"The real estate tax is based on the tax rate and a property's assessed value. In the face of all the troubles and distress seen in real estate over the last three years, the City of New York has made some outsized increases in its estimates of market values, which it uses to assess properties for taxation..."

By Joel R. Marcus, Esq., as published by National Real Estate Investor, April 2011

The New York City real estate community has been through the wringer since 2007. It has endured a dearth of major property transactions, suffered through the meltdown of the financial services industry and watched available debt financing evaporate. Lenders and special servicers are more in control of the real estate market than ever before.

In the real world of property ownership and development, many taxpayers are experiencing a drop in occupancy for office, hotels and rental apartment buildings. Condo sales have slowed to a trickle and construction of new office, hotels and apartment buildings has come to a virtual standstill.

In this environment of dropping office rents, condominium fire sales and increasing costs of operations, real estate taxes — the largest component of a building's expenses — have skyrocketed. Why is this happening?

New York City satisfies its budget needs through a variety of taxes, and of all of them, the real estate tax is the most important and durable. The city now finds itself facing a cutback in state and federal aid and has big budget deficits. This is happening at a time when corporate and personal income taxes and sales taxes have declined, and other taxes such as transfer and mortgage-recording taxes have all but disappeared.

The city's revenue options are few. People and businesses can move to New Jersey or other areas to escape New York City's income taxes or sales taxes, and this puts a practical limit on what New York City can extract. Real estate, however, is stuck in New York City and can't escape the city's tax grip.

Excessive taxes erode equity.

The real estate tax is based on the tax rate and a property's assessed value. In the face of all the troubles and distress seen in real estate over the last three years, the City of New York has made some outsized increases in its estimates of market values, which it uses to assess properties for taxation.

A snapshot provided by the City of New York Department of Finance highlights some of these amazing hikes in estimated market value. In Queens, for instance, assessors raised the market values for cooperatives 32.37% (on average12.05% citywide) from last year and Queens luxury hotels experienced a 27.97% increase as well. Manhattan luxury hotels underwent a 14.82% raise in values, while values climbed 9.65% for cooperatives and 15.91% for condominiums.

Many in the commercial real estate industry believe that the jump in assessed real estate market values is related to the city's budget woes, rather than to actual changes in the market place. The city vociferously denies this notion, but as Shakespeare's Hamlet said, "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

How much tax is too much?

An analysis of the city's system for assessing properties shows that in office and other commercial properties the property tax bite consumes almost 34% of a property's pre-tax net income. Let's examine with this hypothetical example the formulas used by assessors.

An office building charges $45 rent per sq. ft. Its operating expenses are $12 per sq. ft., and its amortized leasing and tenant expenses are another $4.50 per sq. ft. Therefore the pre-tax net income is $28.50 per sq. ft.

The city divides that income by 13.64%, which is derived by adding a 9% capitalization rate to 4.64%, or 45% of the 10.312% tax rate. That yields a fair market value of $209 per sq. ft.

Assessed at 45% of fair market value, the result is a tax assessment of $94 per sq. ft. and a tax bill of $9.70 per sq. ft., based on the 10.312% tax rate. Therefore the city is a partner in 34% of the net operating income without any equity investment at all! This is before debt service, depreciation and capital improvements are accounted for — expenses that only the owner has to pay but for which the owner gets no credit from the city. Not bad if you can get away with it.

For apartment buildings, the pattern is even more egregious. If rents are $45 per sq. ft. and expenses are $12 per sq. ft. as in the office example, the assessor takes 45% of the 13.353% Class-2 tax rate (which is 6.009%) and adds a 7.5% cap rate to get a loaded cap rate of 13.509%. Divide the cap rate into the net operating income of $33, and the fair market value is $244.28 per sq. ft.

The assessment, therefore, is $110 per sq. ft., and this applies to the tax rate results in annual taxes of $14.69 per sq. ft. That's 44.5% of the property's pre-tax net income. Boy, what a deal the city has! If major capital repairs are needed for such expenses as the facade or elevator modernization, a roof or an apartment makeover, they are borne solely by the owner. None of these expenses are factored into the city's formula.

Property owners can always appeal their assessments, but many believe that it's the city's policy on taxes instead, that needs a reassessment.

Joel R. Marcus is a partner in the law firm of Marcus & Pollack LLP, the New York City member of American Property Tax Counsel, the national affiliation of property tax attorneys. He can be reached at jmarcus@marcuspollack.com.

"Whichever approach or combination of approaches is used, the value of a property should never be higher than that calculated under the cost method."

By Stephen H. Paul, Esq., as published by Commercial Property Executive Blog - May 2011

Appraisers can choose from three approaches to determine what a buyer would pay for a commercial property. But which approach is the most appropriate method of valuation?

The cost approach assumes that buyers will pay no more for a property than it would cost them to build an equal substitute. The appraiser calculates the cost to build the property and subtracts physical, economic, and functional depreciation.

Appraisers prefer this approach for newer properties that lack an operating history. The cost approach is also preferred for unique or specialty properties because no comparable properties may exist.

The income approach assumes that buyers will pay no more for the commercial real estate being assessed than it would cost to purchase an equally-desirable, substitute investment. The appraiser calculates the net income from the property over a given number of years, and discounts the result to its present value.

Appraisers prefer the income approach for income-producing properties that are typically bought and sold by investors. However, this approach requires accuracy in setting the interest rate and predicting future expenses.

The sales approach assumes that buyers will pay no more for the property than it would cost them to purchase an equal substitute. The appraiser locates sales of comparable properties and adjusts the prices to reflect the subject property. Although this approach may be the most accurate in that it provides a price in a particular market, finding a truly comparable property can sometimes be difficult.

Whichever approach or combination of approaches is used, the value of a property should never be higher than that calculated under the cost method. A buyer would not pay more for a property than it would cost to build, unless something else was included in the value. Anything above the value given by the cost approach must be business value, which is excluded from value calculations for property tax purposes.

Stephen H. Paul is a partner in the Indianapolis office of Baker & Daniels LLP, the Indiana member of American Property Tax Counsel, the national affiliation of property tax attorneys. He can be reached at stephen.paul@bakerd.com.

