnesota can be as high as 3 to 1.

The states and city included in the chart represent only a sampling of the disparity in the way the property tax load is shared between commercial and residential owners.

Premature celebration?

The conventional wisdom is that lower valuations result in lower taxes. Many commercial owners and tax practitioners expect property values to decline this year due to a depressed economy. It's only logical that taxpayers who see a reduction in their valuation notices for 2009 expect their taxes to decrease.

Such a conclusion is premature in the states with different assessment rates for commercial and residential property, or with any other significant agricultural and/or residential tax relief programs. That's because if the tax base declines and the needs of government remain the same, a mill levy increase is inevitable and commercial property taxpayers will face paying the majority share.

A savvy commercial property owner would be well advised to take the following steps:

• Determine the tax appeal date and the rules for filing. If your property requires an appraisal, remember that the number of appeals may rise significantly, so hire an appraiser as early as possible.
• Determine whether your market area comprises a diverse mixture of property types, or is dominated by businesses that are dependent on a single industry.
• Compare the local unemployment rate with the national numbers.
• Decide whether you can manage the appeal on your own.
• Be prepared for it to take longer than you'd expect to traverse what will probably be a crowded tax appeal docket. To be forewarned is to be forearmed.

Linda Terrill is a partner in the law firm of Neill, Terrill & Embree, the Kansas and Nebraska member of American Property Tax Counsel. She can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

"Property owners will be severely challenged as they try to manage depressed property values in an environment where one road block after another confronts them."

By John E. Garippa, Esq., as published by Globest.com, April 2009

By all accounts, more tax appeals were filed in New Jersey as of the April 1st filing deadline than at any time in recent memory. Across all classification of properties, owners filed appeals in both the New Jersey Tax Court and at the County Boards of Tax Appeals.

While the flood of appeals would have normally been filed as of April 1, 2009, a recent law allowed property owners who experienced a revaluation to file as late as May 1, 2009. This means the tidal wave of appeals that swept across New Jersey as of April 1st will continue right through May 1st.

These mass filings will take a toll on the judicial system and ultimately the taxpayer. The first impact will be significant backlogs in the Tax Court. In the recent past, a typical commercial tax appeal might take two years in order to get a hearing and resolution. In this current environment, considering the fact that no new judges will be added to the Tax Court, that backlog will easily reach three years or more.

Even more important for hard pressed taxpayers, under New Jersey law, in order to have standing before the court, all property taxes must be paid in full. If the taxes are unpaid by any amount in any year, that year's tax appeal will be subject to dismissal. This is a difficult pill to swallow for a commercial property owner with significant vacancies.

A review of commercial real estate's current status underscores why a torrent of appeals exist. Many commercial landlords are losing retail tenants at an ever-increasing pace. According to the April 8th Wall Street Journal, with research provided by Reis Inc., the amount of occupied space in shopping centers and malls throughout the US declined by 8.7 million square feet in the first quarter of 2009. This loss of more than 8 million square feet of retail space in just one quarter was more than the total amount of space retailers handed back to landlords in all of 2008.

The decline in occupied space increased the vacancy rate for malls and shopping centers in the top 76 US markets to 9.1%. According to Reis, the vacancy rate is now at its highest level since the 1990's. Even as landlords cut lease rates in order to attract tenants, the vacancy rates continue to rise.

Another unforeseen impact will be visited on taxpayers in this current market maelstrom. The burden of proving the value of a property in a tax appeal has always rested on the taxpayer. It will not be enough for a taxpayer to cite a plethora of empty stores and a growing vacancy rate as proof of a low value.

The Tax Court will demand that competent market evidence be brought before the court to prove, by the preponderance of the evidence, the current market value of the property in question. And to make the task even more daunting for the taxpayer, there may not be enough comparable rentals to prove value, since it is near impossible to find anyone to rent retail stores. Also, it may be equally impossible to prove a capitalization rate because banks are not lending on any type of commercial property.

Property owners will be severely challenged as they try to manage depressed property values in an environment where one road block after another confronts them. Understanding the nature of the road blocks and where they can be found, offers the best potential for attacking the problems.

John E. Garippa is senior partner of the law firm of Garippa, Lotz & Giannuario with offices in Montclair and Philadelphia. He is also the president of the American Property Tax Counsel, the national affiliation of property tax attorneys, and can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

Assessors' use of historical sales data in a recession inflates property values.

"As a result, assessors typically value individual parcels not so much by looking at the specific characteristics of a particular parcel, but rather by the application of a mass appraisal system that relies heavily on historical data."

By Stewart L. Mandell Esq. and Andy Raines Esq., as published by National Real Estate Investor, February 2009

During periods of economic weakness, U.S. commercial and industrial real estate owners become vulnerable to unrealistic and excessive property tax assessments. Assessors' reliance on mass appraisal methodology and their use of data compiled during strong economic periods are the two main reasons for this problem.

Due to the large number of property tax parcels in a jurisdiction and limited resources to assess them, assessors typically employ mass appraisal methodology. In a mass appraisal, assessors gather and study certain economic data for a one- to three-year period preceding the assessment's effective date, including sales transactions, market rents, vacancy levels and/or levels of operating expenses.

Assessors then use that information to develop a valuation methodology, which they apply to individual parcels. For example, an assessor might study sales from the prior two years, which includes a dozen industrial properties located in his jurisdiction. He may determine from his study that the sold properties should have been valued 5% higher than the value at which they were carried on the assessment roll. The assessor would then increase the value of the entire class of industrial property by 5%.

As a result, assessors typically value individual parcels not so much by looking at the specific characteristics of a particular parcel, but rather by the application of a mass appraisal system that relies heavily on historical data. Recognizing and understanding the traditional methodology many assessors utilize is critical to enabling taxpayers to evaluate their risk of receiving excessive assessments.

Methodology under microscope

Odds are that assessors' usual valuation models for the 2009 tax year may be significantly flawed because a huge disconnect exists between economic conditions two to three years ago and today. This disconnect shows up in many ways.

The office vacancy rate in many markets has been low, from 5% to 10%, in the past few years. The current recession, however, is marked by financial sector turmoil and rising unemployment, resulting in increased office vacancies.

Shopping centers, too, are experiencing higher vacancies due to the recession's adverse impact on retail sales, which has been exacerbated by the reduction in new residential subdivision development and high residential foreclosure rates.

Perhaps the biggest data disconnect lies in capitalization rates, which act as a proxy for buyers' recognition of risk. Before the September 2008 economic crisis, buyers expected rental income and property values to continue rising. Now the reality of declining occupancy and rents, plus higher risk, has raised cap rates and lowered property values.

Upside of a downturn

A change in economic climate affects a property's valuation when the assessor uses historical data instead of current data. In 2007, a warehouse in Austin, Texas could command a net rent of $5 per sq. ft. Back then, vacancy held steady at about 9%. An appropriate cap rate would have been about 7.5%.

In late 2008, the recession caused warehouse vacancy rates in Austin to rise to 14%. The market softness pushed up vacancies, and market rent fell to about $4.50 per sq. ft. This trend raised the cap rate by at least 1%.

Based on the use of historical data, a 500,000 sq. ft. warehouse is valued at $26.4 million (see chart). However, the value based on current data comes to $19.8 million, a 25% reduction. Property taxes would amount to about $595,000 annually with an assessment based on historical data. Using current data, the assessment would result in taxes of about $445,000 annually, a $150,000 difference.

Assessors often use historical data to assist in making property tax assessments. That methodology may suffice in periods of economic stability. Unfortunately, in these volatile and challenging times, assessments based on dated information will be inaccurate and overstated.

If assessors keep using the rear view mirror to determine assessments, taxpayers should file appeals to avoid head-on collisions with excessive property taxation. Critical to a successful appeal is the use of current data to indicate an appropriate property tax assessment.

Stewart L. Mandell is a partner in the law firm of Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn LLP, the Michigan member of American Property Tax Counsel (APTC). He can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

Andy Raines is a partner in the law firm of Evans & Petree, the Arkansas and Tennessee member of American Property Tax Counsel (APTC). He can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

"Despite the abundant news coverage indicating that real estate continues to sit without being sold, taxpayers will encounter strong opposition when they try to obtain corrections in their assessments."

