The retail real estate sector has been slow to recover from the Great Recession, and vacancy levels remain elevated for neighborhood shopping centers. As retail property owners search for ways to reduce carrying costs, many are scrutinizing one of the largest expenses their properties incur: real estate taxes.

Fortunately, the laws of each state provide a vehicle for landlords to reduce unfairly high property tax burdens by filing a commercial property tax appeal. At these appeal hearings, the property owner must prove that the property is worth less than its current taxable market value, and seek a fair value either through negotiation or a valuation trial in the local court.

Building a strong case to reduce an assessed taxable value requires technical expertise at any time, and it’s an even more complicated proposition for retail properties in a period of economic recovery.

The three traditional approaches used to value a shopping center are the cost approach, sales comparison approach and the income capitalization approach. Unless the shopping center was recently constructed, the cost approach is seldom used. The sales comparison approach is only used when comparable sales data is available, which is rare. Therefore, appraisal professionals and the courts agree that the income capitalization approach is generally the most reliable analysis.

The income approach requires the capitalization of a net income stream into a present value. Prior to filing a property tax challenge, the shopping center owner or their tax professional should gather copies of leases, rent rolls, and income and expense data for the prior and current year. Each is required in order to estimate the property’s market value.

Post-recession issues

Prior to the economic crash of 2008, a review of the property’s leases, vacancy rates and expenses helped paint a picture of the center’s ability to produce income. After applying a proper capitalization rate — the rate of return reflecting the risk of investment — to the center’s net income, an owner’s tax professional would be able to estimate the center’s market value for property tax purposes.

Following the crash of 2008, however, an increasing number of shopping center landlords have been forced to make rental concessions in order to keep tenants. As a result, the mere analysis of the center’s occupancy, lease rates and expenses is no longer enough.

A better strategy is to conduct a comprehensive inquiry with the owner’s leasing representative or property manager to identify any concessions such as reductions in rent, recalculations of base tax years for property tax reimbursement, or a reduced reimbursement of common area maintenance charges.

Much of the data in the typical yearend income and expense report for a shopping center may be misleading or inconclusive, requiring detailed discussion with the landlord or the landlord’s accountant. For example, some owners report tenants’ payments to the landlord for reimbursement of property tax or for common area maintenance as rental income. Yet if this data were capitalized along with rental income in a valuation, it would inflate the center’s taxable value and reduce the owner’s chance of securing a property tax reduction at a valuation hearing or trial.

After determining rental income, the taxpayer or tax professional will review the shopping center’s vacancy history in order to determine the property’s effective gross income, or gross income less vacancy and collection losses.

The economic health of any shopping center depends upon the percentage of the total space rented. Therefore, the taxpayer must consider an appropriate vacancy and collection loss factor when refining gross income into economic gross income. Shopping centers are rarely fully occupied today, and this factor must be considered in the analysis. Vacancy rate estimations should reflect a review of the subject’s vacancy rate together with local and regional market statistics.

Next, analyze expense data to estimate the subject’s net income, subtracting expenses typically incurred by the landlord from the property’s effective gross income. To ascertain typical expenses, study a number of shopping centers and compare those findings with the subject’s actual expense data. Generally, shopping center expenses include management, insurance, leasing fees and commissions, un-reimbursed common area maintenance charges, and utilities not paid by tenants.

Depending on the region, these expenses can total 15 percent to 30 percent of gross income.

The income capitalization approach to market value requires the application of a capitalization rate to the shopping center’s net income in order to estimate fair market value. The capitalization rate is a percentage that expresses risk, return, equity and property tax rates.

Considerations in estimating these rates include the degree of risk, market expectations, prospective rates of return for alternative investments, rates of return for comparable properties in the past and the availability of debt financing. It’s always helpful to determine caps rates utilized in the jurisdiction.

Many things to consider

Clearly, there are many factors to consider when evaluating a shopping center’s taxable value today. In addition to the factors mentioned above, the property owner must consider the subject’s size, location, access, competition, parking, tenants and other traits to form a value opinion.

Prior to presenting a case to the assessor or judge for a property tax reduction, the taxpayer must thoroughly analyze the individual economics of the shopping center and employ a valuation approach that produces a logical and well supported estimate of taxable market value.

Given that most shopping centers have experienced economic hardship since 2008, owners of these properties should seek professional advice to evaluate their property tax bill. A skilled property tax attorney will know how to conduct the necessary analyses and effectively argue on the taxpayer’s behalf for a property tax reduction.

Ryan C. Hild and Jason M. Penighetti are attorneys at the Mineola, N.Y., law firm of Koeppel Martone & Leistman LLP, the New York State member of Amercian Property Tax Counsel, the national affiliation of property tax attorneys.  Contact Ryan at RHild@taxcert.com or Jason at JPenighetti@taxcert.com. 

Most multifamily owners are familiar with reserve requirements for items such as fire alarms and alarm replacement. Yet those owners may be surprised to learn that complying with the latest fire code changes can jeopardize statutory caps on property tax increases. In fact, recent changes to the International Fire Code (IFC) could substantially increase fire safety requirements, trigger loan defaults and escalate repair and property tax costs for apartment owners.

By their nature, apartment buildings are not, and cannot be, constructed to meet future unanticipated building code requirements. In many jurisdictions, property owners know that if their building suffers more than a 50% loss, they will be required to satisfy new code requirements during reconstruction. However, few owners expect to be saddled with retroactive application of new code requirements even if there is not a casualty.

The IFC provides a comprehensive regulatory framework of code templates setting minimum standards aimed at both safeguarding buildings from fires and protecting building occupants when fires occur. Among other things, the IFC addresses the installation and maintenance of automatic fire alarm and sprinkler systems and fire safety requirements for new and existing buildings.

States and local jurisdictions are often slow to adopt and apply the latest building codes to existing properties. So while the 2015 version of the IFC has been published, many state and local governments are still coming to grips with the 2009 version, which incorporated retroactive requirements regarding the installation of fire alarms into existing buildings. For property owners, significant concerns arise when governmental officials adopt an IFC version that retroactively imposes new requirements.

For example, the 2009 IFC included several potentially expensive retrofit requirements for existing buildings. Chapter 46 of the IFC recommended the installation of smoke detectors in each bedroom for existing structures. For buildings that are more than three stories high or contain more than 16 multifamily units, the IFC imposes retroactive requirements, including installing manual or automatic fire alarm notification systems; installing audible fire alarms in each unit; and wiring all units to ensure visual fire alarms may be installed for the hearing impaired.

Retroactive application of new requirements creates issues for owners of existing properties. Modifications to meet new regulations for existing buildings can cost thousands of dollars per unit, and failure to make required upgrades can have serious consequences, including fines, possible insurance and liability problems not to mention that violation of local building codes generally constitutes an event of default under standard loan documents such as the Freddie Mac form loan agreement.

Moreover, the capital reserves that most permanent lenders require borrowers to maintain for building maintenance are seldom adequate to fund fire-safety retrofits, since borrowers and lenders could not reasonably anticipate the nature and cost of these improvements when establishing reserves. Most apartment complexes are owned by single purpose entities. Their loan documents strictly limit obtaining new loans. If cash flow is tight, these owners face financial challenges in funding retroactive code-mandated improvements.

Increases in property taxes represent an additional hidden risk to property owners in jurisdictions where statutory caps limit property tax increases, such as Florida and South Carolina. Caps limit increases in taxable value for properties subject to reassessment that would otherwise rise to reflect the market. Florida, for example, generally limits annual increases in taxable value to 10% of the prior year's assessment. South Carolina limits increases to 15% of the property's prior assessed value unless there has been a property improvement, ownership change, or assessable transfer of interest.

Caps can be removed if an existing project undergoes renovations, adding a substantially heavier tax burden atop the renovation expense. For that reason, property owners who are required to make IFC-mandated improvements must determine whether the renovated properties will run afoul of the statutory cap limitations, and prepare accordingly.

There is no problem in California where the law protects properties from reassessment unless renovations make the property "substantially equivalent to new."

IFC compliance measures are more likely to jeopardize assessment caps in states such as South Carolina where state law requires taxing authorities to include the value of new construction when valuing properties. South Carolina excludes minor construction or repairs from taxation, but does not define these terms and interpretation is often left to local taxing authorities.

No one advocates ignoring fire safety, but multifamily owners must investigate all potential costs – both obvious and hidden – of bringing their properties into compliance.

Morris Ellison is a partner in the Charleston, S.C., office of the law firm Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice LLP. The firm is the South Carolina member of American Property Tax Counsel, the national affiliation of property tax attorneys. Morris Ellison can be reached at mellison@wcsr.com.

California has a carbon cap-and-trade program.  British Columbia, Canada, has a carbon tax.  Washington is ready to join those West Coast efforts to reduce carbon emissions, but no one knows what mechanism the state will choose.  Washington is now considering a clean air rule that would cap greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.  In November, Washington voters may establish a carbon tax.  However, the Association of Washington Business (AWB) argues that Washington businesses already lead the nation in protecting the environment and that a carbon cap or tax would negatively affect the state’s small businesses and consumers.

Possibility #1: A Regulatory Cap on GHG Emissions

In 2009 former Gov. Christine Gregoire tried to persuade the Legislature to pass a cap-and-trade program.[1]  In 2015 Gov. Jay Inslee (D) tried again, to no avail.[2] Inslee’s plan labeled the state’s oil refineries and other major industrial plants “major polluters” and would have required them to buy emission allowances in an auction for the region, in conjunction with British Columbia, Oregon, and California.[3] He expected the auction to raise nearly $1 billion in revenue annually.

Because those efforts failed, Inslee has moved at a breakneck pace on an alternative plan to cap and reduce GHG emissions.  In mid-2015 Inslee tasked the state’s Department of Ecology (DOE) with proposing a clean air rule by January 2016 and adopting a final one by summer 2016 after input from stakeholders.  After meeting its deadline for issuing a proposed rule, stakeholders representing both industry and environmental concerns made it clear that the rule needed significant work.  The DOE withdrew the rule in February and issued a revised proposal May 31.  The public comment period on the new draft rule closed July 22.

The clean air rule, unlike the cap-and-trade proposal, would not have any centralized marketplace for trading emission allowances and therefore would not raise revenue for the state.[4] The updated rule “would require businesses and organizations that are responsible for large amounts of greenhouse gases like natural gas distributors, petroleum product producers and importers, power plants, metal manufacturers, waste facilities, and others to show once every three years that they’re reducing their emissions an average of 1.7 percent annually.”[5] Sarah Rees, special assistant on climate policy for the DOE, described the rule’s strategic priority as slowing climate change by capping and reducing statewide GHG emissions under the state’s existing Clean Air Act.  The goal is to have reduced emissions to 1990 levels by 2010, to 25 percent below 1990 levels by 2035, and to 50 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.  Businesses that do not sufficiently reduce emissions could comply by buying emission reduction units that businesses with extra reductions could sell.[6] The rule would use a special formula to try to address the needs of energy-intensive, trade-exposed industries in order to both target emission reductions based on comparisons with national emissions for the particular industry and encourage the business to remain, and even expand, in Washington.[7]

Scott DuBoff, who practices law in environmental and energy matters at Garvey Schubert Barer, questioned how effective the rule would be: “Despite the commendable objectives of the Washington Department of Ecology’s proposed Clean Air Rule, the state’s proposal is in tension with, among other things, the fundamental reality that the problem to which it is addressed – global climate change – requires broad national and multinational solutions.” Last week, DOE adopted the rule and declared that it will take effect October 17.

Possibility #2: A Carbon Tax

A similar goal drives Initiative 732, a citizen initiative backed by Carbon Washington, which describes itself as “a non-partisan grassroots group of individuals who are keen on bringing a BC-style carbon tax to Washington State.”[8] I-732 would establish a carbon tax starting in 2017 at $15 per ton, with gradual increases to $100 per ton by 2059 (plus adjustments for inflation).  I-732 would also reduce the state sales tax from 6.5 percent to 5.5 percent and reduce the business and occupation (B&O) tax on manufacturing from 0.44 percent of gross receipts to 0.001 percent.  To help further offset the regressive effect of the carbon tax on low-income households,[9] I-732 would fund a working family tax rebate, which would provide a 25 percent match to the federal earned income tax credit.

The goal is a revenue-neutral measure.  Greg Rock, an executive committee member at Carbon Washington, explained that its predictable pricing schedule over the next 40 years and offsets on other taxes reflect a “centrist policy” with the hope of attracting bipartisan support.  By increasing the price of carbon emissions, Carbon Washington hopes to change behaviors at all levels of the economy – industries, investors, and consumers.

Whether I-732 would achieve revenue neutrality has sparked much debate.  The Department of Revenue concluded in April that the measure would result in $800 million of lost revenue during its first five years in effect (revised from the $900 million loss the DOR projected in January).[10] The Sightline Institute, an environmental think tank, analyzed the DOR fiscal note and concluded, ‘‘I-732 is revenue neutral, to the best of anyone’s ability to forecast it.”[11] Sightline pointed to numerous difficulties in predicting the revenue effects of the various aspects of I-732 as well as several errors in the DOR’s analysis.[12] Rock enthusiastically reported that Carbon Washington has experienced a “whirlwind of activity” since Sightline issued its analysis.  He said he anticipates that the DOR fiscal note would be I-732’s major hurdle at the polls.  Most environmental groups oppose the measure largely because of its projected revenue loss.  For example, the Sierra Club said it worries that losing revenue would put “already underfunded budgets for education, social services, and the environment at greater risk” and sees even Sightline’s analysis as indicating a significant revenue loss.[13]

But another aspect of I-732 worries Drew Shirk, the DOR’s senior assistant director of tax policy: how to implement the working family tax rebate.  Washington does not have an individual income tax.  Implementing the working family tax rebate would mean creating a computer database that the DOR does not have.  The DOR fiscal note assumes that the state would need 60 or more full-time employees to administer I-732, a number Rock sees as exaggerated.  Sight-line did not examine that aspect of the DOR projection; the cost is small ($20 million) compared with other costs projected in the fiscal note.