By Cris K. O'Neall, Esq., and Michael T. Lebeau, Esq.¹, as published by IPT May 2011 Tax Report, May 2011

On January 6, 2011, the Assessment Appeals Board in Orange County, California issued a significant decision for owners and operators of assisted-living facilities, particularly facilities dedicated to providing "memory care" services. In a nutshell, the Board found that a significant portion of the assessed values enrolled by the Orange County Assessor's Office for memory care facilities acquired in 2007 included the value of non-taxable intangible assets and rights.² The Board's decision not only demonstrated the correct handling of intangibles under California's property tax statutes, case law and State Board of Equalization guidance document, but also found that the cost approach should be used to extract non-taxable intangibles from business enterprise purchase prices in order to arrive at values for taxable real and personal property.

The Nature of Memory Care Facilities

Memory care is one of the fastest growing segments of the assisted-living care industry. Memory care facilities specialize in the housing and treatment of persons suffering from senile dementia, Alzheimer's disease, and similar "memory loss" maladies. Persons with these conditions typically suffer from moderate to severe memory loss. Consequently, the nature of the facilities that house persons with these conditions and the operation of those facilities differ from most other types of assisted-living facilities and operations.

In order to protect patients or residents from leaving the facility unattended or unescorted, memory care facilities incorporate design features which are not typically found in other types of assisted-living or even convalescent care facilities. The facilities must be laid out so that residents can be observed continually, and so that they do not wander away from the facility by themselves. Points of egress must be limited in number and must be designed to allow electronic monitoring at all times. Despite these severe design restrictions, the families of residents housed in memory care facilities usually want such facilities to have the ambience of a residential or home setting.

The operation of memory care facilities also requires significantly more staffing than the typical assisted living care facility. This includes additional nursing staff as well as staff to observe and work with residents.

There must be sufficient staff to monitor residents at all times in order to insure that they do not leave the facility unattended. In addition, because residents are typically ambulatory, a variety of planned on-site and off-site activities are usually provided to them, which requires a larger number of employees. This higher level of service requires a resident-to-staff ratio that is up to twice that for general assisted-living facilities, and a more skilled, better trained, and more highly paid management and employee staff than is typically found in other assisted-living situations.

Treatment of Intangibles under California's Acquisition-Based Property Tax Regime

California's Proposition 13 made acquisition prices the touchstone for taxable value in many instances. However, Proposition 13 did not explain what to do in those situations where an acquisition price includes a business enterprise comprised of real property, personal property and intangible assets and rights. Fortunately, California Revenue and Taxation Code sections 110(d)-(f) and 212(c) explain that intangible assets and rights are not taxable, and the values of identified intangibles must be excluded from the value allocated to a business enterprise in order to arrive at the value of taxable real and personal property. This is confirmed by published appellate court decisions such as GTE Sprint Communications Corp. v. County of Alameda (1994) 26 Cal.AppAth 992 as well as by the California State Board of Equalization's guidance in Assessors' Handbook Section 502, "Advanced Appraisal" (1998), Chapter 6, pages 150-165 ("Treatment of Intangible Assets and Rights"). Similarly, California Property Tax Rule 8(e) (18 Cal. Code Regs., § 8(e» requires that where a property is valued using the income approach, "sufficient income shall be excluded to provide a return on ... nontaxable operating assets."

Purchase Transaction Created Challenges for Purchaser

In early 2007, a number of memory care facilities and operations in several states, including four facilities and related operations in Orange County, California, were acquired by a large assisted-living facility operator.

The acquisition included not only the real and personal property at the four Orange County locations, but also the government-issued facility operating license, existing workforce, and business operating at each site. While the real and personal property were subject to property taxation, the purchaser contended that the facility operating licenses, workforce and other business-related assets (contracts, relationships, etc.) were not taxable under California law.

The transaction documents for the 2007 transaction did not assign a specific value to the various categories of assets (real property, personal property, and intangibles) for each of the Orange County locations. Fortunately, the seller of the properties had commissioned an appraisal for each of the properties.

Those appraisals were provided to the buyer, however, they were of limited utility in the property tax context because they were "going concern" appraisals which determined a business enterprise value for each facility and, therefore, included a value for all property at each of the Orange County facilities that encapsulated real and personal property as well as non-taxable intangibles. Furthermore, the buyer had used the going concern values shown in the appraisals as the basis for reporting the acquisitions to the Orange

County Assessor's Office and the Assessor's Office had simply enrolled the reported values as the taxable value for each property. Thus, there was a clear "chain" of documentation showing that the Assessor's Office had enrolled the value of all property, including intangible assets and rights, as the taxable value of the property at each facility.

The situation was further complicated by the fact that the purchaser had acquired the intangible assets (namely the operating licenses) through a saleleaseback arrangement and not through the purchase and sale agreement by which the real and personal property were transferred. This was done because a considerable amount of time is usually needed to transfer memory care facility licenses to a new owner, and waiting for the licenses to be transferred would have delayed the transaction for a year or more. Use of the sale-leaseback arrangement was typical in the industry, and had facilitated the transaction. The buyer's representative testified at the Assessment Appeals Board hearing that the buyer would not have acquired the four Orange County properties without the facility operating licenses as it would have taken too long to go through the process of obtaining new licenses. However, because the licenses had not transferred with the purchase and sale agreement, it created an impression that the buyer had not acquired the licenses, which were perhaps the most significant intangible asset in the transaction. On a positive note, the purchaser was helped by the fact that the seller's purchase appraisals exhibited the extreme disparities between the assessed values enrolled by the Assessor's Office (based on the income approach values) and the purchaser's values which relied on the cost approach: the Assessor's values were as high as $500 per square foot, several times the buyer's values for real property; the Assessor's values were also more than twice the cost new without depreciation for the improvements; and the Assessor's values were based on net income figures the majority of which were unrelated to the real estate at each location. All of this served to demonstrate that the Assessor's values subsumed the value of non-taxable intangible assets and rights in violation of California property tax law.

Cost Approach the Key to Taxable Values

The purchaser used the cost approach as the basis for proving the value of the taxable real and personal property. The purchaser retained the seller's appraiser, who had prepared the appraisals used to establish and allocate the total purchase price paid for all of the acquired facilities, to testify at the Assessment Appeals Board hearing. The appraiser explained that the appraisals were going concern appraisals, and for that reason the income and sales comparison approach values in those appraisals represented business enterprise values or the values of the going concern operating at each location.