By Kieran Jennings, Esq., as published by Midwest Real Estate News, January 2009

Two problems now plague Ohio commercial property owners. First, the economic troubles faced by the entire nation also exist in Ohio. Second, the state is one of the very few that permits school districts to intervene in the assessment process.

In almost every commercial assessment hearing, school boards are present, making it virtually impossible for the Board of Revision to continue working toward its original goal, to find efficient ways to correct assessments. Instead, due to the school boards' involvement, tax cases may, and often do, take several years to come to resolution. This presents a real problem for over assessed property owners suffering from vacancies.

Take for instance an office or retail building that experienced a large drop in occupancy just as the market began to soften. Tenants staring into the face of a recession always put on their cost cutting hats. They look carefully at total occupancy costs, not just the rent, and this creates an obstacle for them in signing a lease. The problem is that at a time when taxpayers need fast tax relief in order to attract tenants, school boards seek to protect the tax base, causing prolonged litigation.

Taxpayers, Take Action

In this continuing economic downturn, taxpayers need to focus on those expense items that offer a real opportunity to positively affect the bottom line. All too often, taxpayers fail to recognize that property taxes fall into this category. Every dollar spent on property taxes removes resources that could help to increase sales and/or provide greater efficiency of operation. Thus, taxpayers need to carefully examine their tax assessments and determine whether a tax appeal should be filed. And time is not on the taxpayer's side, as tax complaints must be file in Ohio before March 31, 2009.

The larger southern (Cincinnati area) and central counties (Columbus and Dayton areas) have reassessed for the 2008 tax year. Summit County also reappraised for 2008. The final new values will appear on the first half 2008 tax bill payable at the beginning of 2009.

Property owners in these three areas face a difficult challenge because the data available for reappraisal reflects the peak of the real estate market, not the downturn precipitated by the credit crunch. In counties such as Cuyahoga, Lorain and Lake, assessments continue to be based on the high 2006 values. In all these areas, taxpayers are likely to receive excessively high assessments, which need to be appealed.

Despite the abundant news coverage indicating that real estate continues to sit without being sold, taxpayers will encounter strong opposition when they try to obtain corrections in their assessments. In order to meet this opposition head-on, well-documented arguments for tax relief become a necessity. In some instances that means providing the county Board of Revision with income and expense information and/or comparable sales; in others it may mean submitting an appraisal with testimony from an appraiser.

Unfortunately, it takes more than a well thought-out and documented argument to win a tax appeal, as school districts who receive the lion's share of the property tax revenue will strongly defend their tax base. Therefore, a taxpayer may be successful at the county Board of Revision only to find that the local school board has appealed the decision to the State Board of Tax Appeals.

At this point, the schools' attorneys get the opportunity to investigate taxpayers' evidence and they investigate for months or even years, casting the widest net possible in their fishing expedition. Since school attorneys are not assessors, nothing requires them to seek fair taxation for owners, so they may aggressively seek the highest assessments for their districts.

A critical step in the appeal process involves learning about the attorneys hired by the school districts, how receptive these attorneys may be to determining a fair tax assessment and how predisposed they are to giving the taxpayer a hard time versus looking for a win-win solution. By understanding the adversary, the taxpayer gains some perspective on how to negotiate with the school districts' attorneys.

While owning commercial real estate remains a sound long-term investment, in a down market owners need to diligently scrutinize the basis used by the assessor in determining their property tax assessments. Changes in the economy and financing can dramatically impact the value of real estate. Failure to file tax appeals when appropriate can cost owners tens of thousands of dollars in excessive taxes.

J. Kieran Jennings is a partner in the law firm of Siegel Siegel Johnson & Jennings, the Ohio and Western Pennsylvania member of American Property Tax Counsel, the national affiliation of property tax attorneys. He can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

"Buyers of completed projects have potentially the most difficult assessment problem to overcome. In the eyes of the assessment community, the purchase price proves the market value of the property."

By Kieran Jennings, Esq. as published by Affordable Housing Finance Newsletter, January 2009

Local tax assessment rules and practices have a lasting effect on returns to developers and owners of affordable housing. Investors face many difficulties—uncertainty about property taxes should not be one of them. A developer who builds a property is subject to a different set of risks than a buyer who purchases a property as an ongoing project or for rehabilitation.

When a builder constructs affordable housing, in many cases, taxing authorities have reasonably good records regarding land sales and construction costs. Therefore the assessor's knee-jerk reaction is typically to value the property at the total cost of land and construction. For the assessor, it's fast, easy, and makes some sense; for the developer, it often means paying significantly more property tax than comparable properties. Affordable housing requires additional support to make the project viable, and an unfair tax burden can be the difference between a stable, viable property and one that fails

New projects

Prior to beginning a project, the developer should have a discussion with the assessor regarding the assessment laws and local practices. If aggressive, intervening taxing authorities, such as a local school district, exist in the jurisdiction, then prior to building it may be wise to seek payments in lieu of taxes (PILOT). Ideally the tax would be based on the prevailing taxes paid by like properties and incorporated into the budget for the project. In this way the developer has already agreed with the taxing bodies as to the amount of taxes to be paid, often over a period of five to 10 years.

Rehabilitated projects

Buyers who acquire property for rehabilitation may find that some taxing bodies tend to overreach. This tends to happen when a property is purchased at or below the assessed market value, and then the buyer immediately invests a large percentage of the project costs into refurbishing the property. These costs are public record, and because the tax credits are based on capital costs, the costs are known and well documented. What most assessors would like to do is simply add up all the land and construction costs to derive an assessment value. However, unless a fair PILOT agreement can be arranged, the property owner must not sit idly by and take costs as a measure of assessment.

Owners can make two arguments against this approach. First, assessed market value should be based on the income generated from the project. The concept of income as a measure of value enjoys almost universal acceptance in the assessing community, so the likelihood of success with this strategy is higher.

However, the second argument, "obsolesce," needs to be well-presented in order to persuade an assessor of its merit. Simply put, when buildings are rehabilitated, project costs include demolition and subsequent rebuilding of many building components. This drives the cost up significantly, yet at the end of the project the tenant can still only afford to pay what the market (subsidized or not) can bear. Therefore, for example, walls, plumbing, and wiring purchased initially, and later demolished, disposed of, and subsequently rebuilt are no more valuable to the tenant than they were initially. Finally, when discussing obsolescence with an assessor, don't use that term; merely explain that your costs do not necessarily equate to increased value. Assessors almost universally have an aversion to terms such as obsolescence.

Completed projects

Buyers of completed projects have potentially the most difficult assessment problem to overcome. In the eyes of the assessment community, the purchase price proves the market value of the property. Assessors tend not to take into account arguments such as 1031 tax deferral, purchase of reserves, or any host of non-real estate issues that actually drove the deal. As a result it may be better to set forth the argument in the closing statements by recording the properly allocated purchase price. For example, buying an operating housing project includes not only the purchase of the land and building, but also the in-place leases (no lease-up costs/concessions), the management contract, the HAP contract, and the reserves. All of these assets should be separately quantified, and only the land and building should be recorded as real estate. Note, however, that allocations and proper recording vary from state to state. Furthermore, changes in classifications may also affect federal taxes, so your federal tax adviser should be consulted prior to closing.

Or, an owner may acquire the business entity rather than the actual asset. In some jurisdictions it is permissible and advisable to buy the corporate shell, meaning the LLC or partnership interest. In such a transaction, the deed is not recorded, which may avoid the conveyance tax or transfer tax and also shield the purchase price from the public as well as the assessor. The assessor would be forced then to treat the acquired property in the same manner as any similar property. Of course, a number of states require buyers and sellers to disclose the purchase price regardless of how the property is acquired. On the other hand, some states do not require disclosure of the purchase price, even if it is a typical asset acquisition.