Even if the measure achieves system wide revenue neutrality, it would not be revenue neutral regarding many individual taxpayers.  “Boeing will probably come out ahead,” Rock said, whereas Ash Grove Cement Co., which burns coal to produce cement in downtown Seattle, has told Carbon Washington that it would come out behind.  Rock admitted that Carbon Washington struggled to determine how to offset the carbon tax most effectively for manufacturers because it developed I-732 without access to companies’ financial information.  Also, some businesses previously eliminated their manufacturing B&O tax through legislative incentives for specific industries, such as food processing.[14] For those taxpayers, I-732 mostly represents an added cost.  Still, Rock said that for the manufacturing sector as a whole, the tax reductions would fully offset the cost of the carbon tax.

Some manufacturers that perform in-state extracting activities, such as logging, may experience little or no relief from I-732’s virtual elimination of the B&O tax on manufacturing.  That is because of the multiple activities tax credit, which is designed to minimize repetitive B&O tax on the same taxpayer for the same finished product.[15] Currently, a manufacturer can take a credit against the B&O tax on manufacturing for any B&O tax paid on extracting the products in the state.  If the manufacturing B&O tax is practically eliminated, the business would still have to pay full B&O tax on its extracting activities, resulting in little to no change to offset that manufacturer’s carbon tax burden.

Overall, Carbon Washington said it thinks that the off-setting reductions would encourage industries to remain in the state.  And given Washington’s abundance of hydroelectricity, which would remain untouched by any carbon pricing policy, Rock said that “businesses may flock to Washington because of its low-carbon energy” as carbon pricing efforts spread to other states.  AWB’s campaign against I-732 says the opposite, based on California’s modest rate of growth in manufacturing since it established its carbon pricing policy through the cap-and-trade program: “If the carbon tax passes, companies looking to expand or move into a new market will simply decide to go elsewhere.”[16]

Possibility #3: Both the Cap and the Tax

Though both Inslee and Carbon Washington want to reduce emissions, they strongly disagree about what mechanism would more effectively achieve that goal.  Inslee said that a cap is the most powerful mechanism for reducing emissions.  “If you go just the taxation route, the numbers you have to get to really change behavior and investment are not politically tenable,” Inslee said.[17] But Rock argued that an early indication of the effects of a carbon tax show otherwise, because British Columbia’s petroleum consumption per capita dropped 16 percent since the tax while the rest of Canada’s petroleum consumption per capita increased 3 percent.

Neither the cap nor the tax would fund mitigation, adaptation, or preventive efforts regarding reducing pollution.  I-732’s carbon tax revenue would go to the state’s general fund.  According to Rock, that is based on the belief of most economists that carbon pricing is more effective than incentives for reducing emissions.  Citing a lesson learned during his studies in sustainable energy engineering, he said, “It is always more effective to tax what you don’t want than to subsidize what you do want.”  Carbon Washington does not oppose subsidies and targeted investments, but it sees carbon pricing as the more important step.

Inslee’s emphasis on a cap suggests that, should he win a second term in November, he would implement the cap regardless of I-732’s fate.  But Rees, in discussing the clean air rule in May, said that would not be the case.  She said that businesses would not have to contend with both the clean air rule and the carbon tax if I-732 passes.  On the other hand, Rock said he sees no reason why a cap and a tax could not coexist.  He explained that the tax is simply a mechanism to put a price on carbon emissions, similar to a trading mechanism through a marketplace like California’s, and that a cap and a tax, even if operating separately, could be effective.  Some have even contemplated the possibility of a cap-and-trade system combined with a carbon tax or with other tax elements, such as tax credits.[18] Still others have argued that a cap-and-trade program is the equivalent of a tax.[19] At this point, all options seem possible in Washington.

Possibility #4: Other Options

Through all this, AWB, while supporting the overarching goal of reducing carbon emissions, has argued that Washington businesses have already worked hard to make Washington one of the greenest states in the country.  AWB is sponsoring a “No on 732”campaign based on the premise that “we should lead the world by continuing to reduce emissions through collaboration and innovation.”[20] AWB has highlighted business efforts on that front for years, such as in its annual Green Manufacturing Award, which recognizes businesses that have “maximized energy efficiency levels, gone above and beyond regulatory requirements, minimized waste from the production process and reduced its carbon footprint.”[21] Similarly, the Washington Business for Climate Action, a group of businesses, many of which are well-known leaders in the state, joined together in recent years around a declaration that supports businesses’ voluntary efforts, such as investments in renewable energy, clean technologies, and energy efficiency.[22] That group has apparently taken no official position with regard to either the clean air rule or I-732.

A major concern with any environmental regulation is that the added costs could burden local businesses to the point that they cannot compete against businesses in locations where environmental laws are more lax, or that local businesses themselves move to those locations.  Having a clean domestic plant that provides the local community with jobs and tax revenue is far preferable overall to importing products from a dirty or dangerous plant.  Any measure to reduce emissions must ensure that it will not impair the competitiveness of the states’ businesses.  Both the proposed clean air rule and I-732 say they would avoid harm to Washington businesses.  Regardless, though, some businesses would inevitably suffer under either regime.

Property taxes could also change as an unintended consequence of either regime.  Companies that face increased burdens under the clean air rule or I-732 may, as a result, experience a change in the market value of their property.  According to Chris Davis, Inslee’s adviser on carbon markets, discussions of climate policy disregard that as a factor.  But for companies whose products are inextricably tied to emitting carbon dioxide, the ultimate goal of those policies is an effect similar to that of Prohibition on a brewery or a distillery.  Property specific to brewing beer or distilling alcohol would have naturally suffered extraordinary obsolescence when those products became illegal.  That type of external force can produce a drastic decline in a property’s market value and its assessed value for property taxes.  Though often overlooked, that is one of the likely impacts under either the cap or tax scenario.  Their effect on both carbon-intensive businesses and the communities that depend on the businesses’ value for property tax revenue should be considered.

Conclusion

The carbon controversy in Washington is part of a much older debate: Should we use taxes to influence behavior or should we strive for tax neutrality in which only direct regulation and government subsidies regulate behaviors?[23] Tax systems routinely feature attempts to regulate behaviors: Sin taxes seek to reduce tobacco and alcohol use and Pigouvian taxes seek to charge those who engage in undesirable activities for the social costs they cause.  Some argue that tax laws should serve as a mechanism for addressing “the externalities of the harmful effects of carbon, which the market does not take into account”;[24] others contend that taxes should serve strictly “for raising revenue, not engineering whatever it is we’re trying to engineer this week.”[25] The bottom line, however, is that taxes and regulations can be effective in changing behaviors but can also impose costs on businesses and consumers.

Whether consciously or not, Washington voters will weigh in on this perennial debate in November.  The state may tax carbon emissions or cap emissions by means of a new clean air rule – with the possibility of both at some point.  Neither of those two mechanisms is intended to raise revenue for the state.  But either way, some will face significant costs with the changes.

Michelle DeLappe is an owner in the Seattle office of Garvey Schubert Barer, where she specializes in state and local tax. Garvey Schubert Barer are the Idaho and Washington representatives of American Property Tax Counsel, the national affiliation of property tax attorneys. Michelle can be reached at mdelappe@gsblaw.com.

The value of a hotel for purposes of tax assessment is not the same number as its value as a going concern.  Understanding the difference between the two will save the hotel owner from an excessive property tax bill.

For assessors, the challenge is to correctly distinguish taxable assets from the non-taxable, and therein lies both a problem and an opportunity. By fully separating the assets, the property owner may reduce its taxes. But failing to properly prove the allocation results in the owner paying real estate taxes on non-real estate—and likely non-taxable property.

Let’s step back for a moment and note that hotel operation comprises four closely related asset components: land; the building or buildings; furniture, fixtures and equipment; and the business itself.

The main distinction here is that land and buildings are taxable as real estate, whereas the business components and fixtures, furniture and equipment are not. Nevertheless, each asset component is tightly linked to the others in making up the value of the going concern.

Reckoning Value

Because these assets are investments, each must generate income to justify its cost. Calculating the return of and on these investments can serve to separate the asset’s value from the going concern and isolate the real estate value.

Clearly, room revenue in a hotel operation is based on more than nightly room charges; it also includes income attributable to the furnishings and services. Separating the value of furniture, fixtures and equipment is the obvious first step to allocating the assets. Assuming that the taxpayer can make a supportable estimate of the market value of the fixtures, furniture and equipment, the taxpayer can then subtract the value attributable to the use of, and profit from,  those items. In other words, the value calculation should recognize both a return of—and a return on—furniture, fixtures and equipment.

To be sure, furnishings are hardly the only investment in hotel operations. Services such as marketing and reservation systems, food and beverage, recreational amenities, and quality of the flag or brand, among other components, all contribute to the property’s value.

These cost centers are business assets that are part of the going concern, but they are not taxable as real estate. Still, many assessors mistakenly accept only the removal of the depreciated cost of the furniture, fixtures and equipment, and erroneously attribute the full net operating income to the real estate. Crucially, that includes the non-taxable business income associated with the hotel operation.

In order to pay tax only on the real estate, property owners should allocate value to the non-taxable business assets. That step allows the owner to more accurately segregate the value of the real estate from the going concern.

Robust Debate

Within the valuation community, there is robust debate over the extent of items related to business value that should be removed from the going concern. Some appraisers go so far as to assign a value to the initial investment in personnel and training, while others may just remove the food and beverage component and apply a rent to the restaurant or meeting space.

Make no mistake: Appraisers and courts agree that a business value component exists. When that value is clearly demonstrated and the valuation is properly supported, courts and appraisers will also agree that it should be removed from the going concern in order to isolate the real estate. Until persuaded otherwise, however, taxing authorities usually take the position that expenses associated with hotel cost centers offset the income, and the management and franchise fees cover all of the business and intangible values associated with a hotel.

Blending the contributory value of the furnishings and business with the real estate is a disservice to the taxpayer and unjustifiably burdens the property with an excessive fixed cost. A well-developed real estate appraisal for a lodging property will go beyond addressing the value of the going concern, and will also analyze each asset category to correctly identify the taxable real estate component. By drilling down into the operation of the property and segregating the asset components, a capable valuation expert may be able to offer some relief to the taxpayer.

The final key to minimize taxes is local knowledge. This requires an understanding of the jurisdiction and the methodologies that local tax assessors find acceptable, and knowing the personalities of opposing counsel and appraisers. Many ideas surround asset allocation, and knowing which ones to employ may keep hotel owners from overpaying real estate taxes.

J. Kieran Jennings is a partner in the law firm of Siegel Jennings Co. LPA, the Ohio and Western Pennsylvania member of American Property Tax Counsel, the national affiliation of property tax attorneys. He can be reached at kjennings@siegeltax.com.

Anthony C. Barna, MAI, SRA, is a principal of Pittsburgh appraisal firm Kelly\Rielly\Nell\Barna Associates.   He specializes in appraisal and consulting for litigatgion support.  He can be reached at tony@krnbvaluation.com.                                                         

Pittsburgh resolves to reduce taxpayers' inflated property assessments.

Politics makes strange bed fellows. Pittsburgh's city council recently ordered its finance director to draft policies that protect taxpayers from assessment appeals by the city, and even to file appeals on taxpayers' behalf.

Unlike many states, Pennsylvania allows the three entities that levy real estate taxes (counties, schools and municipalities) to appeal annual real estate assessments, just as taxpayers do.

Taxpayers file appeals when they believe their property is over-assessed, in order to reduce their assessment and their real estate taxes.

When taxing authorities file annual appeals, they seek to increase assessments and taxes. The city of Pittsburgh has historically filed appeals following the sale of a property assessed at a lower value than the sale price. This practice, where taxing authorities essentially sue individual taxpayers (and voters) to increase real estate tax payments, is common in Western Pennsylvania.

In a strange twist, first-term city councilman Dan Gilman recently introduced legislation to limit the city's ability to file increase appeals and, in some cases, to even direct the city to file appeals to decrease property assessments. The resolution passed and the mayor signed the measure on Feb. 23.

The resolution starts off with two self-limiting provisions. First, it bars the city from appealing the assessment of a property for two years after the property sells. Second, the resolution prohibits the city from using a property's sale price as the basis for an appeal seeking an assessment increase.

These provisions restrict the city from doing what it is permitted to do by Pennsylvania statute, which states that "[Any county, city, . . school district . . which may feel aggrieved by any assessment of any property . . shall have the right to appeal" an assessment the same as the property's owner.

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

David "J.R." Sachs, president of A-1 Van Service recently battled Pittsburgh taxing authorities over his property's assessment, and believes the new resolution is a good idea.

After Sachs purchased three dilapidated buildings and contaminated land along the banks of the Allegheny River in 2013, the school district appealed his assessment, seeking an increase to the purchase price. Sachs saw his assessment mushroom from $489,800 to $540,000 following the appeal, while the assessments of neighboring properties without recent sale prices remained unchanged.

The new resolution "gives people a chance to invest in their properties and improve them before getting hit with a tax increase," Sachs says.

Perhaps most unusual is the resolution's requirement directing the city to generate a list of properties with assessments 50 percent or more greater than their market value, and to "appeal values downward on behalf of those owners." This provision turns current practice on its head.

In a taxpayer-initiated appeal seeking an assessment reduction, the city's legal department has historically defended the assessment and fought against reductions. Now, the city will be required to file appeals seeking reductions on behalf of taxpayers.

This last provision is not entirely unprecedented in Pittsburgh. In 2005, Allegheny County, where Pittsburgh is located, conducted a countywide reassessment following a court mandate, releasing the new assessment figures but refusing to certify the assessment. Instead, the county resisted implementing the assessments in litigation that wound up in Pennsylvania's Supreme Court.

During this litigation, in April 2006, Allegheny County filed 11,000 appeals on behalf of taxpayers who saw their assessments rise since the prior reassessment in 2002 as a result of previous appeals by school districts or municipalities. Allegheny County brought these appeals to hearing and requested reductions. City and school district representatives appeared and defended the assessments.