The buyer's appraiser also testified that only the cost approach conclusions in the appraisals would represent the value of the taxable real and personal property. In support of this, the appraiser relied upon the Appraisal Institute's text The Appraisal of Nursing Facilities (J. Tellatin, 2009), particularly the portions of that text stating that "property tax assessments should exclude the value of intangible assets" and identifying intangible assets to include operating licenses and assembled workforce (pages 37, 40, 314, 315). The appraiser also focused the Board's attention on two key passages from the Appraisal Institute's text: The greatest usefulness of the cost approach could be in allocating the total assets of the business to real estate, tangible personal property, and intangible personal property assets under the theory that the value of an asset cannot exceed the cost to replace it in a timely manner, less reasonable amounts of depreciation. (Page 284)

When the depreciated cost of the tangible assets and the land are less than the overall business enterprise value, the cost approach can be a proxy for real estate value. (Page 315) These conclusions were supported by portions of the California State Board of Equalization's Assessors' Handbook Section 502 at page 159, note 126, and page 163: "The cost approach does not typically capture the value of intangible assets and rights because the appraisal unit only includes the subject property." With this background, the purchaser's appraiser demonstrated that the cost approach values in his appraisal report for each of the four facilities represented solely the values of the taxable tangible real and personal property.

The Assessment Appeals Board's Decision

The Orange County Assessment Appeals Board upheld the buyer's values, with adjustments for increased land values and minor increases in construction costs to account for inflation. The Board supported the buyer's position that the intangible assets and rights, particularly the operating licenses, had transferred along with the real and personal property as part of the same transaction: 42. The Board finds that the purchase agreement, the master lease, the sublease and a financing agreement that were all part of the same transaction, within the meaning of California Civil Code section 1642, and the purchase price did reflect and include intangible assets which are not subject to taxation.

Critical to this finding was testimony by the purchaser's representative that the payments under the lease agreements were not based on market rates, but were related to financing the transaction. In fact, evidence presented to the Board showed that the amount of each facility's lease payment exceeded or nearly exceeded the total revenue generated by each facility. Civil Code section 1642 provides that "several contracts relating to the same matters, between the same parties, and made as parts of substantially one transaction, are to be taken together."

The Board also ruled that the cost approach was the proper method for valuing the properties because it excluded the value of intangible assets and rights: 43. The Board finds that the cost approach is the most accurate measure of accurate [sic] value since the comparable sales approach and the income approach both captured the value of the property as a going concern and that it includes the value attributable to nontaxable assets and rights. Hence, the Board utilized the [cost approach portions of the] appraisals submitted by the Applicants as a starting point for its valuation analysis.

The Orange County Assessment Appeals Board's decision to use the cost approach, and to reject the income approach and sales comparison approach values from the buyer's going concern appraisals, affirmed Assessors' Handbook Section 502's counsel to avoid use of going concern appraisals (page 157) and to rely upon the cost approach when other approaches cannot segregate the value of taxable real and personal property from the value of intangible assets and rights. The Board's decision is a clear statement of the correct approach to be applied in the multi-facility purchase context in order to exclude the value of intangible property and determine the value of taxable real and personal property.

1. The authors acknowledge Max Row of Complex Property Advisors Corporation in Southlake, Texas and David H. Fryday of Tellatin, Short & Hansen, Inc. in Salem, Oregon for their comments and input to this article.

2. The facilities are owned by NorthStar Realty Finance.

"Look for release of damages provisions that waive the right to sue if there are surface impairments. Make sure that the property has not flooded in recent years, especially if it's near a stream, lake or low lying area. Flood plain maps are periodically updated, so current information is crucial."

By Howard Donovan, Esq., as published by Commercial Property Executive Blog - April 2011

In ad valorem tax disputes, commercial property owners and their tax counsel often are so focused on rent rolls, occupancy, capitalization rates and other big-picture considerations that they overlook special conditions affecting value. There is "ore to be mined" in less obvious areas, however.

Here are five factors to consider in making sure a tax protest covers all the bases.

1. Subsurface Conditions. Geology can weigh heavily in determining fair market value. Common examples include old mining activity, limestone formations and sinkholes, earthquake events, flood plains and periodic flooding. The property owner may already have information along these lines, and mining maps, flood plain maps and seismic activity information are generally available. Look for release of damages provisions that waive the right to sue if there are surface impairments. Make sure that the property has not flooded in recent years, especially if it's near a stream, lake or low lying area. Flood plain maps are periodically updated, so current information is crucial.
2. Environmental Impairments. Obviously, the presence of asbestos, petroleum products or other types of pollutants either in the improvements or subsurface will strongly influence value. Ensure that expert reports are brought current and provided to the appraiser. Reports should address costs of remediation, which can be used to argue that value should be reduced by the costs. Finally, keep in mind the need for confidentiality with respect to this information. See if the jurisdiction will agree not to duplicate reports and to return them after review.
3. ADA Compliance. Even after 20 years under the Americans with Disabilities Act, many properties fail to comply with the act's provisions. The costs of compliance can be submitted as reason to reduce assessed value.
4. Easements, Restrictions and Covenants of Record. Every jurisdiction that applies the fair market value standard recognizes that title restrictions, easements and covenants affect value and strongly influence market transactions. This is true not only of the subject property, but also of any property transactions cited by the assessor as comparable sales. Examples include use restrictions, size of the improvements, density, amenities and the accompanied assessments, curb cuts, traffic signals and other factors. Verify that your file includes current copies of such covenants, and that any appraiser is aware of these items.
5. Personal Property Returns. Most large commercial buildings, malls and shopping centers have associated personal property that is critical to property operations. Yet the personal property tax return is often a forgotten part of the overall value of the property.

Personal property values are generally calculated based on the depreciated original cost method, so make certain that the useful life of the personal property is realistic. Also check to see that the tax return excludes property that has been discarded or is no longer on site. If the real estate is the subject of a recent sale, find out what dollar value was allocated to the personal property and if that number is consistent with the values the tax assessor is showing.

Howard Donovan is a partner in the Birmingham, Ala. law firm of Donovan Fingar, LLC, the Alabama member of American Property Tax Counsel, the national affiliation of property tax attorneys. He can be reached at whd@donovanfingar.com.

"Property owners must stay vigilant to maintain agricultural-use status on farmland and avoid financial penalties..."

By Douglas S. John, Esq., as published by National Real Estate Investor, April 2011

Local governments are under the greatest financial stress since the Great Depression, and assessing authorities are aggressively pursuing revenue to combat these financial woes. One target in assessors' crosshairs is the preferential tax treatment of land with agricultural status.

Developers who are considering the purchase of agricultural land or holding acreage for eventual development need to be aware of the potential tax consequences. Depending on the way assessors categorize the land, the owner could face an unexpected rise in tax costs.

All states offer some tax relief for qualified agricultural property, but each jurisdiction has specific and often complex legal requirements for agricultural status. Investors in land held for future development must know the laws governing agricultural status if they hope to maintain this preferred tax position.