Finally, all owners, regardless of how they acquired or developed their properties, should understand the nuances of their taxing jurisdiction. Within the same state and county, there can be differences in how a taxpayer should plan. For instance, where the jurisdiction is friendly, it may be advisable to meet the tax authorities personally and discuss all aspects of the project. Conversely, you may be faced with aggressive assessors and equally aggressive school boards, where sales or new mortgages are sought out and records subpoenaed. By engaging local tax counsel, an owner can learn what to expect and can better plan for the long term. Assessments that go up tend to stay up and are difficult to reduce and those that are low tend to stay low. Possessing knowledge about the taxing jurisdiction makes all the difference.

J. Kieran Jennings is a partner in the law firm of Siegel Siegel Johnson & Jennings, the Ohio and Western Pennsylvania member of American Property Tax Counsel, the national affiliation of property tax attorneys. He can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

"Tax departments should conduct periodic reviews of the tax assessments on comparable property so that discussions about uniformity and fundamental fairness of assessments can be made when presenting the company's case to the taxing authorities."

By John E. Garippa, Esq. as published by Globest.com, December 5, 2008

With the economy mired in a significant recession affecting a broad range of property values, the beginning of the New Year presents an appropriate time to examine a series of steps that property tax managers should take to effectively reduce their company's property taxes. A company's entire property needs to be reviewed annually to determine the effect of market forces on all assets. Any recently purchased property should be looked at to see if the price paid for that property results in assessment reductions.

Tax departments should conduct periodic reviews of the tax assessments on comparable property so that discussions about uniformity and fundamental fairness of assessments can be made when presenting the company's case to the taxing authorities. Further, an annual review of property inventory should take into consideration whether an intangible component continues to be reflected as real property value in the assessment.

Properties that contain significant business components such as hotels, regional shopping centers and senior living facilities all possess intangible values, for example. These business components should not be assessed as real property, but when they are, a tax appeal is necessary.

Tax departments also need to be aware of those legal constraints in New Jersey relating to the proper filing of a tax appeal. All appeals must be filed by April 1, 2009 and all property taxes and municipal charges must be paid in full in order for the department to file an appeal.

In addition, all written requests from the local assessor's office for income and expense information must be answered in a timely fashion. Failure to respond to such requests will result in the dismissal of an appeal. Once all of these preliminary steps have been taken, the road to filing a successful tax appeal will be properly paved.

John E. Garippa is senior partner of the law firm of Garippa, Lotz & Giannuario with offices in Montclair and Philadelphia. He is also the president of the American Property Tax Counsel, the national affiliation of property tax attorneys, and can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

Don't value medical office buildings higher than general office space.

"These facilities require certain specialized construction components and finishes to accommodate industry needs."

By Stephen Paul, Esq., as published by National Real Estate Investor, December 2008

Construction of medical office buildings is burgeoning throughout the country due to the aging population and its healthcare needs. Because these facilities generally operate as for-profit medical services, they usually become subject to property tax. Medical office owners often find their buildings assessed for real property tax purposes at excessive values when compared to general office properties.

Assessors normally use the cost approach to determine the value of newly constructed property. For the most part, medical office buildings house multiple tenants, including medical practitioners and associated healthcare facilities such as pharmacies, diagnostic imaging, labs or medical administrative services.

These facilities require certain specialized construction components and finishes to accommodate industry needs. Generally, the construction finishes are higher quality than available in the average office. So, logically, if construction costs more, the return on investment needs to be higher to offset these increased costs.

Two obvious construction cost differences stand out between general office and medical office space. First, medical offices require more partitioning due to the need for numerous small exam rooms, medical staff offices and nursing stations and for extensive file storage.

Secondly, medical office space calls for more plumbing fixtures because every exam room must have facilities to maintain sanitary conditions as doctors move from patient to patient.

Major costs also are incurred when an office building must accommodate X-ray machines, magnetic resonance imagining equipment, or CAT-scan equipment/ rooms that require special shielding, such as cinder blocks and double or triple thicknesses of drywall or lead. Moreover, some medical office buildings include outpatient surgical centers, which demand nonporous finishes, high intensity lighting and greater electrical service. Thus, the cost per square foot of medical office space rises well above that of conventional office space.

Data from Marshall & Swift Valuation Service, the industry bible, supports these facts. The data shows that the base cost to construct medical office space is 26% higher than the cost of building general office space.

Highly persuasive argument

Let's examine a property tax appeal involving a medical office property in Indianapolis in 2007. The assessor valued a newly constructed building at $16.9 million. At the same time, the valuation on an Indianapolis general office building with the same square footage amounted to $11.3 million.

The cost to build the medical building was $15 million; the general office property cost $12.4 million to construct. The assessor valued the medical office building $5.6 million higher than the general office property, or nearly 50% more.

In preparation for the tax appeal, the taxpayer documented each construction component and compared it to general office buildings of similar size. This comparison showed that the real estate should be valued based on the basic components of a general office building.

Because each building has the exact same basic components, no justification exists for a larger tax assessment on the medical office building. In the appeal, the taxpayer also argued that an alternate or second user of the medical office building would likely purchase the property simply for office space.

As a result of this painstaking development and presentation of the relevant facts, the Appeal Board ruled in favor of the taxpayer and reduced the property's valuation by $1.3 million to $15.6 million. While this reduction was warranted, the medical office building remains valued higher than the general office building, proving that medical office buildings pay higher property taxes.

Lesson for assessors

Although the cost may be greater to construct medical office space, the added cost doesn't automatically justify higher property tax assessments. Because it is expensive to retrofit medical office space to fit general office needs, those costs should be deducted from construction costs to arrive at what would be market value for a general office building. Clearly, using the cost approach to value properties produces higher property valuations for medical office space than for general office space.

In a property tax appeal, the taxpayer must demonstrate that medical office property requires specialized construction and finishes, and lay out these facts to obtain an appropriate reduction in the property's assessment.

Stephen Paul is a partner in the Indianapolis law firm of Baker & Daniels, the Indiana member of American Property Tax Counsel (APTC), the national affiliation of property tax attorneys. He can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

"If home price drops, so should property taxes. Home owners might be smart to initiate a property tax appeal."

By John E. Garippa, Esq. as published by REALTOR® Magazine, November 2008

In these uncertain times, many home owners have had to face the fact that the current market value of their homes is less than they once thought.

Yet, most of these home owners continue to pay property taxes based on that higher value.

Higher taxes may also make a property less appealing and affordable to buyers, since higher taxes will increase their overall costs, at least until the property is reassessed. That's why it's a smart strategy to advise past clients who might be considering a sale to appeal their property taxes at the next opportunity.

Evaluating Your Assessment

The vast majority of taxing jurisdictions throughout the United States assess residential property based on market value: the amount a willing buyer would pay a willing seller without duress. However, assessments are generally not reviewed on an annual basis, so a property's assessment will never be 100 percent of market value.

To compensate, taxing bodies apply an equalization ratio, which is designed to ensure that assessments are relatively equal among different taxing districts to all assessed values. For example, a property worth $100,000 with an equalization ratio of 50 percent would be assessed at $50,000. Home owners can obtain their equalization ratio from local taxing authorities.

If, after a review with a residential broker or appraiser, a home's assessed value seems out of line with current market values, the home owner should undertake an investigation to determine what might have caused the incorrect valuation. Here are some steps for your client to follow.

• Arrange a visit with the local tax assessor and request a complete copy of the home's tax records. Property record cards are public records and are universally available.
• Pay particular attention to the market comparables listed on the property record card. These recently sold homes are the basis for the assessor's valuation of your client's home. Visit those houses or view them online, and compare them to the client's house.
• Take the appropriate equalization ratio and multiply the market value you believe appropriate for the home by that rate. If the number is lower than the current assessment, your client should file a tax appeal.

Filing an Appeal

Most home owners should be able to properly file the appeal without counsel, but most jurisdictions require a licensed real estate appraiser to prepare an expert analysis of local market values for the local tax board.

Home owners should work closely with the appraiser to review all the amenities and issues that might affect the valuation of their home. Many times an appraiser may not be aware of construction, zoning, or general neighborhood issues that negatively affect value.

Real estate brokers familiar with the property and the area may also be a valuable resource for this type of information. They may also be able to assist the appraiser in determining which properties are the best comparables for a particular home. All of the appraiser's conclusions need to be properly documented with supporting evidence in the appraisal report that will be submitted with other supporting paperwork prior to the hearing.