The city's recent initiative may have unintended consequences, according to Pittsburgh lawyer, Michael I. Werner of ZunderWerner, LLP. Werner has extensive experience representing property owners in appeals of their property assessments. "When the county did the same thing in 2006, property owners were confused. In some instances, the owners did not want the county to file appeals on their properties," he says. "This put us in an odd position: Because the owner was not the appellant, we were unable to withdraw the appeals. The county was trying to help, but they inadvertently created new obstacles for many property owners."

"It is a noble thing they are trying to do, but it raises the question of whether a city employee, who does not know the specific property and who does not have an attorney-client relationship with the property owner, is in a position to properly represent that owner's interests," Werner says. "City-initiated appeals to reduce an assessment should only be filed at the request of the property owner."

The city's resolution also calls for its finance director to collaborate with the Pittsburgh school district and Allegheny County to implement and expand its new policies. Given the history, it seems unlikely that the school district will join the city, either in self-limiting its appeal rights or in filing appeals seeking lower assessments.

Pennsylvania school systems are strapped for cash due to the state legislature's budget impasse: lawmakers are more than eight months past deadline to pass the 2015-2016 budget, and many school districts have been forced to take out loans to meet operating expenses. Increasingly, school districts have become more aggressive in filing increase appeals as they seek new sources of revenue.

What happens next is open for debate. Even though Pittsburgh's mayor ratified the resolution on Feb. 23, one councilwoman introduced a measure on Feb. 22 to repeal it. The new proposal remains in committee. All assessment appeals for properties in Pittsburgh were due March 31, and hearings will begin in May and June.

Sharon DiPaolo is a partner in the law firm of Siegel Jennings Co., L.P.A., the Ohio and Western Pennsylvania member of American Property Tax Counsel, the national affiliation of property tax attorneys. She can be reached at sdipaolo@siegeltax.com.

Smartphones lead the way in making mobile a key player in consumer purchases in-store and online.

The battle between physical stores and online retail rages on, but the recent explosion in smartphone usage is blurring the battle lines. Using smartphones, consumers in a store now can simultaneously shop and compare pricing and product availability at competing stores or online. The practice is sometimes referred to as “showrooming.” Increasingly, retailers must simultaneously invest in the problem. a combination of brick-and-mortar stores, websites, digital marketing and merchandise delivery to sell goods.

Only the real estate component of that infrastructure is subject to property tax. If property owners identify the portion of store sales attributable at least partially to online shopping, they can argue for taxable property values more accurately based on the remaining sales volume attributable to a store’s physical location and condition.

Retailers that think mobile is a channel use the wrong metrics to measure the smartphone’s impact on retail. Smart retailers focus on the impact on overall business rather than trying to measure only app downloads or channel sales.

Extrapolating a retail property’s value from base rent is relatively easy, but what happens when rent is based on sales? How do sales that take place in the store via smartphone, or online transactions that stem from a store visit, affect percentage rent?

Assessors and appraisers don’t yet have satisfactory answers to these questions and developing appropriate metrics is challenging. Taxpayers can help shape the debate, and their own tax liability, by understanding the problem.

Digital Influence Spreads

The lion’s share of U.S. retail sales continues to revolve around physical stores. Forrester Research reports that in 2015, e-commerce sales totaled approximately $334 billion, while off-line sales totaled $2.9 trillion, more than eight times more. However, many offline sales were digitally influenced, meaning shoppers connected with digital touch points, particularly mobile phones.

Forrester estimates that $1.2 trillion of U.S. retail sales in 2015 were web-influenced, and that by 2020, $1.6 trillion of all off-line retail sales will be web-influenced. The penetration of online buyers using smartphones increased to 86 percent in 2015, up from 54 percent in 2011, Forrester found.

Shoppers want to receive products quicker and cheaper than ever before, but still prefer to shop in physical stores in order to touch merchandise and obtain products immediately. Successful physical retailers combine physical stores and digital tools, enabling customers to touch and receive goods in a more cost-effective way than ever before.

Physical retailers must realize the key role smartphones play in unlocking sales. American adults use smartphones to locate stores and to check store hours, requiring retailers to keep websites current. Forrester estimates that in the first quarter of 2016, more than one-quarter of U.S. online mobile phone users ages 18 to 34 used their phones to compare prices online for products they were considering buying.

Shoppers also research product information on smartphones, often while in a store. Retailers, therefore, must monitor price variances and adjust prices in real time, against both physical and virtual competition.

Physical retailers also need to address perceived problems with off-line shopping, such as long lines and out-of-stock merchandise. Some sophisticated retailers have addressed these issues by developing store-specific data. Forrester reports that companies such as Target and The Home Depot now direct shoppers, via smartphones, to look for items in specific locations within stores, thereby reducing wait time and frustration. Nike store employees can look up inventory and make sales immediately with their smartphones. Shipping continues to pose a problem for both physical and virtual retailers. When the product is in stock, the physical retailer does not have a problem. However, maintaining inventory in stores potentially imposes the added costs of the inventory itself, additional rent and associated property taxes.

In January 2016, The Wall Street Journal reported that Gap, Inc., which includes retailers Banana Republic and Old Navy, was narrowing its free shipping window to 5 to 7 business days, down from 7 to 9 business days. Is this enough to satisfy the demands of consumers who expect immediate delivery of products, particularly from physical retailers?

Challenge to Retailers

Physical retailers face three very expensive budget items: associates, real estate occupancy costs (including taxes) and inventory. They must create a more pleasurable, yet competitive, shopping experience in order to beat digital competitors. Stores must become increasingly immersive and engaging experiences that enable customers to do everything from trying on wearable goods to playing with and testing products, or attending cooking classes and food demonstrations. The importance of enhancing the shopping experience in physical stores often means creating easy availability to other amenities such as restaurants and coffee bars.

While it may seem counterintuitive, the quality of a retailer’s online presence will influence sales, and hence the underlying value of the retailer as a tenant in a shopping center. Developers need to attract retailers who simultaneously focus on brick-and-mortar store sales, websites, digital marketing and merchandise delivery to sell goods. Percentage rent clauses in leases must appropriately capture sales.

All of this takes money and increases the complexity of measuring costs. Costs, such as property taxes, play a key role as retailers compete for sales and profits. Online retailers generally pay property taxes for distribution centers but can often reduce this cost by obtaining tax incentives, such as fee in lieu of tax agreements. Physical retailers, which often have a greater impact on the local economy, have less leverage to control property taxes. They face the challenge of showing assessors how mobile technology and e-commerce, not location alone, impact sales.

In January 2016, Forrester reported that “too often, companies measure what they can, rather than what they should, because they lack the analytics to generate the insights they need. Retailers track mobile sales rather than influenced sales because they can, and, more often than not, do treat mobile as a [separate] sales channel.”

This is precisely the problem tax assessors and physical retailers face in measuring mobile technology’s impact on a retail property. The assessor’s job is to value the real estate, not the business, which is increasingly affected by mobile innovation. Theoretically, one can use only in-store sales volume in the valuation but to what degree is a store-front simply an advertising medium — like a billboard. Stores can encourage customers to order while browsing at the store but have it shipped to their house and/or pickup at a nearby location that has lower property tax, possibly a warehouse on a side street.

Increasingly, retailers must balance between the physical and the virtual, with the smartphone serving as the key touchpoint. Retail success is still about location — location of the actual shopper inside or outside the store, at home, at work, at a competitor’s store or on a website or smartphone  — it’s just not about physical storefronts anymore.

Morris Ellison is a partner in the Charleston, S.C., office of the law firm Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice LLP. The firm is the South Carolina member of American Property Tax Counsel, the national affiliation of property tax attorneys. Morris Ellison can be reached at mellison@wcsr.com.

Tax Exemptions Can Apply To Income-Producing Real Estate From Apartments To Manufacturing Facilities

The construction cranes that punctuate our city skylines confirm that economic recovery is again driving commercial real estate development. Property tax considerations should not be the tail that wags the dog when it comes to timing construction or leasing. However, the savvy investor and tax manager may want to make sure they are not leaving money on the table by overlooking potential tax savings. Most should also be aware that, in many states, property under construction is exempt from property taxes.

Most states encourage the development of commercial and industrial facilities by sheltering construction projects from the payment of property taxes until the property is in use or occupied, and therefore producing income to pay the taxes. As with most property tax exemptions, however, taxpayers must follow statutory procedures and meet specific conditions to qualify. Frankly, many taxpayers inadvertently fail to meet the criteria for receiving the full benefit of the tax  exemption.

A tax exemption typically will apply to a commercial or industrial building under construction, including ramps, loading docks, and paved areas used for parking or storage built in conjunction with the project. In most states, the key to receive the exemption is that the property must be constructed to produce an income.

Exemptions most often apply to hotels, apartments, office buildings, retail stores and manufacturing plants. Even a condominium project may be entitled to the exemption because it is built to produce an income. A qualifying income may be from a one-time sale of the property, as with a condominium project, or an ongoing income stream from a lease or use of the property in business.

The tax exemption may also apply to construction of an addition in an existing building or structure, such as a new wing for a building already on a site. In most cases, the modification must change the nature of the building, perhaps increasing manufacturing space or adding a new wing onto a shopping mall, thus increasing the property's income-producing potential.

In many states, the construction exemption also applies to machinery added to the space. This is usually limited to machinery and equipment installed or affixed to the new building, structure or addition. Unfortunately, most states disallow equipment installed subsequent to construction to qualify for this construction-in-progress exemption.

The exemption seldom applies to preparing the land for construction. That means that site development such as excavation or grading the property to prepare for construction will not qualify as property under construction for a tax exemption.

An exemption will be denied if the applicant fails to meet one of the conditions. For example, in Oregon the property must be under construction on Jan. 1 of the assessment year. As discussed earlier, site preparation is not considered part of the construction, nor is demolition of an existing building; construction commences when work begins on the foundation.

Timing can be critical to securing the tax exemption. In Oregon, if the user occupies any part of the property before Jan. 1 of the year following the year for which the exemption is claimed, the property is disqualified for a construction-based tax exemption.

Partial occupancy is one of the fatal stumbles that many taxpayers make, losing their tax exemption. For example, user occupancy of the first floor retail space in a multi-story commercial or apartment building would disqualify the entire building from exemption, even if floors 10-15 are still under construction on Jan. 1. Thus, the occupancy of the retail space, in advance of the apartment complex completion, may result in hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost property tax exemption.

Additionally, many jurisdictions require a full year of construction, from Jan. 1 to Jan. 1, to qualify for a property tax exemption. If the building is first occupied on day 363 of the tax year, then the property owner could lose the entire year of property tax exemption.

Finally, most states require that the taxpayer apply for an exemption before starting construction. Oregon's statute requires the applicant to file the application on or before April 1 of the assessment year for which the exemption is claimed.

Most states limit how long a taxpayer may benefit from the tax exempt status for property under construction. Usually, this exemption is no more than two consecutive years.

The taxpayer must carefully review their statutes to determine the criteria and conditions for a construction-in-progress tax exemption. The under construction provision is one of many exemptions that can yield significant tax savings for property owners who take the initiative to learn effective tax strategies for their markets. This is particularly true of the commercial projects taking shape under those construction cranes gracing our skylines today.

Cynthia M. Fraser is a partner at the law firm Garvey Schubert Barer where she specializes in property tax and condemnation litigation. Ms. Fraser is the Oregon representative of American Property Tax Counsel, the national affiliation of property tax attorneys. Ms. Fraser can be reached at cfraser@gsblaw.com.

How to spot - and challenge - unfair tax bills
Even if there is life left in this market cycle, commercial property owners should maximize returns now in preparation for the next buyer’s market, whenever it may begin. Property tax is one of the largest expenses for most owners, so protecting the property, investment and tenants requires a thorough understanding of the tax system. With that understanding, the taxpayer will be better equipped to spot an inflated assessment and contest unfair tax bills.

Keep it (fee) simple
Merely knowing for how much a property would sell is insufficient to ensure proper taxation. Specifically, taxpayers need to know fair taxation starts with a fair measurement of value.

The assessment is the measurement to which taxing entities apply the tax rate. In order to treat all taxpayers uniformly, assessors must measure the fee simple value of the property, or the value without any encumbrance other than police power.

Why is that important? The principle is that a leased property and an identical owner occupied property, valued on the same date and under the same market conditions, would be taxed the same. By contrast, leased fee value or value affected by encumbrances can vary greatly, even between identical properties. The concept is simple; the application, not so simple.

Assessors and courts alike struggle to determine an asset’s fundamental real estate value because their primary source of data is leased-fee sales, or sales priced to reflect cash flow from existing leases. Several courts across the country have understood the necessity to assess properties uniformly and have mandated that assessors adjust sales data to reflect the unencumbered value of the real estate.

In Ohio, the state Supreme Court ruled that an appraiser who was valuing an unencumbered property had to adjust the sale prices of comparable properties to reflect the fact that the subject property was unencumbered (by leases, for example) and would therefore likely sell for less. The decision recognized that an encumbered sale is affected by factors besides the fundamental value of the real estate.

Courts across the country have been wrestling with the fee simple issue. For real estate professionals, the idea that tenancy, lease rates, credit worthiness and other contractual issues affect value is commonplace. In order to tax in a uniform manner, however, assessors must strip non-market and non-property factors from the asset to value the property’s bare bricks, sticks and dirt.

Doing the math
Although part of the purchase price, contractual obligations and other valuable tenant-related attributes are not components of real estate. What is part of the real estate is the value attributable to what the property might command in rent as of a specific date. This may appear to be splitting hairs, but the difference between values based on these calculations can be significant.

In the first instance, the landlord and tenant have a contractual obligation. For example, suppose the rent a tenant pays under a 20-year-old lease were $30 per square foot. If the tenant were to vacate, however, that space might only rent for $10 per square foot today. The additional $20 per square foot premium is in the value of the contract, not the value of the real estate. Moreover, the contract only holds that value if the market believes the tenant is creditworthy and will continue to pay an above-market price.