Most real estate is assessed at market value, which typically reflects the most probable price a buyer would pay in a competitive market. The most common benefit of an agricultural designation is that the land is assessed at use value instead of market value. Use value reflects how the property is currently used, i.e., for agriculture, rather than its highest and best use, which may be for residential or commercial development.

Eligibility for agricultural status varies by jurisdiction. The following are the major eligibility requirements.

• Use: Typically, states require that land be actively engaged in agricultural use and used exclusively or primarily for commercial agriculture. That can include growing crops, dairying, raising and breeding livestock, or horticulture.
• Acreage: A majority of states impose an acreage requirement to qualify for agricultural use, meaning a minimum number of acres. Qualifying acreage is typically low relative to average farm size. Some states have no minimum acreage requirement, while others allow local authorities to establish size criteria.
• Productivity: Most states impose minimum productivity requirements. These laws vary by jurisdiction, but most require property to generate a minimum amount of annual income from farming or raising livestock. Some states average the measure of income over a period of years. Other states require that a minimum percentage of the owner's or lessee's annual income is earned from agricultural activity on the land.
• Prior Usage: About half the states require property to be used for agricultural purposes for a period of years before it qualifies for preferential tax treatment. These laws are meant to discourage owners from changing a tract's use to take advantage of the tax benefits. Two or three years immediately preceding approval is typical.

Check for penalties

Many states impose a penalty when farmland is converted to non-agricultural use. In some states the penalty takes the form of a recapture or rollback tax, which is the difference between the taxes that would have been paid and the taxes actually paid while the land qualified as agricultural. This recapture period varies between three and 10 years.

In other states, if farmland is converted from agricultural use within a certain period after qualifying for preferential treatment, penalties are calculated based on the property's fair market value when its use changes or it is sold.

Most states require owners to periodically submit extensive information to demonstrate that the land continues to be used agriculturally. This may include IRS Form 1040F, leases, invoices and receipts, among other documents.

Each state's eligibility requirements, application process and potential penalties play a part in determining whether properties qualify for agricultural status. But a property's agricultural status can translate into significant tax savings. Local counsel may be required to navigate the complexity of obtaining or maintaining the agricultural status.

Douglas S. John is with the Tucson, Arziona law firm of Bancroft Susa & Galloway, the Nevada and Arizona member of American Property Tax Counsel. He can be reached at djohn@bancroftlaw.com.

Why Hotels and Nursing Homes Prove Especially Vulnerable to Inaccurate Taxation

"The most valuable asset the team would acquire through that contract would be a continued association with the Derek Jeter name, a brand in which the team has invested a great deal. The Yankees' challenge in reaching a new contract with Jeter, recently accomplished, indeed echoes the difficulty faced by many municipal assessors in valuing properties that are as much business as they are parcels of real estate."

By Elliott B. Pollack, Esq., as published by Commercial Property Executive, April 2011

Tax laws across the United States typically prohibit assessors from including intangible assets such as good will, franchise value or business value in a property tax assessment. Only tangible real and personal property may be placed on assessment rolls. But taxpayers and assessors alike sometimes have difficulty differentiating between tangibles and intangibles.

That's understandable on the part of taxpayers who may need to include intangibles in their calculations when buying or selling a hotel, nursing home or assisted-care property. For purposes other than property taxes, intangibles often are part of a property's overall value. Indeed, rivers of ink in appraisal and valuation literature—not to mention judicial rulings— have been devoted to the issue of intangibles.

Unfortunately, many assessors don't fully understand how to exclude these non-taxable elements from their calculations, either. For the unwary property owner, the resulting overassessment can result in an equally overstated tax bill. One way to gain a clearer perspective on the degree to which intangible assets can affect value is to turn our lenses on another field entirely—a baseball field, in fact. On Nov. 10, 2010, sports columnist Richard Sandomir presented an illuminating look at the talents of the New York Yankees' redoubtable shortstop, Derek Jeter, in an article for the New York Times. "The Yankees would not quite be the Yankees if (Derek Jeter) suited up with another team," Sandomir noted. The writer contended that Jeter adds substantially to the Yankees' overall value, much in the same way, it can be argued, that a respected brand boosts the worth of a hotel. Without Jeter's headline-grabbing performances, the team would be less valuable, just as an unflagged hotel is likely to be less valuable than its branded competitor. Sandomir quoted a business consultant who observed that Jeter's playing, were he less celebrated, might be worth $10 million a year. But as an iconic draw for ticket sales, Jeter's value to the team is closer to $20 million each year. The Yankee captain's "value as a brand builder," the expert noted, not merely as a hitter or infielder, is what drives his intangible worth differential, again, very much like the business value inherent in a well-managed hotel or convalescent facility.

With Jeter's lengthy contract concluded, it would be foolish for the Yankees not to sign him up again as he enters free agency, even though his baseball skills have eroded, the expert opined. The most valuable asset the team would acquire through that contract would be a continued association with the Derek Jeter name, a brand in which the team has invested a great deal. The Yankees' challenge in reaching a new contract with Jeter, recently accomplished, indeed echoes the difficulty faced by many municipal assessors in valuing properties that are as much business as they are parcels of real estate.

After years of resistance from taxpayers and their attorneys, it seems taxing authorities in the United States are getting the message about intangible assets. It now appears that the majority of assessors recognize that the net operating income generated by a hotel, as an example, does not result exclusively from its real estate value. In fact, the management expertise—which drives revenues from non-occupancy hospitality services such as food service, special events and recreation revenues—is an asset independent of and severable from the real estate itself.

Similarly, the intensive services furnished to the patients of long-term-care convalescent facilities are distinct from the property in which those services operate. Indeed, nursing and medical care, meals and rehabilitation produce revenues that have little to do with the real property and should not be capitalized when the health-care facility is valued using an income methodology.

There is case law to provide examples of the correct way to value commercial real estate without inflating taxable value by rolling intangible assets into the equation. Taxpayers interested in doing a little research will find one court's approach toward the separation of intangibles and the valuation of health-care real property in the case of Avon Realty L.L.C. v. Town of Avon, decided in 2006 by the Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of New Britain. In that case, the owner of the Avon Convalescent Home, a 120-bed skilled nursing facility, appealed an assessed value in excess of $5 million on the grounds that the assessor hadn't deducted sufficient value attributable to intangible assets from the business's overall value. Upon review, the court deemed the value to be a little more than $4 million, supporting the taxpayer's appeal.