In addition to compiling evidence, the taxpayer should take care to learn and follow the rules of the local board of assessment review. Each taxing jurisdiction has appropriate appeal forms. It is also critical to determine the deadline for filing an appeal.

The final step in an appeal is a hearing before the assessment appeal board. Proper preparation is the key to a successful hearing. The home owners and the appraiser should prepare a script detailing the important points that need to be made during the appraiser's testimony in order to prove a lower market value and assessment.

The key focus should be comparing the home in question with every presented comparable. The appraiser should be prepared to analyze each important amenity and discuss how it positively or negatively affects value.

During uncertain economic times, the effort of appealing a property tax bill reduction may prove well worth the time and effort involved.

John E. Garippa is senior partner of the law firm of Garippa, Lotz & Giannuario with offices in Montclair and Philadelphia. Mr. Garippa is also the president of the American Property Tax Counsel, the national affiliation of property tax attorneys, and can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

"In a contracting economy, with real estate values falling, the differential between contract rent and market rent can become quite significant."

By John E. Garippa, Esq. as published by National Real Estate Investor, October 2008

In a faltering economy, tax authorities want to cling to contract rents — the amount agreed upon by the landlord and tenants — as the basis for valuing property. Instead, assessors should rely on market rent, the rental income a property would command in the open market. Relying on contract rents to determine a property's value results in increased revenues from property taxes, but causes owners to pay excessive taxes.

Most taxing jurisdictions in the United States are supposed to value property based on market evidence, which is essentially what a willing buyer would pay a willing seller for property with neither party being under duress to act. In a growing economy, most property owners grasp this concept.

However, when the economy weakens and real estate values become depressed, this same concept is not as easy to comprehend. More importantly, even some taxing authorities have difficulty understanding exactly how this concept should work in a recessionary climate.

Why rent isn't rent

Contract rent represents the actual rental income specified in a lease and can be greater or less than market rent, often referred to as economic rent. Market rent has become the basis for valuing property because it allows assessors to uniformly value all property based on the same standard of value.

In a contracting economy, with real estate values falling, the differential between contract rent and market rent can become quite significant. The differences between the two types of rent give rise to the need for diligence by property owners and managers.

This hypothetical example illustrates the point: Assume a 100,000 sq. ft. office building has been well managed for a significant period of time. As a result of superior management, the building is 100% occupied with an average rent of $30 per sq. ft. The leases were negotiated more than two years ago.

Since that time, the office market has deteriorated. Current market rents at similar properties reach no higher than $25 per sq. ft. net with a 10% capitalization rate.

Using contract rents, the value of the property comes to $30 million, but employing market rents, the value is only $20 million (rent multiplied by square footage divided by capitalization rate). Based on a 3% effective tax rate, the assessment at the contract rate comes to $900,000, while the market rate assessment is $600,000, a tax savings of $300,000 (see chart).

An owner or property manager examining the rental income from the office property above can rest easy because it's clear that no problem exists. Here's a well-managed property fully leased in a weak economy. However, taxpayers must not be lulled into ignoring the need for a review of any tax assessment received in an economy under duress.

If the taxing authorities are assessing on a market level, they should ignore contract rents and focus on appropriate market rent standards. The example shows that when valued properly the property — which by contract standards is correctly worth $30 million — should be assessed for tax purposes at no greater than $25 million, a significant differential.

Clearly, if the property's assessment comes in above $25 million, it has been over assessed and requires a tax appeal in order to establish its value at the current market level of other properties.

Make your case

The persuasiveness of a taxpayer's presentation to the assessor depends on differentiating the property's rental history from the marketplace realities. First, every available office rental comparable needs to be analyzed during the relevant time period.

Some of the physical elements of comparison should include security, HVAC, electrical systems, tenant finish, parking and location.

Second, the property owner should develop a scenario that explains why demand has eroded in the market. The owner should focus on factors such as changes in the workforce, the requisite space per worker, and analysis of vacancy rate changes over several years.

This study should cover the time period beginning with the building's lease-up. A study that demonstrates deteriorating market vacancy over a period of several years buttresses the argument that demand will naturally be weaker.

In a declining market, taxpayers must challenge property tax assessment based on contract rents. Unless your assessment is based on market rents, a tax appeal should be the next step.

John E. Garippa is senior partner of the law firm of Garippa, Lotz & Giannuario with offices in Montclair and Philadelphia. Mr. Garippa is also the president of the American Property Tax Counsel, the national affiliation of property tax attorneys, and can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

"HBU is not a conclusion reached mechanically; it requires at least a bit of thought. Ignoring the chance that your current use is inferior to the HBU of your property is not a wise gamble."

By Elliott B. Pollack , Esq. and Richard R. Wright, as published by Corporate Real Estate Leader, September/October 2008

Before deciding to challenge the value of your property in U.S real estate tax appeal proceedings, spend a few moments considering its highest and best use as of the relevant date of value. Highest and best use is not an arid expression of appraisal jargon; it is a critical point of analysis for the property owner, in concert with his expert advisors and counsel, before putting his property in play.

Most states require real estate values to be determined, at least after informal proceedings have concluded, on the basis of expert testimony from appraisers. In order to furnish an opinion as to market value, it is necessary to have an understanding of a property's highest and best use. Market value, as we know, is the amount which in cash or cash equivalents would be paid to a knowledgeable seller by an equally knowledgeable buyer, both free of constraints not typical in the applicable market place.

Highest and best use (HBU) is the most valuable use, in terms of dollars (or these days, perhaps euros!) to which a property may be devoted. Many owners fall into the trap of making the unwarranted assumption that the current use of their property is its highest and best use.

In a dynamic real estate market, reflexively deciding that current use equals HBU can be dangerous. It's equivalent to believing absolutely that the future will be the same as the past.

HBU Isn't Always Visible in a Rear View Mirror

The current use of a property is the use to which it has been put based on past understandings of the market and historic economic judgments. Depending on how long ago that decision was made, its accuracy as a current HBU may be subject to challenge. Just because someone decided to construct a strip mall on a 20 acre tract of verdant farmland 20 years ago does not mean that the existing strip mall is the HBU today. Just because a service station was constructed on the corner of a busy intersection in one of New York City's five boroughs shouldn't blind the owner to a future user's objectives. And although a surface parking lot has been generating substantial monthly and transient revenues for its owner does not necessarily mean that a buyer would reach the same economic conclusion as to future use.

Of course, the less significant the buildings and improvements are on a parcel, the more likely a fresh look at HBU is required. But the fact that a major office building or hotel occupies a certain land parcel may have nothing to do with the future use to which the market tells us that the parcel should be put. And, of course after all, we must listen to the market if we are to correctly gauge market value!

The foregoing remarks suggest that if the current use is not economically advantageous, prosecuting a tax appeal may or may not make sense. For example, the obsolete hotel which faces demolition may or may not be replaced by a more economically valuable use. Viewed from the perspective of at least several years down the road, the property may currently be worth less for ad valorem tax purposes than the assessor believes. If, however, following demolition, the site is to be rapidly repositioned for an intensive mixed use development, the current hotel improvement may tell us less about market value than we think it does.

Gas Stations Typify Current HBU Issues

Should the owner of the abovementioned hypothetical gasoline station challenge her ad valorem assessment? Perhaps the station generates less revenue than she thinks it should, not as a result of fundamentals but due to a poor operation, grungy building, unattractive flag or changes in neighborhood traffic patterns. Poor economic results may also indicate that a use once thought to be one of the most commercially intensive and profitable uses available to a smaller parcel has been eclipsed by other uses.

Recent market data indicate that certain gasoline station sites were being sold at multiples of five and ten times what they would be worth as ongoing filling stations. Why? Research showed that developers have been able to reposition gas station properties for retail and, occasionally, residential uses, depending, of course, on the location and environmental compliance, due to changing neighborhood and macro-market conditions. Neighborhoods once thought to be somewhat unattractive are now in great demand to yuppies and empty nesters. The lack of urban development sites, measured against the rather modest improvements found at gas stations, has raised the value of some corner service stations beyond what they could ever fetch based on the current, use. The owner of that property might challenge her ad valorem assessment at his peril.