When the tenant vacates, it’s the real estate itself that determines the current market-rate lease of $10.

Good data, good results
Identifying an inflated assessment brings the taxpayer halfway to a solution. Step two is finding the best way to challenge the inappropriate assessment. Each state has its own tax laws and history of court decisions, but a few key principles will help taxpayers achieve a fee simple value.

First, sales and rents must have been exposed to the open market. A lease based on construction and acquisition costs reflects only the cost of financing the acquisition and construction of a building, not market prices.

Another principle assessors often fail to apply is that the data they use must be proximate to the date of the tax assessment. Therefore, a lease established years before the assessment is not proximate, even if the lease itself is still current.

What does make for good data is a lease that has been exposed to the open market, where the property was already built when the landlord and tenant agreed to terms free of compulsion. Equally reliable is the sale of a vacant and available property, or where the lease in place reflects market terms proximate to the assessment date.

Taxpayers who challenge assessments that are not based on fee simple values help themselves maintain market occupancy costs, which will in turn lead to better leasing opportunities and retention of tenants.

J. Kieran Jennings is a partner in the law firm of Siegel Jennings Co. LPA, the Ohio and Western Pennsylvania member of American Property Tax Counsel, the national affiliation of property tax attorneys. He can be reached at kjennings@siegeltax.com.

But in every instance, obtaining an exemption requires timely and accurate applications.

It is a common misconception in Indiana that property owners must also be non-profit corporations to qualify for a property tax exemption. While tax-exempt status is critical for the application of some exemptions, Indiana law provides for-profit property owners with opportunities to reduce their tax liabilities by claiming exemption.

To obtain the exemption, the property owner must show that it uses the property in a manner that qualifies for tax exemption, and the application must clear mandated procedural hurdles.

There are several property uses that may qualify for exemption from property tax liability. Here are five common scenarios:

1. The property is owned, occupied and predominantly used for charitable, educational, religious, literary or scientific purposes — To qualify, the owner must file an exemption application and show that it owns the property to further one of these tax exempt purposes.
   
   Ownership, occupancy and use need not be unified in one entity, and the statute does not require the owner to be a non-profit.
   
   For example, the tax court in 2014 approved a 100 percent property tax exemption for an office building that a for-profit, limited liability company owned to further the charitable tissue bank operations of its tenant, a related public benefit corporation. The assessor failed to show that the for-profit owner, in fact, had a profit motive for the property.
   
   Similarly, in a final determination issued that same year, the Indiana Board of Tax Review — the state agency that adjudicates property tax exemption appeals — stated that "involvement of for-profit entities does not preclude a property tax exemption.
   
   In this latter case, a for-profit entity leased a building to another for-profit entity to provide early childhood education.
   
   A year earlier, the tax review board approved the 100 percent exemption of a building owned by an individual and leased to a for-profit, faith-based daycare.
   
   Starting in 2015, the Indiana Legislature explicitly authorized the exemption of property owned by a for-profit provider of certain early childhood education services.
2. The property is leased to a state agency — Property owned by a for-profit entity and leased to an Indiana state agency qualifies for exemption, but the lease must require the state agency to reimburse the property owner for property taxes.
   The exemption applies only to the assessed value attributable to the part of the real estate that the agency leases.
3. The property is leased to a political subdivision — Structures leased to political subdivisions, including municipal corporations, are exempt from property tax.
4. The property is leased to a public university — The Indiana Board of Tax Review considered this provision in 2013, applying a 13 percent property tax exemption for the portion of a for-profit commercial property owner's building that was leased to Purdue University for use as classrooms.
5. The property is used as a public airport — To qualify for this measure, the owner of an Indiana airport must hold a valid and current public airport certificate issued by the State Department of Transportation. The law states that the applicant may claim an exemption "for only so much of the land as is reasonably necessary to and used for public airport purposes."

Eligible property includes not only the ground used for taking off and landing of aircraft, but also real estate "owned by the airport owner and used directly for airport operation and maintenance purposes" or "used in providing for the shelter, storage, or care of aircraft, including hangars."

The exemption does not apply to areas used solely for purposes unrelated to aviation.

How to apply

What is the process for claiming a tax exemption? Beginning in 2016, applications are due April 1, six weeks earlier than in past years. Indiana's Department of Local Government Finance provides a standard exemption form, Form 136, available on the agency's website at http://www.in.gov/dlgf/8516.htm.

The form can be used to claim both real and personal property tax exemptions. It includes three pages of questions and identifies the information and documents needed to process the request.

The property owner is responsible for explaining why the property is exempt to the assessor and to the county property tax assessment board of appeals, which has the authority to review and approve or reject each application.

Owners may need to provide in-formation beyond what the form requires. For example, assessors often want to review the relevant leases, such as a lease to a state agency or political subdivision. Indiana has 92 counties, and each county has its own procedures for processing applications.

There is no universally reliable test for weighing applications for tax exemption, so each claim stands on its own facts. Whether an owner's property qualifies for the exemption will depend on the statute under which the exemption is claimed and the particular evidence provided to support the claim.

Miss the filing deadline?

Exemptions are not automatically applied each year, but property that has been previously granted an exemption under certain provisions may not require new applications annually, depending on the facts of the case.

If the exemption does not carry forward and the owner fails to properly claim an exemption, it may be waived.

Even if the exemption is waived, however, hope remains. The owner may be able to obtain a legislative solution that permits a retroactive filing for an otherwise untimely application.

Brent A. Auberry is a partner in the Indianapolis office of the law firm Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, the Indiana member of American Property Tax Counsel (APTC), the natonal affiliation of property tax attorneys. Mr. Auberry can be reached at brent.auberry@faegrebd.com

As the commercial real estate industry continues its slow but steady recovery, investment in large, speculative real estate developments and new construction is returning, and surpassing pre-recession levels in many markets.  By their nature, large developments often take longer to construct than smaller projects, and this lengthy construction time can generate higher carrying costs for a developer at a time when the property is not generating income.

One of the largest expenses for commercial real estate is property tax.  The property tax burden can be even more onerous when the development does not yet have tenants, who ordinarily would reimburse the developer for taxes, or whose rent would otherwise provide the funds to pay taxes on the property.

As the number of large-scale construction projects ramps up, many properties will be under construction on a given assessment date, on the date on which an assessor values the property for that year’s property taxes.  This raises questions as to how and whether the property should be assessed, and the answers to those questions may provide opportunities for taxpaying developers to reduce their carrying costs.

Most states value property using a fair market value standard, and assess a property based on its value to the market.  Other states apply a market-value-in-use standard, which seeks to value the property’s current use.  In both systems, a property that is partially build on the assessment date would arguably have limited or no value because it is unable to generate income for its owner.  Further, as seen in many markets during the recent recession, few buyers are willing to purchase a partially constructed building.

In either circumstance, the property’s in-progress status would significantly hinder its value.  Even the value of the land would be impaired, because a buyer wanting that land would have to demolish the existing construction to begin anew.

Nevertheless, many states authorize local tax assessors to value developments for tax purposes while still under construction.  The means employed by assessors vary, and some states lack explicit guidance on how assessors should perform such a valuation.

Despite the many issues involved in valuing a property that is only partially built, some assessors create another layer of difficulty by assessing only some partially constructed projects on any given assessment date.  A recent review of the assessments in one midsized US market revealed that only one of the many projects in the construction pipeline was assessed as “construction in progress.”  Every other partially built property maintained its prior value until the project was completed and placed in service.

Aside from the apparent inequity of this situation, it raises potential legal ramifications as well.  Nearly every state’s constitution requires that property taxes be assessed and administered uniformly and equally.  Under these provisions, which are at the heart of the modern data-based property tax system, if two properties are identical, then the process by which they are assessed should be identical and the resulting values should be identical.  The techniques used to value one property in a jurisdiction should apply to all similar properties.

As the recovery continues for commercial real estate, assessors are eager to restore the tax rolls to pre-recession values or higher.  But that restoration of tax rolls should not come at the expense of developers who have major projects under way.

Whether in-progress buildings should even be assessed is questionable, but if they are, then every property should be subject to the same standard.  Increasing the value of only select projects violates state constitutions.  Fortunately, those same constitutions give developers an avenue to challenge their unfair tax liabilities.

Reprinted with permission from the “ISSUE DATE” edition of the “PUBLICATION”© 2016 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All rights reserved.

Further duplication without permission is prohibited. ALMReprints.com – 877-257-3382 - reprints@alm.com.

Stephen Paul is a partner and Benjamin Blair is an associate in the Indianapolis office of the law firm of Faegre Baker Daniels, LLP, the Indiana and Iowa member of American Property Tax Counsel. They can be reached at stephen.paul@faegrebd.com or benjamin.blair@faegrebd.com.  The views expressed here are the authors' own.

"The varying directions of price trends demonstrate that now, more than ever, Atlanta property owners should closely review property tax assessments and make specific determinations regarding the correctness of the valuation. General sales trends and perceptions provide insufficient basis for deciding whether or not to appeal the county assessment notice..."

The year following a real estate acquisition is a critical tax year or the property's owner. An assessor will typically latch onto the recent sale price to support a reassessment of the property's taxable value to equal that transaction amount, effective in the following tax year.

When the new assessment arrives, some taxpayers will recognize the familiar sales price amount reflected in the property's assessed taxable value, breathe a sigh of resignation and plan to be taxed accordingly. Yet there is good reason to question the new assessment's accuracy, even if it equals the acquisition price.

Georgia law provides that the transaction amount a buyer pays for real estate in an arms-length, bona fide acquisition shall be the property's maximum allowable fair market value for property tax purposes for the following tax year. Accordingly, purchasers of property in one tax year should expect to receive ad valorem tax assessment notices for the subsequent tax year at a value no higher than the purchase price. In other words, the taxable value may be lower than the acquisition amount.

Differentiate Price, Value

There are several analyses that a wise taxpayer should consider when reviewing the tax assessment received in the year following the property's purchase.

Some county taxing authorities use the purchase price as the taxable value for the next tax year by default. That price may not be an appropriate valuation, however.

Often the assessor is unaware that the purchase price may reflect an analysis of factors other than the value of the real estate alone, and that the price, therefore, may exceed the true fair market value. In that event, the taxpayer should identify and explain those factors to the assessor.

Examples might be special financing arrangements, the financial stability of certain tenants, the duration of existing rental terms, or the transference of non-real estate items such as personal property and/or intangibles. Intangibles may include an in-place work force, favorable contracts for property management or other non-taxable items.

Another potential consideration is that the property's financial performance may have varied from the expectations the purchaser entertained at the time of the acquisition. Perhaps physical changes to the property since the time of purchase have decreased its value; for example, the owner may have razed or demolished part of the improvements in preparation for remodeling or repair that did not occur before Jan. 1.

In short, the purchaser should not blindly accept a transaction value from the previous year as the real estate's de facto taxable value.

Is It Fair?

Be on the lookout for sale-chasing assessors. Sale chasing occurs when a tax assessor changes assessments only on properties sold in a given year and leaves assessments unchanged on similar properties that did not change hands.

Property owners should be diligent, comparing the assessment of newly purchased property relative to assessments of similar properties in the same market that have not sold, to determine if their own assessment is accurate. Compare assessments of similar properties on a per-square-foot basis, a per-key basis, or on a per-unit basis, depending on the property type, to determine if a question about fairness in valuation may exist, and whether further analysis is warranted.

In addition to comparing the assessment of the purchased property to the assessments of comparable properties that have not sold, the wise property owner should also compare the assessment to the assessments of com-parable properties in the same market that were sold in the preceding year.

The taxpayer may need to calculate and compare a gross rent multiplier ratio. To determine this ratio, divide the assessment of the real estate by its annual rental income before expenses such as taxes, insurance, utilities, etc. (It may require a market survey or direct inquiry to acquire that data.)

While this method ignores differences in vacancy rates, if the gross rent multiplier for the taxpayer's real estate is much higher than the multiplier for similar properties that sold in the same market and calendar year as the subject property, then the taxpayer may have a legitimate cause for complaint.

In a hypothetical example, a property sold for $25.3 million in 2014, has the potential to generate $2.5 million in rent annually, and received a 2015 county tax assessment of $25.25 million. The ratio of the county assessment divided by the rent potential results in a gross rent multiplier of 10.1.

Another property sold in 2014 at a price of $27.4 million, has annual rent potential of $3.4 million, and the 2015 county tax assessment on this property was $23.2 million. This second property's gross rent multiplier is 6.82. A third property that did not sell was assessed at $30.68 million for 2015 and its annual rent potential was $4.5 million, resulting in a gross rent multiplier of 6.82.

After making these comparisons, the taxpayer in this example can make a good argument for a lower assessment. It is worth mentioning that taxpayers must adhere strictly to applicable appeal deadlines.

Clearly, sale price does not necessarily equal fair market value. Shrewd taxpayers in Georgia should carefully review, research and analyze their assessment notices to determine whether the county taxing authority has merely made a cursory assessment of the fair market value of their property based solely on the purchase price. If so, an appeal may be in order.

Lisa Stuckey is a partner in the Atlanta law firm of Ragsdale, Beals, Seigler, Patterson & Gray, LLP, the Georgia member of American Property Tax Counsel, the national affiliation of property tax attorneys. She can be reached at lstuckey@rbspg.com.

Easements negatively affect a property's utility and desirability, reducing its fair market value.

Property valuation for tax purposes shares a common basis with condemnation law when it comes to the impact on property owner rights.

In practical terms, imposing an easement or taking a portion of a property devalues that real estate.

Property owners have a clear legal remedy for compensation when the government takes any of the bundle of rights inherent to property ownership. There is no prescribed procedure, however, that automatically adjusts taxable property value when the government burdens the property through some form of taking.