A thorough understanding of the issues and methodologies involved in properly differentiating and valuing tangibles and intangibles marks the difference between fair and excessive property tax assessments for hotels, nursing homes and assisted-care facilities.

Elliott B. Pollack is chair of the property valuation department of the Connecticut law firm Pullman & Comley L.L.C. He cautions that he is an avid Boston Red Sox fan. The firm is the Connecticut member of the American Property Tax Counsel, the national affiliation of property tax attorneys. He can be reached at ebpollack@pullcom.com.

"The tax cap is an old device that's found new life in these hard times..."

By Michael P. Guerriero, Esq., as published by Commercial Property Executive, March 2011.

The recession has left its mark on the budgets of state and local governments nationwide. Revenue shortfalls have forced states to slash their budgets and, oftentimes, withdraw state aid pledged to local governments.

Cities, towns and school districts are now forced to raise property taxes, their main (and sometimes only) revenue source. Struggling with escalating tax burdens, taxpayers cry out to their elected representatives to put a lid on the always rising local property tax and support property tax cap initiatives.

The tax cap is an old device that's found new life in these hard times. At the forefront of tax cap initiatives is newly elected Gov. Andrew Cuomo of New York, who proposes to limit the property tax dollars a school district can collect annually. The bill passed the New York State Senate and now must pass the State Assembly.

New York's bill caps tax growth at 4 percent or 120 percent of the inflation rate, whichever is less. School districts may exceed the cap with voter approval, but voters can impose an even stricter cap or bar increases entirely.

Roughly 40 states have some kind of property tax restriction. Arizona, Idaho, Kentucky, Massachusetts and West Virginia have a fixed cap of 5 percent or less. Colorado, Michigan and Montana limit growth to the inflation rate; while California, Illinois, Missouri, New Mexico, South Dakota and Washington limit growth to the lesser of a fixed percentage or the inflation rate.

Tax cap advocates say a cap forces school districts to cut wasteful spending while causing little to no harm.

Critics note that a cap simply slows down the rate of tax increases and does little to change the main drivers behind high property taxes. For example, caps cannot slow increasing costs for health care or fuel, nor do caps lessen demand for essential public services.

History has shown that tax caps simply shift the burden of funding schools to other sources, such as income tax, sales tax, fees and state aid. The bottom line is, a tax cap simply places a lid on the problem and kicks the can down the road for others to deal with.

Michael Guerriero is an associate at the law firm Koeppel Martone & Leistman LLP in Mineola, N.Y., the New York State member of American Property Tax Counsel (APTC), the national affiliation of property tax attorneys. He can be reached at mguerriero@taxcert.com.

"Because assessors cannot simply go out and look at properties and know that they carry LIHTC restrictions, the properties often sustain improperly high assessments..."

By J. Kieran Jennings, as published by Housing Finance - News Online - February 2010

Improperly assessed property taxes on a low-income housing tax credit (LIHTC) property can destroy its economic viability. LIHTC property owners can protect themselves from destructive taxation by understanding several key issues that lead to improper tax assessments. Additionally, owners can take some practical steps to maintain proper assessments in the future.

Unlike other real estate, the values of LIHTC projects generally do not vary greatly from year to year. Restrictions placed on rents and administrative costs often leave LIHTC actual market values so low that a small incremental difference becomes immaterial. Thus, if a project is fairly assessed, it should be able to remain fairly assessed over its contract period.

Property taxes for conventional multifamily housing projects typically comprise one of the largest expenses for an owner. However, because rents are reduced and operating expenses are higher, LIHTC properties labor under significantly tighter margins than most conventional properties. As a result, taxes can mean the difference between making debt service and feeding a property.

LIHTC developments include single apartment buildings, townhomes, single-family developments, and scattered single-family home sites. Many states are coming to a consensus, assessing projects using reduced contract rents and the higher operating expenses associated with LIHTC properties. However, a problem arises because LIHTC properties can take various different forms, making it difficult for an assessor to know, without additional information, whether a property is conventional or a LIHTC property.

Because assessors cannot simply go out and look at properties and know that they carry LIHTC restrictions, the properties often sustain improperly high assessments. This forces LIHTC taxpayers to challenge assessments each and every time they go through a reassessment. Thus, a continuous battle ensues, causing additional expenses to the taxing jurisdiction and the taxpayer.

A solution for this problem is within reach. It calls for putting in place a system that helps the assessor produce a fair assessment year after year. Such a system incorporates meeting with the assessor to present information that indicates the LIHTC nature of the property. The presentation also needs to include the project's financial statements and the Land Use Restriction Agreement (LURA), all of which provide the necessary information to assist assessors in initially establishing a fair assessment. The taxpayer should work with the assessor to ensure that the property card, database, and tax bill are labeled as LIHTC.

Similar to property tax abatements, this labeling should be maintained throughout the LURA period. By employing the same mechanisms as used in abatements, an assessor can flag a property for the remaining years in the LURA period, allowing the tax authorities to identify and properly assess LIHTC properties across time.

Establishing a long-term workable solution for LIHTC assessments contemplates some compromises. In the case of property owners, this means sharing financial information with the assessors. Many property owners show some reluctance to provide assessors with income and expense information. They should not resist sharing financials because LIHTC properties' income potential is typically reduced due to the restrictions, and that income provides the basis for the tax authority to establish a fair assessment.

Taxing authorities also have to compromise. In order not to fight over assessments throughout the life of a LIHTC project, assessors need to accept the fact that LIHTC properties have a certain level of economic obsolescence.

The obsolescence can be quantified by examining the value of the property under the LURA and the value as if it were a conventional property. For example, if a LIHTC property is worth $600,000 under the LURA and $1 million as a conventional property, then it suffers from a 40 percent obsolescence factor. Therefore, the assessor can simply reduce the value of the property by 40 percent when reappraising it and continue to do this for the life of the LURA.

No system is perfect, but if parties can agree to a long-term assessment formula, budgets should be closer and disagreements fewer, allowing for economic sustainability for taxpayers and proper assessments by assessors.

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

"In recent years, state and local governments have become more aggressive in their efforts to identify ownership changes in entities holding real property..."

By Cris K. O'Neall, Esq., as published by National Real Estate Investor City Reviews, February 2011

As California struggles through its economic downturn, local tax authorities are looking for ways to increase tax revenues. And property owners may not be aware of the tough penalties they could face if they fail to quickly report changes in ownership.

Most California property owners know that changes in ownership result in property tax reassessment under Proposition 13, and such reassessments are typically triggered when a transfer deed is recorded.