Conversely, the gasoline station owner may properly conclude that, if sold, her property would yield less than she thought. For example, new highway construction diverting traffic away from a formerly easily accessible and visible site might be one of many reasons for lowering HBU and therefore market value.

How Owners Can Use HBU

HBU represents the foundation of a real estate appraisal and, in almost every case, an assessor's or board of tax appeal's market value judgment. The Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP), the "bible" to which appraisers must conform their work, tells us that appraisers must develop a market value opinion based on HBU. The factors to be reviewed by an appraiser include:

• The physical capabilities and potential of the site;
• The impact of applicable land use regulations;
• Economic supply and demand; and
• Neighborhood, local and regional economic factors

Many property owners, either acting themselves or through others, initiate ad valorem assessment review proceedings, if even on an informal basis, before an HBU judgment is reached. Sometimes, contests are initiated simply because taxes increased over a prior year or because some predetermined ratio of taxes to gross operating income has been violated. Hopefully, the foregoing discussion shows how unwise this approach can be in certain cases.

The pitfalls of bringing a tax appeal without thoughtful consideration of HBU are amply displayed by an actual event not involving the authors or their employers. A large commercial property developer engaged a consultant officed in a distant state to appear before the local Connecticut board to challenge the assessment of a vacant land parcel. He came charging up to the appeal on a snowy evening in early March. As part of his informal presentation, he showed the board a valuation analysis his client had prepared both on an "as vacant" and "as improved" basis. Since the property was in the midst of a hot development market, the board fastened on the "as improved" conclusion and tripled the assessment which the hapless fellow had come before it to appeal!

The same observation is applicable to ill considered assessment challenges which fail to recognize the likelihood of an assessor reaching a higher HBU opinion than the current use. Calling the property to the assessor's or the board's attention can trigger a reconsideration which will increase an assessment. Spending the time to consider the potential of this risk before rushing off to an assessment contest is highly recommended.

HBU is not a conclusion reached mechanically; it requires at least a bit of thought. Ignoring the chance that your current use is inferior to the HBU of your property is not a wise gamble.

Elliott B. Pollack is a member of Pullman & Comley in Hartford, Connecticut and chair of the firm's Valuation Department. The firm is the Connecticut member of American Property Tax Counsel. He can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

Richard R. Wright is Senior Property Tax Manager of J.C. Penney Company, Inc. in Dallas, Texas.

"Assessors prefer the cost approach because the availability of cost data from national valuation services makes the determination of a value rather straightforward.Taxpayers argue that an income approach is better suited to derive the value of a golf course..."

By Andy Raines , Esq., as published by National Real Estate Investor, August 2008

As the old joke goes, the fastest way to become a millionaire as a golf course owner is to start out with $5 million. Unfortunately some property tax assessors don't get the joke. They continue to assess golf courses as if their value is increasing or holding steady.

During the 1990s, the supply of golf courses expanded by 24% while the number of golfers rose by just 7%, according to the National Golf Foundation. What's more, in the first quarter of 2008 there has been a 3.5% drop in rounds played.

Golf course owners now face numerous challenges. Although more courses have closed than opened over the past two years, the oversupply will likely take several years to absorb. Additionally, the soft economy and rising oil prices negatively affect travel to golf courses and course operating costs.

Property assessors have failed to take these factors into account in making their assessments. But golf course owners have begun to fight city hall by filing property tax appeals. If successful, the appeals can result in significant tax savings.

The accompanying chart demonstrates the magnitude of assessment reductions obtained by four different golf courses as a result of their tax appeals. On average, these appeals achieved a 40% reduction.

Why do assessors' valuations of golf courses differ so dramatically from the values contended by taxpayers and, in many instances, adopted by boards of equalization and judges? The assessor and taxpayer each use different valuation approaches that yield different values.

Methodology matters

The generally accepted valuation approaches include the cost, income capitalization, and sales comparison approaches. The appropriate valuation approach depends on various factors:

• the amount and reliability of the data collected in each approach;the inherent strengths and weaknesses of each approach as it relates to a particular property type;
• the relevance of each approach to the particular property at issue.

Assessors typically value golf courses using a cost approach. That approach starts with land value, adds the cost of property improvements, and subtracts physical depreciation. Assessors prefer the cost approach because the availability of cost data from national valuation services makes the determination of a value rather straightforward.

Taxpayers argue that an income approach is better suited to derive the value of a golf course. That approach starts with a determination of revenue and deducts operating expenses to arrive at net operating income. Net operating income is then divided by a capitalization rate, thus yielding the value.

The issue centers on which method of golf course valuation is preferable: the assessor's cost approach, or the taxpayer's income approach?

Courts side with owners

The judges in these cases rejected the assessor's cost approach for several reasons. The cost approach rests on the principle of substitution, but replacement sites are difficult to find in the golf course industry. One judge cited an appraisal industry publication, which concluded that the cost approach is generally inapplicable to golf courses.

The cost approach used by the assessor deducted only the physical depreciation, based on age, but did not factor in external obsolescence. External obsolescence results from outside forces such as the oversupply of courses.

Again, a judge cited the appraisal industry publication that noted the difficulty in estimating external obsolescence in a market where prices have fallen 50% or more since the late 1990s. The judges found that investors rarely use a cost approach to determine the purchase price to pay for a golf course.

The judges held that the income approach offers the best valuation method for a golf course because buyers typically buy courses to produce income. The approach measures this capacity and converts it into a projected sales price.

The assessor's cost approach has been found not to be par for the course, so owners should consult their property tax professional to determine if an income approach can reduce their property tax liability.

Andy Raines is a partner in the Memphis law firm of Evans & Petree PC, the Tennessee member of the American Property Tax Counsel (APTC), the national affiliation of property tax attorneys. He can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

"Proving market value in a declining market can be difficult, especially when that market is beset by contraction of the economy..."

By John E. Garippa , Esq. as published by Real Estate New Jersey, September 2008

Property owners in New Jersey face a very challenging year in 2008. Rental rates have eroded across all classes of property, and vacancy rates continue to rise. Having anticipated these erosions in value, many prudent property owners have filed tax appeals on their properties to reduce taxes. However, proving market value in a declining market can be a most difficult task, especially when that market is beset by an overall contraction of the economy, as well as a significant malaise in the capital markets.

By law, all property in New Jersey must be valued by taxing jurisdictions as of October 1 of the prior tax year. This means that for assessments established in 2008, the appropriate valuation date is October 1, 2007. The problem facing taxpayers this year is how to prove market value when that value has been eroding every quarter since last year.

The following examples illustrate the issues. Assume a 10 year old class A office building that as of 1/1/2006 enjoys tenancies averaging $30 per square foot and a vacancy rate of 5%. For the next 18 months, these lease rates begin to diminish. During 2007, the average rental in the first quarter falls to $28 per square foot, and in each succeeding quarter continues to decline by a dollar a square foot until the fourth quarter ending December 31, 2007, when it reaches $25 per square foot.

Under this scenario, a taxpayer should contend that the proper valuation of this property can be no more than $26 per square foot, which is reflected as of the October 1, 2007 quarterly analysis. Moreover, even though the $25 per square foot rentals for the 4th quarter of 2007 come later than the October 1, 2007 valuation date, this data corroborates the fact that shrinking rentals are affecting the property. Thus, the value of the tenancies should be no greater than the $26 per square foot valuation for the 3rd quarter. Averaging the rentals for the entire year does not properly value the property as of the valuation date.

A similar fact pattern can be outlined with vacancy rates. Assume the property begins to demonstrate a weakening demand, suggesting that the vacancy rate of 5%, which was appropriate for 2006, erodes each quarter and continues to do so throughout 2007. Toward the latter part of 2007, the vacancy rate at the property reaches 10%. In this case, a taxpayer should contend that the proper vacancy at the property, based on current market evidence, is approaching 10%. Although the average vacancy for the 2007 tax year might be only 7%, the continual increase in the vacancy rate throughout the entire year provides substantiating evidence of higher vacancies. This scenario clearly points to a reduced market value.