The property owner must step up and declare that the property is being subjected to a double hit: (1) the loss of some property rights for which compensation presumably was paid; (2) the continued excessive tax burden resulting from the assessor's failure to recognize the value loss commensurate with the taking of some right or rights that contributed to the property's prior value.

The Other Shoe Drops

How do properties burdened by government easements and partial takings suffer a double value loss?

First, the use of the property for some public purpose limits its usefulness to the owner, and therefore reduces its marketability. Second, the property owner incurs an ongoing cost in unfair taxation when the assessor fails to adjust to the diminished value and reduce the value for assessment purposes.

A typical example is a taking for a utility easement across a property. The owner and government will either negotiate a price paid for the easement, or a condemnation proceeding will determine just compensation.

The government acquires the easement legally, typically paying money to do so. Yet the acquisition imposes a value loss on the remainder of the property, a loss that goes unnoted and unacknowledged by the taxing authority.

There are small differences between the loss in value resulting from the imposition of an ·easement or the taking of the fee interest in the affected property, but all takings for a public purpose result in value loss to the remainder of the real estate.

Encumbrances All Around

Some examples of loss resulting from the imposition of an easement, be it a power line, sewer line, green space or pipeline, are the interference with or elimination of future development or use of the property. There is a loss of peaceful enjoyment and use of the property during the construction and development stage, as well as the continued inhibition of full use of the property in perpetuity.

The holder of the easement rights will also have the power forever to re-enter the property to maintain, repair, alter and expand its use within the easement. That right of access usually includes a right of ingress or egress over the whole property as required to get equipment and personnel to the easement.

For instance, agricultural properties subservient to easements, such as for power lines, are subjected to maintenance and repair crews corning to repair the lines and crossing through cultivated fields. Since the lines are most often damaged during storms, the fields will be at their most vulnerable to damage and resultant crop loss.

The crop-loss scenario is equally adaptable to urban commercial property. A sewer line running under the parking lot of a big-box store, a power line across a convenience store entrance, a water line in front of a fast food restaurant, are all subject to failure or modification that could interfere with the enterprise operating on the property.

The point is that the encumbered property, if offered for sale, will not obtain the same price as a competing property that is unencumbered by such a burden.

Calculate the loss

The basic measure of compensation to acquire an easement is the fair market value of the property before the taking versus the fair market value after the taking. The difference between those values represents the compensable loss to the owner.

Assessors ignore this statutory standard, failing to recognize that a property burdened by public easements does not command the same value as unburdened or less burdened properties of similar use.

Properties that have lost size as a result of a taking for public use suffer an even greater value loss to the remainder of the asset. Assessors will typically use some database to justify their value assessment, confronting the taxpayer with statistics. The assessor will rely on market data such as asserting that hotels sell for $X per room, Class A office space for $Y per square foot, convenience stores on one-acre lots for $Z and so on.

But a commercial property diminished in size is invariably diminished in desirability, if not in outright utility.

A very small strip of land taken in front of a fast food restaurant may result in an inferior access. A taking from an office building parking lot may result in a lack of adequate parking that is usually required. The taking may render the entire property nonconforming because setback requirements and building-to-land ratios no longer meet local ordinances.

Assessors rarely, if ever, re-value properties after a taking through eminent domain or a threat of it, and lower the assessed value to reflect the property's lost competitiveness in the marketplace.

The fast food store owner knows that hamburger sales suffer after a street widening or change of access. A shopping center manager knows how diminished parking affects business. Hotel management knows the negative result of lost visibility due to a highway project. The list could go on.

The point is that easements and other takings inflict observable damage on a commercial property's utility and desirability. They all result in lost fair market value, with no acknowledgement by assessors.

Property owners appealing their tax assessments should quantify this value loss and present this data to property tax decision makers. Anything less than a fair adjustment would be an unfair, further burden to the property owner already encumbered by the public use.

Jerome Wallach is the senior partner in The Wallach Law Firm based in St. Louis, Missouri. The firm is the Missouri member of American Property Tax Counsel, the national affiliation of property tax attorneys. Jerry Wallach can be reached at jwallach@wallachlawfirm.com.

Over the past three decades, the federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) Program has proven to be a crucial tool for creating housing for low- and moderate-income residents.  Yet the communities created under the program operate on a fine margin that can be jeopardized by unfairly high property taxes.  Unfortunately, taxpayers and taxing authorities have yet to reach consensus on how to value LIHTC assets.

In the face of this dilemma, stakeholders can take action by educating assessors on the mission of the LIHTC program and accurate valuation for property tax purposes.

Codified in the Tax Reform Act of 1986, the LIHTC program offers incentives to create rental housing for low-income residents.  Eligible developers earn annual tax credits for 10 years, in an amount equal to a percentage of development costs.  In order to raise capital for development or renovation, developers typically sell those credits to investors.

The tax credits are the linchpin of the LIHTC program, because the costs of the project far exceed the value it creates.  Given the often onerous demands of the federally funded, state-managed program, projects would otherwise be infeasible.

To begin with, the LIHTC program stipulates flat rents tied to the local median income and the average number of bedrooms per multifamily unit.  At the same time, developers must pay for mandatory reporting and fund community programs.  Failure to meet those requirements during the first 15 years after a project’s completion triggers a federal recapture of the tax credits, with interest.  As a result, net operating income at LIHTC properties is often flat for many years and then declines as expenses consume more and more capital.

Sadly, many authorities mistakenly believe that the guaranteed rents generated LIHTC communities reduce the owner’s risk and make the assets more valuable than market-rate properties.   This misconception leads to overvaluation, thus inflating tax liability and likely rendering a project infeasible.

Wanted: Consensus

When valuing LIHTC properties, taxing authorities should be mindful of the program’s goal: to help communities provide housing for financially challenged people.

The generally accepted approach to valuation is the income method, which applies in-place rents and, for vacant units, LIHTC-approved rents.  Gross rents at LIHTC properties are pegged to the local median income, so rent increases tend to be minimal.

On the debit side, assessors should use actual operating expenses, which for LIHTC properties are substantially higher than those of market-rate properties.  If assessors instead value an LIHTC property based on market rents or operating expenses, they will overstate NOI and therefore the property’s true market value.

Some authorities advocate including the depreciated value of the tax credits in property tax assessments.  Taxpayers have countered that the credits’ only real value is the intangible one of providing good-quality housing for renters with moderate and low incomes.  The tax credits merely bridge the gap between construction costs and the value created through development.

Including these tax credits in the assessment erroneously produces above-market valuations and excessive tax liability for properties that are clearly less valuable than those able to charge market rents and are unburdened by LIHTC programming and reporting costs.

Many legislatures have at least partially codified the proper valuation of LIHTC properties.  In many jurisdictions where the law is silent, courts have rendered decisions addressing, at least in part, the valuation of LIHTC properties.

Given the lack of consensus on valuation, a taxpayer challenging an assessment of an LIHTC property should know the relevant statutes and case law.  In jurisdictions that lack statutory or case law, the taxpayer must make sure that authorities understand the LIHTC program and the need for policies that further its goals.

In jurisdictions where legislation has not overturned unfavorable case law, or where the code is incomplete or silent, taxpayers need to organize and lobby their legislators to act.  Ask them to codify assessment principles that lead to reasonable taxes.  That step will contribute significantly to the LIHTC program’s mission.

Emily Betsill is a partner in the Washington, D.C. law firm of Wilkes Artis Chartered.  The firm is the District of Columbia, Maryland and Virginia member of American Property Tax Counsel, the national affiliation of property tax attorneys.  You may reach Emily via email at ebetsill@wilkesartis.com

Reporting the sales price on a transaction for a real estate excise tax affidavit or refund petition can be tricky in the State of Washington, depending which side of the coin you’re on.

Seattle's hot real estate market presents two special tax-saving opportunities – or, for the unwary, two tax traps – involving Washington State's real estate excise tax.

The first arises when above-market rents in place at a property contribute to its selling price. The second occurs when the sale of a property experiences high vacancy. In both scenarios, some buyers and sellers report prices that are higher than they should be for the real estate excise tax. At nearly 1.8 percent of the property's sale price, real estate excise tax is a sizable trans-action cost that deserves attention.

Skewed By High Rents
With above-market rents, a portion of the sale price may reflect the value of contracts and business efforts. The tax only applies to the consideration paid for real estate, so the consideration paid for above-market contracts should be separated out as nontax-able.

Although we believe Washington law is clear on this, the Department of Revenue has been struggling to determine its position. The department recently agreed taxable value excludes the portion of the purchase price attributable to above-market rents, but then it changed its position.

Since these vacillations occur in the context of individual taxpayer cases, other taxpayers do not necessarily know what the department's position is at any given time. The department has not published any rules or guidance specific to this scenario.

Impaired By Vacancy
In the scenario involving the sale of a property with high vacancy, the buyer and seller frequently agree on a price as though occupancy were full and then deduct an amount for the vacancy shortfall. The deduction reflects the costs to lease the remaining space, and also the entrepreneurial profit the buyer requires for undertaking the risk and work required to achieve full occupancy.

Some parties to a transaction mistakenly report the stabilized value instead of the amount actually paid for the property. The only price they should report for tax purposes is the sum after deducting for vacancy, as that represents the actual amount paid.

Both parties have an incentive to ascertain and report the correct price on the real estate excise tax affidavit. Though the parties can negotiate who pays the tax, the seller is responsible for its payment by law. And yet, the Department of Revenue can enforce payment by placing a lien against the property, making the buyer indirectly liable.

Both buyer and seller sign the affidavit reporting the sales price, under penalty of perjury. Buyers may feel the ongoing effect of the reported price in the form of property taxes, since county assessors pay attention to the affidavits in determining property tax values. With this in mind, both parties should care about correctly reporting the transaction.

Buyers and sellers in either scenario can put themselves in a favorable tax position by presenting the information about the transaction carefully, whether in the affidavit or in a refund petition to the Department of Revenue. Note that a refund petition, if applicable, must be filed within four years of the transaction date.

Information about the transaction should be presented to the taxing authorities in a clear manner to establish the correct facts and legal analysis. In the first scenario, a detailed explanation of the facts ideally includes an appraisal that excludes the price paid for the value of the above- market leases in place, as opposed to the real property.

In reviewing the transaction, the Department of Revenue should presume the price paid is taxable, but the taxpayer can rebut that position. When the transaction price reflects more than the price for real estate alone, the department often next turns to the property's assessed value instead.

The taxpayer can argue that, by law, an appraisal as of the sale date trumps the assessed value as evidence of the taxable amount. For this reason, an appraisal is important for the above-market rent scenario.

In the high-vacancy scenario, however, the presumption applies that the price paid is taxable, and no appraisal should be needed. Therefore, the parties should report the actual price paid after accounting for the vacancy shortfall.

Recent experience indicates the Department of Revenue may choose to challenge an affidavit or deny a refund claim if it takes the position that the portion of the price attributable to above-market rent is untaxable. That does not mean the department is right, however, and its vacillations suggest its directors feel uncertain about their position. Taxpayers with strong facts should pursue the issue and work diligently to make a strong case that will help the department get to the right result.

Whether a sale involves the added value of contracts or a deduction for high vacancy, seeking professional advice about how to best report the transaction on the real estate excise tax affidavit, or in a refund petition, can turn the sale into a significant tax opportunity.

Norman J. Bruns and Michelle DeLappe are attorneys in the Seattle office of Garvey Schubert Barer, where they specialize in state and local tax. Bruns is the Idaho and Washington representative of American Property Tax Counsel, the national affiliation of property tax attorneys. Bruns can be reached at nbruns@gsblaw.com. DeLappe can be reached at mdelappe@gsblaw.com.

The music continued to play in 2015 for the white-hot multifamily market, as many investors saw rents and occupancies climb higher and cap rates fall. Sales of apartment projects still under construction remain commonplace. Record-high sales prices seem to be the norm.

Accompanying the high prices, however, are rapidly increasing property tax valuations. Multifamily investors should be prepared for such increases, and be ready to combat overassessments. All multifamily investors should also be aware of the myriad property tax issues associated with the development, purchase or sale of their particular project.

The amount of attention property owners pay to property taxes often depends on the investor's specific situation. For instance, property taxes may indeed be the most pressing concern for a long-term owner of an apartment complex who receives a tax notice 50 percent higher than the previous year's bill, based on a lofty sales price paid for a new project down the road. Not only does this investor have to compete for tenants against a new development with better amenities; he or she now has to pay more in taxes because of that same development, effectively slashing the property's net operating income.

On the other hand, a developer might be preoccupied with his own, more immediate concerns, such as site selection, construction schedules and financing. Even so, the developer should be mindful of important property tax considerations: Are there property tax incentives available, such as affordable-housing exemptions, brownfield abatements and many others? What is the valuation date for assessment purposes? How do assessors assess the value of construction in progress? Will a change in use trigger any roll-back taxes, or increase the tax rate?

Careful property tax planning is of vital importance to purchasers of multifamily properties. A purchaser of a newly constructed apartment complex must determine how an assessor will value the property after closing. Will the assessor base the value on construction costs, sales of comparable properties, income information or a combination thereof?

Unfortunately, some investors wrongly assume that property tax values will remain unchanged following a transaction. Although a sale will not necessarily result in a new tax value, tax assessors are increasingly trying to catch up to sales prices that exceed current assessed market values.

Underestimating property taxes at the time of the purchase can significantly reduce the investor's actual return. For that reason, a purchaser should carefully scrutinize any tax estimate based on an assessed value that is lower than the purchase price.

Purchasers of low-income housing tax credit (LIHTC) properties should consult local counsel to confirm whether the jurisdiction allows assessors to consider rent restrictions and tax credits in determining fair market value. In some jurisdictions, local tax laws may compel the assessor to value an LIHTC property much higher than the actual sales price.

In states that require the deed to show the purchase price, assessors frequently rely upon these deed amounts in determining fair market values. The declared transaction value on the deed too often includes consideration not attributable to the real property, such as value for personal property or intangibles, although assessors rarely take this into account. Similarly, assessors may not look behind a sale to consider factors that distinguish the acquisition from a market transa<.1:ion, such as an allocated purchase price as part of a portfolio sale.