What may surprise some taxpayers is that changing the ownership of a legal entity that holds the real property may also trigger a reassessment. This occurs even if the property-owning entity, such as a corporation, remains the recorded owner of the underlying real property.

Legal entity transfers have long been a concern for California tax authorities. Real property transfers caused by a change in an entity's ownership are not documented by a recorded deed, which is the normal manner in which tax assessors learn of property ownership changes. In this circumstance, tax authorities must look to state franchise tax returns and business property filings to discover ownership changes affecting real property.

In recent years, state and local governments have become more aggressive in their efforts to identify ownership changes in entities holding real property.

Previously, it was up to the tax authorities to identify those changes and provide taxpayers with the appropriate reporting forms. Last year, tax authorities upped the ante considerably — giving property owners the job of reporting legal entity transfers within strict deadlines and removing the tardy reporting "grace" period.

Delays in reporting can trigger consequences

Now owners who fail to report transfers quickly are subject to significant penalties on all of their California properties, even if only one property changed ownership as a result of a legal entity transfer.

Additionally, the revised law requires reporting of ownership changes even in cases where the transfer falls under a change of ownership exception. Those exceptions include transfers of less than a controlling interest in a legal entity, and transfers in which the type of entity changes, say from a corporation to a limited partnership, but the owners and their ownership percentages remain the same.

In effect, the revised law penalizes the failure to file the requisite reporting form, regardless of whether there has been a change in ownership of the underlying real property.

More tax liability?

If the above did not already cause enough headaches, local tax authorities have added to property owners' burdens by attempting to expand another California tax — the documentary transfer tax (DTT) — to include legal entity transfers.

Traditionally, the DTT has only been collected upon the recording of a deed or similar instrument transferring a property's ownership. In fact, the DTT is usually understood to be an excise tax on the right to transfer property and use county recorder services.

This view has recently changed as Los Angeles County and other local jurisdictions seek to bring legal entity transfers where no document is recorded within the purview of the transfer tax law. They have been aided in their discovery of such transfers by statutory changes which give county recorders access to the records of county assessors' offices.

As a result, county recorders' offices now have access to legal entity transfer information which was once only available to county assessors. Armed with this new information, counties and cities are seeking to charge transfer taxes on entity transfers where no deed has been recorded.

Fortunately, property owners can repel attempts by county recorders and city clerks to collect transfer tax. Most counties and cities have ordinances adopting California's statewide statute regulating the issue.

That statute, with one limited exception relating to dissolution of partnerships through a legal entity transfer, only permits collection of DTT when a deed or other instrument is recorded. Property owners confronted with a request for payment of the tax for a legal entity transfer need only point to the local ordinance in order to parry the unlawful attack.

So long as California remains in its economic downturn, the local tax authorities will continue to be vigilant in looking for ways to increase tax revenues. And real property owners would do well to report legal entity transfers promptly to avoid draconian penalties.

Fortunately, efforts are under way to eliminate the harsh effects brought about by the recent changes in legal entity transfer reporting. As for the documentary transfer tax, property owners should only pay that tax on transfers made by a recorded document. And, as with every transfer of real property in California, property owners should consider whether their transfer falls under one of the exceptions to a change in ownership in order to avoid reassessment.

Cris K. O'Neall specializes in ad valorem property tax matters as a partner in the Los Angeles law firm of Cahill Davis & O'Neall LLP, the California member of American Property Tax Counsel, the national affiliation of property tax attorneys. He can be contacted at cko@cahilldavis.com.

"Businesses today have greater difficulty than ever before in predicting future space needs as business requirements and market conditions change rapidly. Federal, state and local laws and regulations, too, have become unpredictable..."

By Terry Gardner, Esq., and Stephen H. Paul, Esq., as published by The Leader, January/February 2011

Technological advances are rapidly altering the way corporations use commercial real estate, and recognizing these fundamental shifts can have a profound effect in efforts to reduce property taxes.

Our world changed at an incredible pace in the last 100 years, and those changes have accelerated in the 21st Century. As one technology enthusiast observed in 1999, "From 1946 until now, if the automobile had been improved as much as the computer has been improved, you'd have a car that would go a million miles an hour and cost a penny!"

There was little telecommuting 10 years ago, when the average cubical size ranged from 50 to 75 square feet and the BlackBerry was the latest fad in a mobile technology industry still in its infancy. Corporate campuses with sprawling Frank Lloyd Wright-style buildings were the norm. Today those edifices of expansive glass, with their inefficient angles and giant atriums, are considered too expensive to maintain and are becoming the exception rather than the rule.

Technology and the commercial real estate boom that ended in 2007 have combined to fuel a dramatic shift in the use of commercial space from the aesthetic to the practical. Companies realize that every dollar saved by a more efficient use of real estate not only makes them more environmentally responsible, but also goes directly to the bottom line.

The New Workplace

At Indianapolis-based health benefits provider WellPoint, more than 6,000 associates work from home, and as with many other businesses, that number is increasing daily. Most of these associates almost never need to come into the office. At least 1.4 million square feet of commercial office space would be required to house these 6,000 associates. Most of the space once occupied by these telecommuters has been or will soon be returned to the landlord.

Today, preferred venues for companies like WellPoint are square or rectangular in shape, utilize a central core and are easy to maintain. More efficient space design and better technology are changing the physical layout and proportions of the workspace itself, as well. Innovations such as flat screen monitors replacing the cumbersome CRT monitors of old have decreased cubicle sizes to as little as 35 square feet, but have driven up parking requirements to five or six spaces per 1,000 square feet of leased space.

In addition to work-at-home programs, other alternative workplace strategies including hoteling, desk sharing, and more have all come of age. Space once used to provide each individual with a large cubicle or enclosed office is rapidly becoming obsolete.

Businesses today have greater difficulty than ever before in predicting future space needs as business requirements and market conditions change rapidly. Federal, state and local laws and regulations, too, have become unpredictable. As a result, lease flexibility is now a fundamental requirement for many tenants. Lease terms are shorter and often come with enhanced termination and contraction options.

The need for less space, evolution of lease terms, and collapse of the capital markets have led to a substantial loss in value for commercial real estate. But for parties responsible for paying property taxes, this dark cloud has a silver lining in the form of a significant opportunity to reduce the assessed value of real estate in most markets.

Economic factors affecting value

A property's value is driven not merely by the inherent qualities of the asset itself, but also by market factors. The Appraisal Institute, the recognized leader worldwide in real estate appraisal education, has identified four predominant and interdependent influences on property values, rooted in fundamental economic principles of supply and demand. Those are utility, scarcity, desire, and effective purchasing power.