A second problem: While the evidence discussed above demonstrates that the property suffers from reduced demand, under New Jersey law, the taxpayer must show that this deterioration exists in other similar property. Thus, the taxpayer must produce data supporting the fact that all office property in the competitive area has endured reduced demand for rentals and increased vacancies.

This opens an opportunity for a carefully crafted forensic appraisal, one that effectively portrays the story behind declining value and demand. A competent appraiser should review all of the market data that documents an overall reduced demand for similar property. Also, there should be an exhaustive review of vacancy factors proving that the reduced demand at the taxpayer's property is not due to mismanagement, but rather to reduced demand in the market area.

A comprehensive review of economic data becomes singularly important to demonstrate that the entire area surrounding the taxpayer's property is experiencing a slow down in demand. Some of the factors to include in this review are: unemployment statistics, bankruptcy filings, business closings, population growth/decline, housing data, availability of office space as well as the general population trends in the state. All of these statistics form the basis for explaining reduced demand and increased vacancy.

As taxing jurisdictions face the growing reality of reduced resources due to the slowing economy, obtaining tax reductions will become even more difficult for taxpayers. In order for owners to prevail in a tax appeal, a compelling story must be developed concerning the taxpayer's property and market in which that property competes. Critical to this story is solid evidence that the market has sustained declines, continues to decline, and the property is part and parcel of that same competitive market.

John E. Garippa is senior partner of the law firm of Garippa, Lotz & Giannuario with offices in Montclair and Philadelphia. Mr. Garippa is also the president of the American Property Tax Counsel, the national affiliation of property tax attorneys, and can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

"Assessors are in a tough position, because they're looking at what has happened and trying to apply it to their next assessment. Events change quickly, and it's hard for them to keep up," said Maher. "You have to illustrate that there's been a market shift that is either affecting this property individually or other like property types. You try to negotiate and reach settled solutions. That's sometimes more of a process now."

APTC member, Mark Maher of Smith Gendler Shiell Sheff Ford & Maher was quoted in the article by Dan Hellman, as published by Minnesota Lawyer, July 2008.

Tax Court has seen a big influx of filings this year. In some pockets of Minnesota, the real estate market is finally starting to stabilize. But that doesn't erase the fact that the last two years have seen ever-increasing foreclosure rates - and plunging property values - throughout the state. County assessors have struggled to keep up with the declining market, but in many cases have fallen behind. Predictably, the number of property owners unhappy with their assessments has skyrocketed - and that's meant increased work for real estate attorneys, assessment appeals boards and the place where many such disputes end up: Minnesota's Tax Court. "We're feeling a little bit stretched," said Tax Court Chief Judge George W. Perez. "There's more trials, more motions, more hearings -just generally more work." "We're filing a relatively high number of cases," said Mark Maher, an attorney with Smith Gendler Shiell Sheff Ford and Maher in Minneapolis. "The whole economic slowdown is having an effect on properties' ability to maintain occupancy, and that leads to lower assessments."

Perez said this is the first time in his 11 years with the Tax Court that he's anticipated such a rise in property-related appeals.

At this point, we're coping -we're built to handle these fluctuations," he said. "But we'll see more of an increase before we see a decrease." The last resort The assessment appeals process is designed to funnel only the most disputed cases to the Tax Court, which devotes about one-third its caseload to property-related appeals. Most assessment appeals are dealt with at the municipal or county level, going to a local board of appeal, or heard at an "open-book" meeting for taxpayers, usually held at city council meetings. Those meetings are designed to give the property owner enough information about what went into the assessment so that, ideally, he or she leaves satisfied with the valuation.

If that doesn't happen, the property owner can request that the county do an on-site reappraisal of the property. The next step is to file an appeal, via the county, either to the small-claims division of the Tax Court (reserved for farms, single-dwelling residential properties and other properties valued at less than $300,000), or to the Tax Court proper. From there, a small handful of cases - no more than a few per year, according to Perez - go to the Minnesota Supreme Court.

Even with that system in place, the Tax Court will have its work cut out for it as appeals start coming in. Perez said that from Hennepin County alone, in the coming year the Tax Court will see 1,240 assessment appeals, up from 992 in 2007.

Hennepin is the only Minnesota county that has provided the Tax Court with final figures reflecting how many appeals will be coming their way, but Perez said he and fellow Tax Court judges Sheryl A. Ramstad and Kathleen H. Sanberg expect that the uptick will be about the same - about 25 percent - from Minnesota's other 86 counties.

"Usually there's a little bit of a lag between what happens in the marketplace and what we see in the court system," Perez said. "We're just seeing the beginnings of it. The numbers are starting to increase. When the economic news is poor, our caseload increases."

Residential spike is on the way Most assessment appeals filings that are pushed to the Tax Court are from the industrial-commercial sector, said Tom May, director of assessment for Hennepin County. And while this year's level of Tax Court appeals is unusual, it's hardly unprecedented. "We've been up that high before," May said. "In 2003 we had 1,253, and in 1992 there were more than 3,100. It goes up and down with the commercial-industrial market." May said he expects figures from the commercial-industrial market to hold steady, but that the Tax Court could see more filings in the future from owners of large rental and other residential properties. "Most of the impact that you're seeing in the residential market now will be reflected in 2009 assessments," he said. "At the county level, we will probably have a few more calls and a few more appeals next spring."

Bruce Malkerson, an attorney with Malkerson Gilliland Martin in Minneapolis, said a significant amount of assessment appeals and further litigation is likely to come from owners of both standalone vacant lots and multiple vacant lots that were bought with an eye toward development that never took place. "Generally, those properties have gone down in value, and there is an increase in tax appeal cases in all of those categories," he said. "If assessors don't keep up with the market, more people will appeal their assessed valuations out of necessity. In most locations, I think values will stay flat or go down further." Malkerson commented that an increase in assessment appeals could start to emerge from valuations going back as far as 2006. "The market for single-family residential land was already showing itself to have problems at that point," he said.

A balancing act for assessors Maher said that in many cases, appeals come from funds or institutional investors who two or three years ago acquired clusters of properties whose assessed value hasn't kept pace with what it has cost to keep and maintain the properties.

Part of the job of property owners - and their attorneys - is to avoid Tax Court by working with assessors to understand the context in which the value of certain properties might rise and fall. "Assessors are in a tough position, because they're looking at what has happened and trying to apply it to their next assessment. Events change quickly, and it's hard for them to keep up," said Maher. "You have to illustrate that there's been a market shift that is either affecting this property individually or other like property types. You try to negotiate and reach settled solutions. That's sometimes more of a process now."

Part of what leads to assessment disputes is that assessors have to be part historian and part soothsayer, said May. They have to be aware of past market cycles, and try to predict when they'll come back around. How successful they are at making those educated guesses will have an impact on how many assessment appeals make their way to the Tax Court in 2009. But Perez is expecting another spike. "What's really going to be interesting will be next year," he said. "My guess is that with the way the housing market is going, the number of filings is going to increase again."

"...if the property is considered owner occupied, a taxpayer no longer has to respond in order to have valid appeal rights."

By John E. Garippa, Esq., as published by Globest.com Commercial Real Estate News and Property Resource, July 31, 2008

A recent decision of the Appellate Division in the State of New Jersey established a defense for some taxpayers who have failed to respond to assessor requests for income and expense information. Before this decision, if a taxpayer failed to respond to a tax assessor's request for income and expense information made during any given tax year, any tax appeal filed for that subsequent tax year was subject to dismissal, regardless of the merits of the appeal. In addition, even if a property were owner occupied, if the owner failed to respond to the assessor's request by informing him that the property was "owner occupied," that appeal could be dismissed as well.

As a result of the Appellate Division's recent decision, if the property is considered owner occupied, a taxpayer no longer has to respond in order to have valid appeal rights. However, the court warned taxpayers that if there were even small elements of rental income earned on the property, and the owner fails to report that income when requested by the assessor, the potential would still exist for dismissal of an appeal.

John E. Garippa is senior partner of the law firm of Garippa, Lotz & Giannuario with offices in Montclair and Philadelphia. He is also the president of the American Property Tax Counsel, the national affiliation of property tax attorneys, and can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

"In most jurisdictions, the taxing authorities include in industrial property tax assessments the value of the real estate and the value of the intangibles, despite the fact that in many states intangibles are not taxable assets..."