As the multifamily market continues to sizzle, lower rates of return diminish the margin for error when estimating property taxes. Investors must recognize the importance of appropriate property tax planning, or risk an unpleasant surprise at tax time that could jeopardize their property's cash flow.

By consulting knowledgeable local professionals, investors can equip themselves to make better-informed decisions when estimating taxes. A seasoned tax expert can review tax notices for accuracy and fairness, and navigate any local rules and deadlines to challenge unfairly high assessments.

  Aaron D. Vansant is a partner in the law firm of DonovanFingar LLC, the Alabama member of American Property Tax Counsel (APTC) the national affiliation of property tax attorneys. He can be reached at adv@donovanfingar.com.

There was a time when closing a real estate sale cost the seller a few hundred dollars for transfer tax stamps on the transfer deed, but those days are long gone.  Nowadays, transfer tax can be a major consideration in structuring and funding a property transaction.  And the requirements for complying with, or being excluded from, transfer taxes have multiplied.

In some markets, transfer tax can exceed the property tax burden in the first few years after an acquisition.  For example, in San Francisco the transfer tax on property transactions valued at more than $10 million is 2.5 percent of the sales price.

Historically, transfer taxes were only collected when the county recorder’s office recorded a deed.  If a transfer occurred through the acquisition of a legal entity that owned the property, and that entity continued to exist without requiring a transfer deed, then no transfer tax was owed.

Today, however, many real estate transactions occur through the buying or selling of ownership interests in legal entities which hold title to real property, and which continue to exist and hold property after the transaction has concluded.  Technically, there is an indirect change in ownership because the legal entity is now owned by a different entity or owner, even though the title for the real estate remains unchanged.

The proliferation of these indirect property transfers has spurred tax authorities to enact laws that assess transfer taxes on indirect sales.  The deed-recording process cannot capture indirect sales, so counties and cities now require buyers and/or sellers to report such transfers through other means.

The most common way of tracking indirect transfers is to align transfer tax reporting with the property tax system.  In California, for example, taxpayers must report legal entity transfers to the state Board of Equalization, which in turn reports the transfers to county assessors.  Counties and cities which collect transfer taxes on indirect sales can now access assessor databases to learn about indirect transfers in their jurisdictions.

Most transfer tax laws contain numerous exclusions.  For example, if there is a mortgage against a property, the amount financed is excluded from the purchase price when calculating the transfer tax.  Similarly, transfers of property between entities which have the same ownership percentages are excluded from transfer taxes.  A third example is the exclusion from transfer tax for marital dissolutions.

In recent years, however, tax authorities have repealed some exclusions from transfer tax. Some jurisdictions have deleted the mortgage deduction.  Likewise, gifts and transfers upon death, and transfers to non-profit entities, which were once generally excluded, are now subject to transfer tax.

The declining number of exclusions restricts a market participant’s ability to structure transactions to be exempt from transfer tax.  That task has grown only more difficult as variations in tax rules have increased between jurisdictions at the local level.

The transfer tax has traditionally been and continues to be a local tax.  Consequently, individual counties and cities determine what elements to include or not include in their transfer tax ordinances.  Transfer taxes are an attractive way for local governments to raise revenue, particularly when other sources of tax income are limited.

In California, most counties and cities operate under the traditional transfer tax laws that the state Legislature established almost 50 years ago.  But more than a dozen counties and cities have modified the transfer tax law enacted by the Legislature.  The courts have approved such changes under the home rule doctrine, which allows communities to govern themselves with laws that don’t conflict with state or federal law.

These modifications have two primary goals: The first is to impose transfer tax on indirect transfers of real property caused by changes in the ownership of legal entities.  The second goal is to repeal the exclusions that existed in the original transfer tax laws.  In addition, the modifications have often added penalties for failure to pay transfer taxes.

California, like most states, has dozens of counties and hundreds of cities, which means that buyers and sellers of real property must familiarize themselves with the specific provisions in local transfer tax ordinances.

Transfer tax compliance used to be as simple as checking a box.  But high transfer tax rates, the prevalence of indirect property sales and rising property values have increased the significance and complexity of transfer taxes in property transactions.  Awareness of tax rates, available exclusions from the transfer tax and compliance and reporting requirements is essential to maximize property value and avoiding reporting pitfalls.

Cris K. O'Neall is a shareholder at the law firm Greenberg Traurig, LLP and focuses his practice on ad valorem property tax assessment counseling and litigation.  The firm is the California member of the American Property Tax Counsel, the national affiliation of property tax attorneys.  He can be reached at oneallc@gtlaw.com.

If the compelling evidence is on your side, the record shows you have a fighting chance.

The best time to consider how an appellate court might view a property tax appeal is not after a trial court delivers an unwelcome decision.  Rather, as the taxpayer carefully plans the evidence to be submitted at trial, it is worthwhile to consider how the evidence will look to appellate judges.

The handling of tax cases in appellate courts receives comparatively little attention.  Yet an appellate court may well make the final decision in a property tax appeal.  That appellate court may even be a state’s highest court, typically (though not always) the state’s supreme court.

Based on the attention given to appellate court strategies in tax literature, the handling of appeals is a neglected orphan in the property tax process.  Innumerable property tax articles address how assessors mass appraisal methods can overstate a property’s market value.

Writers cover pitfalls of the typical cost and sales comparisons and income approaches to value, or detail valuation peculiarities by property type.  Little is written about the key issue that can help tax-payers prevail in the appellate courts.

The Record Rules

Everyone has heard that the three points of consequence for real property are location, location, location.  For a property tax appeal in an appellate court, those three points of consequence are the record, the record and the record.

Whether the taxpayer is the appellant or is responding to an appeal, the best chance of prevailing derives from a record filled with compelling evidence that covers the big-picture points, as well as all of the finer ones.

Some recent decisions confirm these points and show some of the opportunities and challenges that property tax appeals in appellate courts can entail.  In each case the appellate court found that the record showed the tribunal had adopted a wrong principle or made a decision not supported by competent and substantial evidence.

In one Midwestern case, the question at issue was whether the taxpayer had mistakenly reported personal property as taxable in a particular jurisdiction, even though the personal property was not only in other cities, but also in a different state.

At trial, counsel had the taxpayer testify in painstaking detail about the property and its location, including unusual costs the taxpayer incurred to maintain the property.  Notwithstanding this evidence, the tribunal held that the taxpayer had failed to satisfy its burden of proof.

At oral argument in the court of appeals, however, the taxpayer’s counsel was able to read compelling portions of the transcript to show that the trial judge had erred badly.

Sometimes judges cannot be swayed, no matter what is said at oral argument, but in this case the passages quoted grabbed the attention of all three appellate court judges, who seemed to fully understand the injustice that had occurred.  The resulting decision gave the taxpayer a complete victory.

Great Valuation Records

A second case involved a retail property in the Midwest that was almost 80 percent vacant on each of two valuation dates.  The initial tax tribunal decision adopted the appropriate methodology by using the income approach to first value the property at a stabilized occupancy of 85 percent, which the judge determined was the stabilized rate.  The judge then deducted the lost rent and costs involved over the time needed for the property to reach stabilized occupancy level.

Unfortunately, the tribunal’s decision included three technical flaws:

It deducted only a portion of the stabilization costs; it understated the area needed to be leased in order to achieve stabilization; and it included market rent that was inappropriately increased in the second tax year calculation because a gross lease was misconstrued as a net lease.

The record, including both the testimony of the taxpayer’s witnesses as well as a carefully documented appraisal, enabled the appellate court to see that the initial decision erred on all three points.  The taxpayer was fortunate that the three-judge panel deciding the appeal was willing to carefully analyze such technical valuation issues, rather than defer to a tax tribunal judge.  Yet this successful outcome hinged on compelling recorded evidence.

In a third and similar Midwestern case, the appraiser had initially valued a retail property as stabilized and then deducted stabilization costs.  Most of those costs were to cure the property’s extreme deferred maintenance, with a small amount relating to the leasing of vacant space to achieve stabilized occupancy.

The tribunal decision erroneously adopted the interim value before applying the stabilization deductions, With a record very much like the first case, the appeals court recognized that the cost of curing the deferred maintenance had to be accounted for, yet inexplicably failed to order the deduction of the modest costs related to the property achieving stabilized occupancy.

The taxpayer’s counsel made excellent lemonade from this decision by pointing out to the government’s counsel that, undeniably, the decision was logically inconsistent, because if the costs to cure deferred maintenance had to be deducted, then the same was true of the costs to cure the excessive vacancy.

Additionally, the taxpayer’s counsel argued that given the costs of further appeals and the likelihood that the taxpayer would ultimately prevail, a sensible solution would be for the government to agree to the value with the deferred maintenance costs de-ducted.  In fact, the government ultimately did agree and settled with the taxpayer on that basis.

While this case provided the taxpayer with an excellent result, it shows that a compelling record is a necessary – but not always sufficient – condition to prevail.

Stewart Mandell is a Partner and Tax Appeals Practice Group Leader, 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 slmandell@honigman.com.

Owners Must Examine The Tax Consequences Of Making Capital Improvements Before Breaking Ground

For nearly 40 years, states have attempted to protect property owners from rapidly escalating property tax bills by limiting increases in the taxable value of real estate.  Often referred to as “caps,” these limitations are myriad and complicated, but share a tendency to distort the market for developers of new space and for property owners seeking to improve existing commercial properties.

How so?  Laws are state-specific, but taxpayers purchasing or improving real estate may lose the benefit of the cap on their property’s value, and incur a substantial tax increase on top of the acquisition or improvement cost.  In other words, caps discourage property owners from improving their properties, while owners who know how caps apply can access tremendous savings.

Caps in Action

Caps apply by limiting increases in taxable value for properties subject to reassessment that would otherwise rise to reflect the market.  For example:  California’s Proposition 13 generally limits annual valuation increases to 2 percent, even if the property’s market value is rising at a faster rate.  Common triggers for reassessment are an ownership change, countywide reassessment and improvements to the property.

Some states exempt a fixed percentage of any increased assessed value following an ownership change.  Ownership changes can include not only title transfers but also internal transfers of interests in the entity that owns the property.  To access this exemption, the taxpayer may need to take some timely action, such as filing a claim or meeting other state requirements.  Miss the deadline, and the exemption disappears.

Consequences of an oversight can be dramatic.  For example, an apartment complex previously assessed, capped or otherwise, at $20 million sells for $30 million.  Rather than incur taxes reflecting the full $10 million increase in value included in the sale price, the buyer qualifies for a 25 percent tax exemption, or $7.5 million.  Yet, failure to file a timely exemption application could result in taxation of that otherwise exempt $7.5 million of the total value.

Many jurisdictions cap value increases during periodic reassessment.  Florida generally limits annual increases to 10 percent of assessed value for the prior year.  South Carolina, which theoretically reassesses every five years, limits increases to 15 percent of the property’s prior assessed value unless there has been a property improvement or a change in ownership.

Some limits disappear if there has been an ownership change.  Florida generally defines an ownership change as any sale or transfer of title or control of more than 50 percent of the entity that previously owned the property.  South Carolina has adopted a much more complicated system of assessable transfers of interest (ATI’s).  The definition of an ATI runs for four full pages in the South Carolina Code.

Impaired by Improvements

With tax caps, taxpayers who improve their properties face even greater potential tax consequences, because states generally remove artificial caps on new construction and major renovations.  In other words, the total cost of improvements can include not only construction expenses but also a substantially heavier tax burden.  The result places an improved income-producing property at a serious disadvantage in competing with unimproved properties.

What constitutes an improved property? Florida has adopted a bright line test by examining whether the improvements increase value by at least 25 percent.  California law protects properties from reassessment so long as any work is normal maintenance or repair, or the improvement does not make the property “substantially equivalent to new.”

South Carolina is much more complicated and unclear.  The state requires assessors to include the value of new construction in valuing properties, but its statutes fail to define “improvements,” leaving interpretation to local taxing authorities.

The result is a patchwork quilt of inconsistency.  In order to circumvent South Carolina’s 15 percent cap on periodic reassessment, some counties have adopted a stepped approach to increases in value, although such a procedure is clearly unauthorized by statute.  Other counties simply add the value stated in building permits to existing assessed value in order to derive a new value, though the market would never see a sale on that basis.  Still other counties assume stabilization in valuing a new or improved income-producing property such as a hotel rather than accurately valuing the property before stabilization.  Clearly, a property owner improving a property faces a potential hidden cost in the form of increased taxes by loss of the statutory cap.

Reimplementation of tax caps on an improved income-producing property further complicates an owner’s prediction of costs.  Whatever the method of valuing the improvements, how does South Carolina’s 15 percent general cap apply to future valuations when the property value may be much greater?

If the taxing authority simply adds the cost of the increased value set forth in building permits, has the taxing authority fully captured an increase in value which, in turn, may be subject to re-imposed caps?  To state the obvious, an owner will not improve a property merely to re-cover the cost of improvements, but rather sees the potential of income gains exceeding improvement costs.

Most income-producing properties will generally require some period of time for lease up or stabilization.  Should the taxing authority be allowed to make assumptions of future income that the market would not make if the property sold prior to stabilization?  These questions have no easy answers.

Regardless of the system used for valuing new improvements, caps give a competitive advantage to owners of unimproved property in the form of lower costs.  Property owners must examine the obvious – and hidden – tax consequences of improvements to determine whether potential income from improvements justifies the costs.

Morris Ellison is a partner in the Charleston, S.C., office of the law firm Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice LLP. The firm is the South Carolina member of American Property Tax Counsel, the national affiliation of property tax attorneys. Morris Ellison can be reached at mellison@wcsr.com.

There was a time when closing a real estate sale cost the seller a few hundred dollars for transfer tax stamps on the transfer deed, but those days are long gone.  Nowadays, transfer tax can be a major consideration in structuring and funding a property transaction.  And the requirements for complying with, or being excluded from, transfer taxes have multiplied.