Utility and scarcity weigh in on the supply side of the equation as the ability of a property to satisfy users' needs and desires, in context with the anticipated supply of properties relative to demand. Desire and effective purchasing power are on the demand side, and take into account individual wants beyond essential needs, and the market's ability to pay for property. By looking at these four influential factors, it's easy to see how property values have suffered from evolving appetites for office space and from the recent trends in lease terms and the capital markets.

For example, properties with atriums and other large open spaces are expensive to heat, cool, and maintain. Such features provide little utility, and a surplus of these properties exists on the market. Pair that surplus with a decreasing desire in the market for large expanses of unusable space, and the value of these properties declines.

Or, take into account the increasingly strong position tenants command to negotiate favorable contraction and termination provisions in leases. Clearly, this trend is a reflection of both the surplus of space in the market and a general inability or unwillingness to pay a higher price for unusable property or be compelled to accept less favorable terms.

Translating market influences into assessment reductions

In order to understand how these market dynamics translate into reduced property tax assessments, economic factors influencing value should be viewed within the context of the accepted approaches to property value. The predominant methodologies are the cost approach, sales comparison, and income capitalization.

The first of these approaches to value generally focuses on the replacement cost of the improvements, assigning value upon examining the cost of developing similar structures. This value is adjusted to account for the property's age, condition, and usefulness. The latter point is where inefficient designs come into play as elements of functional or economic obsolescence.

Functional obsolescence refers to the loss in utility resulting from factors that would make it difficult to modify the property for a particular use. Building characteristics tending to contribute more to the aesthetic than to the practical enter into this calculation of functional obsolescence. Enormous atriums, indoor gardens, arboreta, and water features, as well as odd angles and unique architecture, often trace to the preferences of a one-time, build-to-suit tenant and detract from the building's usefulness to subsequent tenants.

Most cost approach values are based on replacement cost, or the cost to substitute an asset of similar size and use but with contemporary materials and design. Because an assessment on the basis of replacement cost doesn't contemplate reproduction of an exact replica, unusable space is excluded from the calculation and results in a lower value.

The public's appetite for sprawling improvements that are distinctively designed and aesthetically pleasing has yielded in the last decade to desires for efficiency and simplicity. To the extent that the property owner can show that tastes have changed in the market, these inefficient design characteristics can demonstrate economic obsolescence, which occurs because of factors outside of the property itself and also reduces the property's value.

The sales comparison approach entails an analysis of sales and listings of similar properties to arrive at an assessed value for a property. The comparable sales used in this analysis should be adjusted to account for variances between the comparables and the property being assessed, including (in some states) the terms of leases on the property. If the comparable sales selected involve inefficient designs that have become abundant on the market and for which the market's desire is dwindling, the comparable sale prices should indicate a reduced willingness to pay a high price for such property.

Sales comparison analysis should employ the most recent sales of similar properties. This way, the sales also reflect latest real estate market trends.

For income-producing property, the income capitalization approach will likely reflect the decreased utility of, and demand for, an inefficiently designed building. Under this approach, property value is assessed by capitalizing annual net operating income. Recent lease activity should reveal terms favoring tenants, as well as increased market vacancy, softening rental rates, and tenant preferences for smaller and simpler designs.

In the case of property encumbered by long-term leases, comparable properties with more recent leases may be reliable indicators of the property's current income-producing capability.

Each approach should reveal that technological and market shifts reducing the utility of oversized, inefficient space, as well as the market's desire to pay for such space, have reduced the taxable value of many commercial properties. Technology is changing ever more rapidly in the 21st Century, and taxing jurisdictions should be open to consider such evidence for its impact on reducing values.

Stephen H. Paul is a partner in the Indianapolis law firm of Baker & Daniels LLP, the Indiana member of American Property Tax Counsel. He can be reached at stephen.paul@bakerd.com. The authors thank Fenton D. Strickland of Baker & Daniels for his contribution to this article.

Terry Gardner is Corporate Real Estate Director for WellPoint Inc., an industry-leading healthcare benefits provider headquartered in Indianapolis, Ind.

"It is incumbent upon the taxpayer, tax counsel and appraisers to show local assessors how these clauses affect the real estate's valuation..."

By Linda Terrill, Esq., as published by Commercial Property Executive, January 2011

Co-tenancy clauses have become a two-edged sword for commercial property owners. Originally a tool that landlords used to obtain a multi-year lease commitment, co-tenancy clauses typically reduce a tenant's rent if a key tenant or tenants leave or if overall occupancy drops below a certain level. Some cotenancy clauses permit tenants to terminate a lease without penalty.

Today, a co-tenancy clause may detract from the property's value and even compound vacancy problems. Retail stores have been closing at unprecedented rates due to bankruptcies or underperformance. Many retailers have put new leases or construction on hold. In the office market, vacancy rates continue to set new highs and absorption rates are more frequently described as "negative."

For many of these properties, the terms of the lease, rather than the income stream, may define the property's value. Since co-tenancy clauses have the potential to shorten the lease term or otherwise reduce the income stream, co-tenancy should be central to a property tax appeal.

It is incumbent upon the taxpayer, tax counsel and appraisers to show local assessors how these clauses affect the real estate's valuation.

Tenets of Co-tenancy
Co-tenancy clauses are most common in retail properties but have become more prevalent in office buildings. Most fall into one of three timeframes: The first is during the letter of intent phase, during the lease-up phase of a retail project, when a potential tenant's plan to occupy a space is affirmed. The second period is after the lease has been signed but prior to move-in; the third spans the duration of the lease term. Most real estate tax appeals will involve fully developed properties and, therefore, co-tenancy agreements associated with the lease term. Landlords and tenants have negotiated co-tenancy clauses for a number of reasons, and the more clout the tenant has, the more likely the lease will have co-tenancy provisions.

Yet, it has also become more commonplace for smaller retail tenants to negotiate such provisions, particularly if they selected the leased space in order to be in the same center as another tenant that provides foot traffic and has the potential to drive up sales. Smaller office tenants, by contrast, may have a business relationship with the flagship tenant. In those cases, the smaller business may negotiate provisions to reduce rent or terminate the lease early if the flagship tenant quits doing business at the location.

Boost to Tax Appeals
How can a co-tenancy clause assist an owner in a tax appeal? Consider the following example: A significant national retailer occupies 40 percent of a lifestyle shopping center. The lease has one year left, with three five-year renewal options.