By Cris O'Neall, Esq., as published by National Real Estate Investor, June 2008

For over a decade, tax authorities in many jurisdictions have recognized that intangible assets and rights must be removed when assessing certain types of properties for tax purposes. This recognition of non-taxable intangibles has typically been limited to hospitality and retail properties, where intangible assets are easier to pinpoint.

Assessors often believe industrial properties consist of solely taxable real estate and personal property, and don't remove the intangible assets for valuation purposes. That could change, however, in the next few years, due to changes in financial reporting standards made earlier this decade, including the advent of FASB 141 and 142, which address the reporting treatment of intangibles acquired by publicly traded companies.

INDUSTRIAL INTANGIBLES PROVE DIVERSE
New reporting requirements enable industrial property owners to call attention to intangible assets so they can be deducted from property valuations.

Gaining traction

As auditors have learned to apply FASB 141 and 142, the number and types of intangibles reported to regulatory authorities has increased. The above chart provides a few examples of the kinds of data industrial companies have begun to report to the Securities and Exchange Commission following large industrial plant acquisitions.

In each example, a portion of the purchase price paid was allocated to specific intangible assets and rights. For instance, Harvest Energy Trust allocated over $118 million of the price it paid for a refinery in Newfoundland, Canada in 2006 to engineering drawings, marketing contracts and customer lists. In the past, intangibles were usually reported along with property, plant and equipment and not delineated. Thus, assessors could not see the intangible assets much less understand their value. FASB 141 and 142 have changed that. The identification of specific intangible assets by industrial companies in financial reporting of acquisitions represents a big step forward. It gives legitimacy to specific intangibles, both for the company reporting them and for other companies in the same industry. Intangibles are exempted from taxation in a number of states. For example, in California, statutes, regulations and appellate court decisions exempt most industrial plant intangibles.

Property taxpayers who can identify and place a value on intangible assets and rights are entitled to exclude the value of those intangibles in determining their property's assessed value. Similar tax exemptions can be found in other states, such as Texas and Washington.

Doing the math

Once intangibles are identified, the amount of intangible value to be deducted from the property's total value must be determined. This is established by a review of comparable sales or a cash flow analysis. An appraiser should be retained to develop the valuation using the appropriate ad valorem tax standard.

For example, every industrial property has employees and a market expense to recruit and train can be estimated. This figure is an "avoided cost" to a buyer and represents the fair market value of that workforce for ad valorem tax purposes.The same technique can be used to value drawings, manuals and software.

Normally, property owners do not determine the value of intangibles by using the local property tax value standard. By valuing intangibles that way, the taxpayer derives a quantitative value for the tangible real and personal property that should be subject to property tax.

In most jurisdictions, the taxing authorities include in industrial property tax assessments the value of the real estate and the value of the intangibles, despite the fact that in many states intangibles are not taxable assets. Therefore, owners and operators of industrial properties need to follow these key steps:

• Determine how the taxing authorities appraise your properties for ad valorem tax value. If they include real estate and intangibles in their assessment, take stock of the intangible assets and rights used in connection with your properties.

• Order appraisals for all the properties' intangibles, basing those appraisals on local ad valorem value standards.
• Present the facts to the taxing authorities and request that the value of the intangibles be excluded from the taxable value of your properties.

If you and the authorities cannot agree, file a tax appeal.

Cris K. O'Neall is a partner in the Los Angeles law firm of Cahill, Davis & O'Neall LLP, the California member of American Property Tax Counsel (APTC), the national affiliation of property tax attorneys. Mr. O'Neall can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

"Current market conditions such as eroding rental values and escalating vacancy rates impact the current market value and will not typically be taken into consideration by the assessor."

By John E. Garippa, Esq., as published by Globest.com Commercial Real Estate News and Property Resource, May 28th, 2008

New Jersey property owners need to begin reviewing their property tax assessments that were not appealed, now that the April 1st deadline for filing a tax appeal on 2008 taxes has passed. This is an important exercise because of the rapidly changing market conditions faced by New Jersey property owners.

A proper review calls for a current market analysis on the value of the taxpayer's property. The value discovered from the market analysis should be compared to the current assessed fair market value used by the assessor. Don't forget to include the latest Chapter 123 ratio because the assessor's valuation includes this ratio.

Assessments in New Jersey do not change year-to-year. Typically, once a revaluation cycle has been completed, those assessments remain in place for a number of years. Current market conditions such as eroding rental values and escalating vacancy rates impact the current market value and will not typically be taken into consideration by the assessor. This causes a significant disparity between the current assessment and what that assessment should be if it properly reflected the current market conditions.

By performing this exercise on every property in a portfolio, the taxpayer will be in a position to meet with the assessor months before a new appeal cycle starts.

The views expressed here are those of the author and not of Real Estate Media or its publications.

John E. Garippa is senior partner of the law firm of Garippa, Lotz & Giannuario with offices in Montclair and Philadelphia. He is also the president of the American Property Tax Counsel, the national affiliation of property tax attorneys, and can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

"While sophisticated owners and mangers understand these facts, they often ignore the effect when they see a fully leased building. This remains the classic mistake made by owners when dealing with property taxes."

By John E. Garippa , Esq., as published by Real Estate New Jersey, April 2008

The office market in New Jersey has softened considerably according to statistics cited in a recent Wall Street Journal article. While sales of large commercial buildings have declined nationally, the drop in Northern and Central New Jersey has been significant. The area's office vacancy factor remains at 17.8% for the 4 th Q4 of 2007. Then, too, according to Real Capital Analytics, Inc., a New York real estate research firm, the area is tied with Kansas City, Missouri and Sacramento California for the largest percentage decline in sales volume in the 50 major U.S. markets.

These facts bring into focus a key question: What will this slump do to property tax assessments? The answer depends on the level of due diligence performed by the tax mangers and owners responsible for these properties.

Historical precedent tells us that even with a long term upward trending real estate market, there will always be periods of repose, and in some instances contractions. We are currently in such a contracting period. This means owners will put considerable effort into reducing operating expenses as portfolios are devalued. And, the single biggest expense, after debt repayment, for all types of properties is property taxes.

Many owners and managers fail to realize that property taxes must be examined annually to ensure equitable treatment across time for their properties. A property may be fairly valued and assessed for years and then, suddenly, become over-assessed.

This is precisely what the current confluence of events has precipitated this year in New Jersey. First, office market vacancy rates continue to remain at high levels with no indication of reduction. Second, the meltdown in the subprime mortgage market has seriously eroded the capital markets. Banks and financial institutions are requiring significantly more capital infusion from prospective buyers. This, coupled with lender fears, has forced capitalization rates to rise. Third, the employment climate in the state continues to weaken as fears of an economic recession rise.

While sophisticated owners and mangers understand these facts, they often ignore the effect when they see a fully leased building. This remains the classic mistake made by owners when dealing with property taxes.

For property tax assessment purposes, property must be valued each year as if a snapshot of the market is taken on October 1 st of the prior year. For 2008 property tax assessments, owners must ask themselves: What would the current economic market rent, vacancy, and capitalization rate be for each property as of October 1, 2007? Because of the events previously described, any reasonable level of analysis would conclude that most commercial property must be valued below the prior year. Therefore, even if the assessment remains static year to year, the property becomes over assessed because of macroeconomic forces.

Assume the following example: A 100,000 square foot office building leases for an average rental of $25 per square foot based on leases that are several years old. The average vacancy in the building is 5%. If current economic rates indicate that as of October 1, 2007 the appropriate market rent for that building, were it exposed to the market, would be $20 per sf with a 15% vacancy rate, using this example, the building's gross income would drop by more than 29%. This alone results in a significant change in value for this property.

However, the building's market value falls even more when a change in the capitalization rate is appropriate. Based on the macro economic changes described above, an increase in the capitalization rate would be appropriate. In this example, if the capitalization rate changed from 9% to 10%, the value of the property would decrease more than 35% from its original valuation. While a buyer examining the rent roll and net income, as indicated in the example, sees no change based on contract rent, enormous changes have taken place based on economic rent and current market conditions.