In some markets, transfer tax can exceed the property tax burden in the first few years after an acquisition.  For example, in San Francisco the transfer tax on property transactions valued at more than $10 million is 2.5 percent of the sales price.

Transfer tax scope widens

Historically, transfer taxes were only collected when the county recorder’s office recorded a deed.  If a transfer occurred through the acquisition of a legal entity that owned the property, and that entity continued to exist without requiring a transfer deed, then no transfer tax was owed.

Today, however, many real estate transactions occur through the buying or selling of ownership interests in legal entities which hold title to real property, and which continue to exist and hold property after the transaction has concluded.  Technically, there is an indirect change in ownership because the legal entity is now owned by a different entity or owner, even though the title for the real estate remains unchanged.

The proliferation of these indirect property transfers has spurred tax authorities to enact laws that assess transfer taxes on indirect sales.  The deed-recording process cannot capture indirect sales, so counties and cities now require buyers and/or sellers to report such transfers through other means.

The most common way of tracking indirect transfers is to align transfer tax reporting with the property tax system.  In California, for example, taxpayers must report legal entity transfers to the state Board of Equalization, which in turn reports the transfers to county assessors.  Counties and cities which collect transfer taxes on indirect sales can now access assessor databases to learn about indirect transfers in their jurisdictions.

Fewer exclusions, a patchwork of requirements

Most transfer tax laws contain numerous exclusions.  For example, if there is a mortgage against a property, the amount financed is excluded from the purchase price when calculating the transfer tax.  Similarly, transfers of property between entities which have the same ownership percentages are excluded from transfer taxes.  A third example is the exclusion from transfer tax for marital dissolutions.

In recent years, however, tax authorities have repealed some exclusions from transfer tax. Some jurisdictions have deleted the mortgage deduction.  Likewise, gifts and transfers upon death, and transfers to non-profit entities, which were once generally excluded, are now subject to transfer tax.

The declining number of exclusions restricts a market participant’s ability to structure transactions to be exempt from transfer tax.  That task has grown only more difficult as variations in tax rules have increased between jurisdictions at the local level.

The transfer tax has traditionally been and continues to be a local tax.  Consequently, individual counties and cities determine what elements to include or not include in their transfer tax ordinances.  Transfer taxes are an attractive way for local governments to raise revenue, particularly when other sources of tax income are limited.

In California, most counties and cities operate under the traditional transfer tax laws that the state Legislature established almost 50 years ago.  But more than a dozen counties and cities have modified the transfer tax law enacted by the Legislature.  The courts have approved such changes under the home rule doctrine, which allows communities to govern themselves with laws that don’t conflict with state or federal law.

These modifications have two primary goals: The first is to impose transfer tax on indirect transfers of real property caused by changes in the ownership of legal entities.  The second goal is to repeal the exclusions that existed in the original transfer tax laws.  In addition, the modifications have often added penalties for failure to pay transfer taxes.

California, like most states, has dozens of counties and hundreds of cities, which means that buyers and sellers of real property must familiarize themselves with the specific provisions in local transfer tax ordinances.

Transfer tax compliance used to be as simple as checking a box.  But high transfer tax rates, the prevalence of indirect property sales and rising property values have increased the significance and complexity of transfer taxes in property transactions.  Awareness of tax rates, available exclusions from the transfer tax and compliance and reporting requirements is essential to maximize property value and avoiding reporting pitfalls.

Cris K. O'Neall is a shareholder at the law firm Greenberg Traurig, LLP and focuses his practice on ad valorem property tax assessment counseling and litigation.  The firm is the California member of the American Property Tax Counsel, the national affiliation of property tax attorneys.  He can be reached at oneallc@gtlaw.com.

Frequent reassessments benefit Pittsburgh-area property owners.

Pittsburgh-area properties are being reassessed more frequently than in the past – and that is good news for property owners.  Periodic reassessment helps to keep property assessments current with actual values and ensure that everyone pays their fair share.

Unfortunately, frequent reassessments are not the norm throughout Pennsylvania.  Pittsburgh and surrounding counties are the exception, with Allegheny County (in which Pittsburgh is located) having four reassessments in the last 15 years.  Nearby Indiana County is undergoing a reassessment now for tax year 2016, its first since 1968, and neighboring Washington County is undergoing a reassessment for tax year 2017.

Pennsylvania lacks a mandatory revaluation cycle.  A revaluation or reassessment is a thorough analysis of every property in the entire county, with the objective of bringing each property’s assessment into line with its current market value.  Revaluations are often conducted by outside firms, usually with the assistance of the local assessment office.  Occasionally, in-house assessment offices conduct reassessments.

Without a mandate to reassess, some counties go decades without a reassessment.  Rural Franklin County, for example, last reassessed in 1961.   Assessors there attempt to keep properties equalized by placing newly constructed assets on the tax rolls for what they believe the properties would have been worth in 1961.

The more time that passes, however, the more tenuous this methodology becomes.  Further, assessors are prohibited from “spot assessing,” or changing assessments on existing properties without a countywide reassessment.  Thus, as different parts of the county appreciate at different rates, the equality of assessment becomes more and more skewed.

Blair County, west of Pittsburgh, decided to undertake a reassessment for tax year 2017 after commissioning a study from the attorneys at Weiss Burkardt Kramer.  Comparing actual sales in the county to assessments, the study concluded that Blair County’s more than 50-year-old assessments do not meet the constitutional uniformity requirement.

Says attorney M.  Janet Burkardt, a partner at Weiss Burkardt Kramer: “If assessment systems are not periodically adjusted, they become regressive so that properties appreciating at a higher rate are taxed at less than their fair share, and properties appreciating at a lesser rate or those who have depreciated in value, pay more than their fair share in taxes.”

Because properties that benefit from unfairly low assessments rarely appeal those values, inequities become locked in over time.  For instance, in one county where revaluation had not occurred in decades, major office buildings were, on the whole, dramatically under-assessed.

Some under-assessed buildings paid such low taxes that they enjoyed a competitive advantage in attracting tenants.  A neighboring office building, despite paying dramatically higher taxes than its competition, had no recourse to appeal because it was also under-assessed and could not meet the test that its market value was too high.  The solution? A county-wide reassessment.

The longer a county goes between reassessments, the harder the next reassessment becomes.  First, big increases in assessments spark taxpayer outrage, tempting county leaders to push the problem off to another day.

Infrequent reassessments are also more time-consuming and expensive; reassessments in Pennsylvania usually stem from litigation, which is expensive and inefficient.  Less frequently, county leaders prompt the reassessment, as Indiana County did when it had reached the statutory cap on its tax rate.

In marked contrast, Erie County, to Pittsburgh’s north, was the first county to impose a reassessment cycle on itself.  “Our goal in reassessing is to gain uniformity and accuracy,” said Scott Maas, Erie County’s chief assessor.  “We meet with property owners informally and we welcome the opportunity to update our data and make corrections.  We want to get it right.” Maas initiated the county’s periodic reassessment cycle and oversaw the 2003 and 2013 reassessments.

Pittsburgh’s record four reassessments in 15 years followed years-long litigation in two different cases that went all the way to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.  Ultimately, the Supreme Court ordered the reassessment.  Pittsburgh’s reassessment in 2013 sparked 100,000 appeals; for 2015, only a few thousand taxpayers appealed, demonstrating that most properties’ assessments have been resolved to the property owners’ satisfaction.  If Pittsburgh were to continue to reassess in the next three to five years, building on this fresh data and satisfactory values, the likelihood is that there would be minimal appeals year-to-year.

Frequent reassessments benefit property owners.  When the appeals process corrects errors, the data under under-lying the assessments improves and yields more accurate values in the next reassessment.  Pennsylvania law requires that reassessments be revenue-neutral, meaning that rather than local governments enjoying a windfall when assessed values increase, governments must reduce tax rates, so many property owners see a reduction in taxes when reassessments occur.

Most importantly, reassessment yields more uniform assessments.  Uniformity of assessment is required by Pennsylvania’s constitution.  When assessments are uniform, everyone pays their fair share.  Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court spoke to this in 1909: “While every tax is a burden, it is more cheerfully borne when the citizen feels that he is only required to bear his proportionate share...”

Sharon DiPaolo is a partner in the law firm of Siegel Jennings Co., L.P.A., the Ohio and Western Pennsylvania member of American Property Tax Counsel, the national affiliation of property tax attorneys. She can be reached at sdipaolo@siegeltax.com.

Assessors' incorrect use of the data inflates property taxes.

Tax assessors across the country are drawing battle lines to pit new valuation theories against accepted appraisal methodologies.

This fierce ideological assault threatens the sustainability of retail businesses weighed down by ever-increasing property taxes.

Retail landlords who desire to have their real estate valued on a fee simple basis routinely face assessors who claim that these owners want their property valued as a “dark store.” This prickly issue originally focused on how to value big-box stores for property tax purposes, but its scope has widened to affect a range of retail property types.

Dispute’s Roots Run Deep

Woolworth’s opened the first big-box store in 1962, the same year that McDonald’s introduced the golden arches and ushered in the concept of branding stores with identical interiors and exteriors.

Over the following decades, Walmart, Kmart, Target and other retailers married the big-box format with McDonald’s-style branding. Replicating the same store in many locations increased consumers’ brand recognition and reduced the owner’s cost to develop, stock open and operate new locations.

Much of today’s controversy over assessments stems from alternative financing methods that caught on with these major retailers. The two most common strategies are build-to-suit and sale-leaseback arrangements, both of which generate rent payments that exceed market rates.

A build-to-suit is a financial arrangement where the tenant’s rent is a repayment of the developer’s cost to acquire the land and build a tenant specific building. These transactions can include a variety of other non-real estate costs, such as financed inventory, personal property and/or cashback incentives.

A retailer uses sale-leaseback transactions to free up capital by selling its building and then renting it back under a long-term lease. The rent is purely a function of the amount of capital to be financed and the number of years to pay it back.

In either scenario, a landlord with one of these above-market leases in place to a high-credit tenant will often sell the lease and property to an investor. The resulting sales price is a function of the length of the lease in place and the strength of the tenant, and has nothing to do with the real estate’s fair market value. In other words, the value is no longer what the real estate is worth, but what the investor would pay to receive the income from that user.

Bad Data Proliferates

Property valuations for tax purposes are not done as single-property appraisals. In single-property appraisals, the appraiser uses data specific to a property to develop an opinion of its value. Tax assessors, on the other hand, use mass appraisals. The latter method values a universe of properties using common data.

The problem arises when non-market data taints the assessor’s common data. For instance, if the above-market rents from build-to-suits are included in the common data, the assessor will overstate the market rental rate and subsequently overstate property value under the income approach.

Concurrently, when common data includes investor acquisitions of properties with leases in place under these alternative financing methods, the sales comparison approach to value suffers from the same flawed methodology as the income approach.

The problem doesn’t stop there, as the defective data spills over into depreciation calculations used in the cost approach to valuation, and in developing capitalization rate percentages. Using bad common data will taint every commonly used valuation method and lead to an overvaluation.

Implications Outside the Box

This issue is worth watching for shopping center owners, investors and developers for two reasons. First, big-box tenants traditionally are high-credit national retailers committed to a financing-based lease on an absolute net basis. That makes them a valuable addition to a shopping center as a draw for customers, and to the investor as a guaranteed income stream.

The second reason to closely follow the assessment issue is often overlooked, but has more serious implications. What began as an anomaly in the method assessors used to value and tax big-box stores is now spreading to all retail. Assessors increasingly use incorrect, inflated, non-market data to value anchor stores, discount and department stores and strip centers, overstating valuations for tax purposes.

Most states require assessors to value commercial real estate uniformly and equally. That means that two identical buildings should have the same value.

The taxable value should not be higher if one is leased to a high-credit tenant and the other to an independent local retailer. The value of the business may be greater for one over the other, but the value of the real estate must be the same.

Uniformity and equality dissolve when real estate values fluctuate based on nothing more than the identity of the tenant. And uniformity and equality can exist only when assessors value bricks and mortar alone. That is not valuing a dark store; that is valuing the fee simple.

Linda Terrill is a partner in the Leawood, Kansas law firm of Property Tax Law Group, the Kansas and Nebraska member of American Property Tax Counsel, the national affiliation of property tax attorneys. She can be reached at lterrill@ptlg.net.

"Economic development tools are under assult in Louisiana by tax assessors"

Louisiana tax assessors have begun assessing taxes on properties that have been exempt from property tax under economic development incentive programs, undermining one of the state's essential tools for promoting job growth and commerce.

Louisiana offers a handful of enticements to attract new business and spur economic development, including the industrial property tax exemption, inventory tax credits, payments in lieu of taxes (PILOTs) and cooperative endeavor agreements (CEAs) with private companies. Each of these incentives involves reducing a private entity's property tax liability.

Article 7, Section 14 of the Louisiana Constitution authorizes the state and its political subdivisions to enter into cooperative endeavor agreements that serve a public purpose, and Section 21 of the same article provides that public lands and other public property used for public purposes are exempt from property tax. The Louisiana Supreme Court has also recognized that economic development is a public purpose.

Under a typical cooperative endeavor agreement, a political subdivision leases industrial property to a private entity for development and operation. Since a political subdivision owns the property, it is exempt from property taxes. Unfortunately, some assessing authorities have decided otherwise, and have attempted to collect property tax in connection with these assets.

In Pine Prairie Energy Center LLC vs. Soileau, in 2014, a local industrial development board issued bonds and loaned the proceeds to privately held Pine Prairie to build an underground natural gas storage facility and associated facilities and pipelines. Prior to entering into the transactions, the industrial development board, Pine Prairie, and even the local tax assessor all agreed that, as long as Pine Prairie paid the agreed-upon lease payments and payments in lieu of taxes, the property would be exempt from property taxes during the lease period.