Holding a commercial property for long term capital appreciation represents a sound investment policy. Operating under such a policy puts enormous pressure on owners not to ignore cyclical downturns. Even in the short term, those down drafts can dramatically affect a property's valuation for property tax purposes, costing owners untold thousands of dollars in tax expense.

John E. Garippa is senior partner of the law firm of Garippa, Lotz & Giannuario with offices in Montclair and Philadelphia. Mr. Garippa is also the president of the American Property Tax Counsel, the national affiliation of property tax attorneys, and can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

"...whenever the assessor seeks income information, the property owner should ensure that only income attributable to the real estate is provided."

By Robert L. Gordon, Esq., as published by Midwest Real Estate News, April 2008

Throughout the United States, assessors constantly search for new ways to squeeze value from commercial property. Assessing the business value of the property rather than just its real estate value has become one of the most common stratagems assessors employ. They do this by purporting to value the property on a traditional income approach, but then use the income generated from a business conducted on the property to derive the property's value. This violates the fundamental rule of ad valorem taxation, which states that only value generated by the real estate itself can be taxed.

This generally causes no problem for leased property. To take a simple example, a commercial office building clearly can be assessed based on the rental income it generates to the owner. Unquestionably, such income represents pure real estate income, generated by the real estate itself. No assessor would seriously seek to assess an office building by including income generated by the law firms, accounting firms and other commercial tenants who rent the office space.

The problem arises for owner-occupied property, where no rental income stream exists that the owner can identify as income generated by the real estate itself. In such cases, it becomes easier for the assessor to take the income generated by the business the owner operates at that location and try to portray that business income as income generated by the property.

In some cases, it should be obvious that the assessor cannot do so. For example, a successful retailer may generate several hundred dollars of retail income per square foot by selling high-end consumer electronics at its owner-occupied location. It would be difficult in that case for the assessor to claim that the income was attributable to the real estate and not the retailer's business skills. On the other hand, as we will see, where a business operated by the owner is less clearly separable from the real estate, the assessor will have an easier time trying to ascribe the income to the real estate.

Court weighs in on business value

Three Wisconsin appellate court decisions on this issue prove instructive and provide a fairly universal guide to steps property owners in any jurisdiction can take to ensure that assessors capture only the value of their real estate, and not the value of a business conducted on that real estate.

Wisconsin courts require that the real estate itself must have the "inherent capacity" to produce income before that income can be considered in assessing the property. In the first Wisconsin case on this issue, the Court of Appeals rejected a regional mall owner's argument that the mall should be assessed at less than its purchase price on the theory that the purchase price included a business value independent of the real estate. The court held that since regional malls exist for the purpose of leasing space to tenants, all the income generated by leasing this space is "inextricably intertwined" with the real estate and, thus, assessable.

In a second case, the Wisconsin Supreme Court found that income generated by a state-licensed, owner-operated landfill could be included in the property's assessment. The court stated that since the license was "specific to the site" and could not be transferred to any other property, the land itself had " an inherent capacity to accept waste that would not be present" in sites without licenses. The court noted, however, that neither side had been able to find evidence of leases in the local market, that is, instances where landfill operators paid the property owner market rent to lease a landfill site. The court indicated that had such market information been available, it likely would not have permitted the landfill income to be used in formulating the assessment.

Actions Owners Should Take

Property owners in any jurisdiction can glean several lessons from these decisions. First and foremost, whenever the assessor seeks income information, the property owner should ensure that only income attributable to the real estate is provided. For example, this will be relatively easy in the case of a retail sales location, since retail sales income is not properly attributable to real estate.

In more difficult cases, some income may be attributable to the real estate and some may not. In such instances, owners need to carefully structure their operating statements so that income sources not directly pertaining to the real estate are reported and categorized separately, and not intermingled with the real estate income. The more the owner blurs the real estate and other income together in a single operating statement, the easier it will be for the assessor to cite that statement as proof that the income in question is "inextricably intertwined" with the real estate income.

Finally, as the Wisconsin landfill decision makes clear, the best defense against an assessor seeking to include business income in a property assessment is actual evidence of local market rental rates for similar properties. Property owners need to exhaust all possibilities for finding like businesses that lease their space, since such market evidence makes it next to impossible for the assessor to claim that business income which exceeds those market rental rates is attributable to the real estate.

In sum, property owners who carefully review and understand the basis for their property tax assessments, and who regularly focus their attention on how their business income is reported to the assessor, stand the best chance of avoiding unlawful property taxation of their business income.

Robert L. Gordon is a partner with Michael Best & Friedrich LLP in Milwaukee, where he specializes in federal, state and local tax litigation. Michael Best & Friedrich is the Wisconsin member of American Property Tax Counsel, the national affiliation of property tax attorneys. He can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

"The key question for owners is: are these new assessments as accurate as they were before the new GIM technique was employed?

By Joel R. Marcus, Esq., as published by Real Estate New York, April 2008

The Tentative Assessment Roll for 2008/2009 demonstrates a significant shift in assessments for class 2 properties (rented apartment buildings, cooperatives and condominiums). This is due to the New York City Department of Finance abandoning the time-honored approach of net income capitalization in favor of the gross income multiplier (GIM) approach, which for the very first time ignores age, condition, location and expense factors. The key question for owners is: are these new assessments as accurate as they were before the new GIM technique was employed?

Different Methods, Different Results

First, what are the differences in the past and present methodologies and where are the pitfalls in adopting one formula over another? Net income capitalization has been used by assessors and endorsed by New York State courts for more than a century. In 1962, the New York Appellate Division ruled that value arrived at by capitalization provides the surest ground for sound appraisal. In an earlier case, the New York Court of Appeals determined that: "the net income of a property is more persuasive evidence of what a property is worth than using a sales price derived from a similar property. What an investor will pay for a property is measured in large part by the amount and certainty of the income that can be obtained."

The Finance Department provided two reasons for renouncing the capitalization approach: 1) expenses for some buildings were higher than others leading to lower assessments, while in some cases the expenses may have been overstated by the owner. 2) using the GIM eliminated the need to study expenses or expense ratios and offered a simpler, more predictable one-step method.

While GIM offers more predictability, it fails to provide more accuracy. GIM is not seriously employed by any major developer, investor, lender or appraiser today, nor has any New York court embraced it.

In the most recent edition of its handbook, the Appraisal Institute warned appraisers to be careful when using this GIM method. The handbook cautions that all properties used as a basis for this approach must be comparable to the subject property and to one another in terms of physical, location and investment characteristics. If properties have different operating expense ratios this method may not be comparable for GIM valuation purposes.

The GIM approach presents one overriding problem. It is applied to all residential property regardless of location, age physical conditions or the level of services. Also, using GIM throws retail rents, antenna, signage or health club income into the mix, thus, offering the distinct possibility of grossly inaccurate and unfair assessments for many types of properties.

In addition, many substantial valuation disparities occur due to factors such as rent controls, rent stabilization and complexes composed of a large group of buildings. There may be substantially different expense ratios for an aging multi-building housing complex and a 100-unit, mid-block, non doorman apartment house in the West Village. These differences generate unfair tax assessments.

Legal Flaws in GIM

Initially, the Finance Department used different GIMs depending on income level and whether the property is rental, co-op or condominium. This directly violates state law, which mandates that these properties must be assessed uniformly. Therefore, the New York City Law Department ordered Finance Department to make changes; co-ops and condominiums had their assessments lowered and rentals saw their assessments increase.

The fact remains that for all rent-producing properties, the city possesses detailed real property income and expense information from legally mandated filings, and requires detailed statements by CPAs in all but the smallest assessment challenges. This surely provides a database for accurate net income capitalization and takes into account location, condition and other significant factors which ordinarily would render GIM suspect.

As the Finance Department begins to use the GIM to derive property tax assessments, owners need to be on guard against property tax increases. When these increases appear, an owner's only defense is filing a property tax appeal. Income capitalization may be down, but it is not out.

Joel R. Marcus is a partner in the New York City law firm Marcus & Pollack, LLP, the New York City member of American Property Tax Counsel (APTC), the national affiliation of property tax attorneys. He can be reached at: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..