Pine Prairie built the facility, sold it to the industrial development board and then leased the property back for operations. The assessor subsequently listed the property on the tax rolls as Pine Prairie's property. Pine Prairie paid the taxes under protest and sued for a refw1d and declaratory judgment that it did not owe property taxes on an asset owned by the industrial development board.

The assessor contended that the property was not being used for a public purpose. The Third Circuit Court of Appeal noted that actual public use was not the criteria by which public purpose was determined. Rather, public use is synonymous with public benefit, public utility or public advantage, and involves using the natural resources and advantages of a locality to extract their full development in view of the general welfare.

Considering that Pine Prairie's investment resulted in approximately $700 million in local economic value, the court held that the project was beneficial to the public and thus the property was indeed being used for a public purpose.

In Board of Commissioner of Port of New Orleans vs. City of New Orleans, the Port of New Orleans leased property to two private entities that provide warehousing, freight forwarding and intermodal transportation services at the port. As i n Pine Prairie, the assessor assessed property taxes on the private companies that leased the properties, not on the public entity that owned them. When the companies failed to pay the taxes, the assessor attempted to sell the leased properties at a public tax sale.

The assessor argued that, because the activities of the private companies did not qualify as a public purpose as they did not constitute a governmental function, a benefit to the general public or a dedication for use by the general public, the property was not being used for a public purpose. The port authority demonstrated that the companies' activities were necessary for the operation of a port facility and that they furthered its broad public mission to maintain, develop and promote commerce and traffic at the port. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal punted on the question in 2014, and ordered a hearing on whether the specific activities conducted by the companies served a public purpose. That case is ongoing.

Cases like these obviously erode business confidence in the reliability of tax incentives. Although Pine Prairie won its case, it had to pay some $122,000 in taxes under protest and then sue to recover its funds. And the Port of New Orleans had its property seized and offered at tax sale, and now has to prove up that traditional port activities like warehousing, freight forwarding and intermodal transportation services, which have always been necessary to the operation of a port facility, serve a public purpose. This kind of uncertainty is devastating to economic development efforts.

Angela Adolph is a partner in the law firm of Kean Miller LLP, the Louisiana member of American Property Tax Counsel, the national affiliation of property tax attorneys. She can be reached at angela.adolph@keanmiller.com.

To Save on Property Taxes, Beware of Inaccurate Valuations

Every year, the dreaded property tax envelope hits the desk of tax managers and property owners. Despite the anxiety that accompanies this event, surprisingly few taxpayers take reasonable steps to learn whether or not their tax documents may be overstating their liability. Many property owners simply pop an antacid and write a check to cover the bill.

Property taxes are a necessary evil be-cause in most jurisdictions, they are the primary source of revenue for funding schools, social services and other government functions. That said, of course, property taxes are also a major cost item. Approaching an assessment with a healthy dose of skepticism and an eye for common errors is a good way for owners to ensure that they are paying only their fair share of the tax burden.

Assessing property for taxation starts with determining real market value. The leased fee value of the property, or the going-concern value of a business, are inappropriate criteria for assessment and should raise red flags when they appear in a property tax review.

In a review, evaluate the origins of the property assessment to determine whether the assessed amount reflects the property's real market value. For example, if state law provides that a sale or other transfer resets real market value for tax purposes, the reviewer needs to evaluate the entire transaction.

The purchase price of a fully leased commercial building will typically reflect the value of a leased fee. The sale can reflect a higher value than it would if the property were vacant because the purchaser is achieving an immediate return on investment from in-place rents. If an asset's sale price is recorded as its taxable value, without an evaluation of market rents and lease-up costs to determine real market value, the owner will be overpaying taxes.

Similarly, the purchase of real estate within a business transaction may include compensation for goodwill, an in-place work force, management and other intangible assets that are not taxable in most jurisdictions. In order to properly reflect the value of the real property, the assessor must exclude these intangibles from the sale price, as only tangible real property is taxable.

In a complex, multi-property transaction, the buyer's appraiser typically conducts a mass appraisal of the portfolio rather than analyzing each asset in depth. However, this practice may overlook issues that affect the value of individual properties.

An allocation appraisal of that nature may overvalue a property that is encumbered by governmental restrictions which limit its development potential. Likewise, a property that carries significant environmental liability can be overvalued, resulting in a tax assessment that exceeds the asset's real market value. Drilling down to the level of the individual asset prior to reporting the sale value to the assessor may help cut the tax bill significantly.

Another overlooked source of savings hinges on recognizing that construction costs do not necessarily equate with a property's real market value. Assessors like to use the cost approach to set real market value, because it is simple and relies on the property owner's documentation of costs. But what about added costs that don't affect value?

Suppose, for instance, that the design of a manufacturing facility calls for a stairway in a certain place, but because local regulations require the stairway to be farther from manufacturing activity, an inspector directs the builder to move it. The change adds $200,000 to the project's cost without adding to the facility's real market value.

Another kind of overstatement often results when an owner builds an addition. Temporary walls, electrical infrastructure and extra labor may be required in order for the occupant to keep functioning normally. These items increase the owner's out-of-pocket costs without adding to the property's real market value. Keeping track of such costs can result in significant tax savings.

Awareness of these often overlooked pitfalls offers opportunities to trim the annual property tax bill. So between the time the bill comes in and the payment goes out, it is crucial to evaluate the bases for real market value. That will go a long way toward determining whether the assessment–and the dill–are correct.

Cynthia M. Fraser is a partner at the law firm Garvey Schubert Barer where she specializes in property tax and condemnation litigation. Ms. Fraser is the Oregon representative of American Property Tax Counsel, the national affiliation of property tax attorneys. Ms. Fraser can be reached at cfraser@gsblaw.com.

Where the value of commercial properties has failed to keep pace with local governments’ revenue needs, real estate assessors have pursued unconventional arguments and valuation methods to protect and grow the property tax base. Among those arguments and methods, assessors increasingly contend that manufacturing and other commercial properties are “special-purpose properties,” and therefore the property tax assessments on these assets should exceed the value that would result from the use of traditional market data.

While special-purpose properties certainly exist, these assessors’ arguments typically fail in three ways. First, they erroneously confuse limited-market property with special-purpose property. Second, they refuse to consider available market evidence that, even if imperfect, provides information about the value of the property. Third, even when a property is a special-purpose property, assessors often value the wrong interest, valuing more than the fee simple real estate, for example.

Wrong definition, incorrect assessments

The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal defines special-purpose property as "[a] limited-market property with a unique physical design, special construction materials, or a layout that restricts its utility to the use for which it was built; also called special-design property.” Thus, special-purpose property is both a limited-market property and a property having a unique physical design, special construction materials or a layout that restricts it to the use for which it was built. By definition, special-purpose properties are a subset of limited-market properties; they are not synonymous.

RELATED

• Big-Box Retail Offers Property Tax Lessons to Industrial Owners
• An Industrial Real Estate Revolution

A subset, not the same set

In general, special-purpose properties are a subset of limited-market properties, which are a small subset of commercial properties.

Appraisers often identify certain categories of property as special purpose, such as churches, schools, railroad stations and sports arenas. But such properties, in addition to being limited-market properties, also reflect specific evidence of unique physical design, highly restricted use and/or special construction materials.

The facts of a New Jersey case illuminate the difference between properties with special features and special-purpose properties. In Ford Motor Co. vs. Township of Edison, the New Jersey Supreme Court in 1992 concluded that an automotive manufacturing plant was a general-purpose property, even though it was constructed with heavy steel framing, paint booths, baking ovens, massive boilers, terrazzo amenities, and electrical, steam and plumbing infrastructure that exceeded normal industrial requirements. Although the property was a limited-market property, the court noted that “[a] property does not qualify as special-purpose where it possesses certain features which, while rendering the property suitable to the owner’s use, are not truly unique.”

Importantly, whether a property is special-purpose is a fact-specific inquiry, and courts rightly reject attempts to classify properties as special-purpose in the absence of evidence that the property is special-purpose. Other cases reinforcing this concept include a 2015 decision in Certain Teed Corp. vs. County of Scott, in which a Minnesota tax court rejected the contention that a shingle factory was a special-purpose property; and TD Bank vs. City of Hackensack, a 2015 case in which a New Jersey tax court rejected an argument that a bank branch is a special-purpose property.

Refusal to consider market data may lead to higher assessments

Assessors typically argue that special-purpose properties may only be valued using the cost approach; that market comparable sales may not be used to value special-purpose property, and/or that the value of the special-purpose property is so intimately tied to the property’s owner or user that the assessor must use income from business operations (as opposed to rents) to value the property.

These arguments share a flawed premise that, due to the property’s unique nature, there is simply no market data available to value the property. These arguments often fail because they conflict with real world evidence.

For example, while it may be true in a given case that there are few or no comparable market transactions for a special-purpose property, this is not an appraisal rule or point of law. That is why the Minnesota Supreme Court in 2007 reversed the decision of a tax court that had refused to consider available sales data based on the classification of the property as special-purpose. In that case, Southern Minnesota Beet Sugar Coop vs. County of Renville, the Court acknowledged that if market transactions exist and shed light on the value of a special-purpose property, it should be considered even if adjustments must be made to account for differences between the comps and the subject property.

Just as it is wrong to refuse categorically to consider market transactions when valuing special-purpose property, it is inappropriate to consider taxpayer-specific income data reflecting more than the value of the real property. For example, special-purpose manufacturing properties are seldom rented in the market. Attempting to value the real estate based on non-rental income from the manufacturing operations would produce a highly misleading estimate of value, since such income is derived from non-real estate elements such as intangibles and personal property. Examples of intangibles include an in-place work force, intellectual property and goodwill; personal property includes items such as manufacturing machinery and equipment.

Given the tenuous link between manufacturing income or business income and the value of a special-purpose property in which the manufacturing occurs, taxpayers can—and should—object to the assessor’s use of such income information to value the real property, even if it is a special purpose property.

When assessors increase assessments or defend excessive assessments by claiming that the property is special-purpose, taxpayers should request the evidence on which the classification and the valuation are based. In many cases, taxpayers will find that such assessments lack support, conflict with generally accepted appraisal practices, and should be appealed.

David Suess is a Partner in the Indianapolis law firm of Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, the Indiana member of the American Property Tax Counsel. He can be reached at david.suess@faegrebd.com.

Utah property owners should be aware of tax laws that may even apply to tax-exempt properties.

When a business owner leases property that is exempt from property tax and then uses that property in connection with a for profit business, local taxing entities may have authority to tax the property's user. Whether and to what extent that tax applies will vary by state, but in some states, including Utah, the property user's tax burden can be significant.

Under Utah law, the assessing authority may impose a privilege tax in "the same amount that the ad valorem property tax would be if the possessor or user were the owner of the property," according to the state's tax code. But because Utah's privilege tax is an all-or-nothing tax, local authorities cannot impose the tax unless the user has exclusive possession of the exempt property.

In 2012, the Utah Supreme Court had its first opportunity to determine what constitutes exclusive possession. In Alliant Techsystems Inc. vs. Salt Lake County Board of Equalization, the court identified a three-part test for determining exclusive possession and then remanded the case back to the district court to apply the test.

In April of this year, the Utah Court of Appeals upheld the district court's decision that the user of the exempt property did not have exclusive possession and could not be assessed a privilege tax for its for-profit use of that property. Details of the case, then, may provide important insight for companies in similar circumstances.

Control Issues

Alliant Techsystems Inc., the taxpayer in these appeals, is a for-profit aerospace and defense products corporation that operates on its own property, as well as on the Naval Industrial Reserve Ordnance Plant, a property owned by the U.S. Navy. Alliant and the Navy entered into a facilities-use agreement that governs the company's use of the ordnance plant. In 2000 and for all subsequent years, Salt Lake County imposed a privilege tax on Alliant for its use of the ordnance plant. The county based the amount of the tax on the full value of the exempt property.

Alliant challenged the county's assessment of the privilege tax on the basis that it did not have exclusive possession of the property due to the control retained by the Navy. The Salt Lake County Board of Equalization, the Utah State Tax Commission and then the district court concluded that Alliant had exclusive possession of the ordnance plant because no other party had an agreement with the Navy to use the property. ·

Alliant appealed to the Utah Supreme Court, which interpreted exclusive possession to mean exclusive as against all parties, including the property owner.

Utah's Test

The Utah Supreme Court's three-part test for exclusive possession requires that the user or possessor have (1) the general power to admit or exclude others, including the property owner, from any present occupation of the property; (2) the authority to make broad use of the property, with only narrow exceptions; and (3) possession and control of a definite space for a definite time.

Alliant relied on several points to demonstrate that it lacked exclusive possession of the Navy's ordnance plant, due to the control retained by the Navy:  For one, the Navy had erected a fence surrounding the property, and posted signs stating that the property belonged to the United States government. Additionally, the parties' operating agreement stated that unauthorized use of the property could result in fines, imprisonment or both.

Alliant also pointed out that the facilities-use agreement permitted the Navy to terminate Alliant's right to use the property at any time and for any reason, and at any time to change or terminate the list of facilities that the company may use. The Navy maintained onsite representatives to manage some of the ordnance plant's operations.

Finally, Alliant lacked authority to exclude the Navy or anyone authorized by the Navy from the property; neither could the company use the property for non-Navy purposes without permission from the Navy.

The county didn't dispute these points, and the district court held that Alliant lacked exclusive possession of the ordnance plant property and was exempt from the privilege tax. The county appealed the decision and the Utah Court of Appeals upheld the district court's decision.

Whether a state can tax the business use of exempt property by a lessor will depend on how each state's tax laws are written. If the tax is based on the full value of the property, and the lessor can demonstrate that the property owner maintains control of the property, the user may challenge the tax as violating the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which establishes the supremacy of federal law (and federally established tax exemptions) over state and local laws. Alliant raised that challenge in its appeals, put the court declined to address the constitutional challenge because its interpretation of the statute fully resolved the matter.

Stephen P. Young is a partner in the law firm of Holland & Hart, the Montana, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming member of American Property Tax Counsel, the national affiliation of property tax attorneys. He can be reached at spyoung@hollandhart.com.