The center is fully leased, and all of the other tenants have co-tenancy lease clauses. Some enable the tenant to terminate the lease if the national retailer ceases to do business at that location; others give tenants the right to terminate the lease if vacancy exceeds 50 percent. Alternatively, the clauses adjust tenant rent from a fixed rate to a percentage of sales in the event that the national retailer closes or vacancy crosses the 50 percent mark.

In measuring the effect on value, the first step is to determine whether the national tenant is likely to renew. If the tenant does not want to disclose their business plan for the location, demographics may suggest what that plan entails. For example, are there rising unemployment, rising home foreclosures or declining incomes in the market area? How are the tenant's sales figures? If sales and foot traffic are down, research the national market to see if this retailer has any announced plans to shutter underperforming locations. This information is crucial to making a case based upon the continued viability of the lease.

In this example, if the national tenant were to leave, the effect of the co-tenancy clauses could domino and the center could go from 100 percent occupied to dark in short order. As each tenant leaves, more of the responsibility to cover operating expenses and property taxes shifts to the owner. In some cases, the income stream will not be sufficient to cover debt service.

The best way to demonstrate to the assessor what all this means is to have the property appraised by a competent, experienced appraiser. At a minimum, the taxpayer's counsel should provide the assessor with an extensive lease abstract for each tenant. That abstract should include not only the terms of the lease and the rents to be received but also whether or not there are any lease provisions that could shorten the lease terms, reduce the rental rate and/or otherwise shift previously reimbursed expenses to the property owner. Any of those eventualities will reduce the value of the property.

Linda Terrill is a partner in the Leawood, Kan., law firm Neill, Terrill & Embree, the Kansas and Nebraska member of American Property Tax Counsel, the national affiliation of property tax attorneys. She can be reached at lterrill@taxappealfirm.com.

"As of November 2010, 99.1% of appeals from the 2008 tax year had been resolved. For the 2009 tax year, 79.1% of appeals had reached a resolution; while only 16.4% of the cases from the 2010 tax year had been resolved...."

By Lisa Stuckey, Esq., as published by National Real Estate Investor-Online/City Reviews, January 2011

As in many U.S. markets, most property owners in Atlanta believe that commercial real estate values in the local market have been declining, and that the declining trend will continue. What is less clear to taxpayers and taxing entities is the severity of value losses and whether property taxes have come down to a corresponding degree.

An analysis of Atlanta-area commercial property valuations and property tax appeals in years past was conducted to determine if, indeed, the perceived drop in property values has occurred, and if so, what effect that drop had on property taxes. Possible new trends can also be extrapolated from the data.

Measuring loss: Which yardstick?
A review of commercial property sales tracked by CoStar Group confirms that asset values have declined since 2008. Yet the degree of decline varies depending on whether the data are broken down by the number of properties or by square foot.

On a per-unit basis, sale prices for multifamily, retail, office, industrial, healthcare, flex, hospitality and specialty properties in Atlanta-area zip codes fell 25% from the beginning of 2008 through the start of 2010. Looking at those same property types on a per square foot basis, it appears that values fell 15%. Taking those results together, we can say that commercial values have decreased by 15% to 25%, or about 20% on average, from Jan. 1, 2008 to Jan. 1, 2010.

The pool of commercial tax parcels in the city of Atlanta has remained fairly constant over the past three years. The number of commercial parcels in the city was 16,347 for tax year 2008, 16,280 for tax year 2009, and 16,184 for tax year 2010.

Appeals fluctuate
In 2008, 5,069 property owners in Atlanta filed tax appeals, representing approximately 31% of all commercial properties. For tax year 2009, the number of appeals filed by taxpayers fell to 2,087, or approximately 13% of all commercial properties; the number of appeals increased to 3,467 for tax year 2010, representing approximately 21% of the commercial properties.

One possible and likely explanation for the marked decrease in the number of appeals filed from tax year 2008 to tax year 2009 is that Fulton County mailed assessment notices for the revaluation of all commercial properties for tax year 2008. That gave city of Atlanta taxpayers the opportunity to file appeals from the notices. However, for tax year 2009, the County did not issue widespread assessment notices. Only taxpayers who received notices were informed enough to file returns of their opinion of value with the tax assessors and, thereby, were assured of receiving assessment notices from which to appeal.

As of November 2010, 99.1% of appeals from the 2008 tax year had been resolved. For the 2009 tax year, 79.1% of appeals had reached a resolution; while only 16.4% of the cases from the 2010 tax year had been resolved.

In cases from the 2008 tax year, resulting valuations averaged 30% less value than the original assessments. In the 2009 appeals, the average reduction in value was 25%. The few cases resolved from the 2010 tax year brought down the original assessments by an average of 29%.

Clearly then, Atlanta property values as well as Atlanta property taxes have dropped. On a weighted average basis across the three years, assessments reflect a reduction of approximately 30%.

In spite of the inherent limitations of analysis with many appeals still waiting for resolution, the available data from concluded appeals shows a clear trend: A significant number of commercial property owners in the Atlanta area have achieved substantial valuation reductions in the past three years.

New rules kick in
Under a change to state law effective in tax year 2011, which began on January 1, county taxing authorities will send notices of assessed property values to all Georgia taxpayers for each tax year. With this change to the law, property owners will no longer be required to file a return of their opinion of their property value with the county tax assessor in order to receive an assessment notice from which to appeal.

Based on an examination of the past years' data, it appears that approximately 16,000 assessment notices will be mailed to commercial property owners in Atlanta. Judging from recent trends, anywhere from 15% to 30% of those assessments will be appealed.

If the current trend of reductions in property values continues, then it is also to be expected that the filed appeals will result in valuation decreases for tax year 2011 as well.

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

"Property owners can take steps to protect themselves from assessments that include business income by carefully reviewing the form of the income information they provide to the assessor..."

By Robert L. Gordon, Esq., as published by Commercial Property Executive, December 2010

A recurring challenge to prevent over-assessment of commercial property is to separate true real estate value from business value. True real estate value is assessable for property taxation, while business value is not.

Commercial property owners who conduct businesses on their property must be vigilant to ensure that the assessor is not capturing the value of their business operations in the guise of assessing their real estate. This can occur if the assessor assesses the property under an income approach and includes the owner's business income in his or her computations, claiming that this income is attributable to the real estate rather than to the owner's independent business operation.

The objective for property owners is to ensure that income solely attributable to the owner's business is excluded from real estate income. In general, courts are more likely to allow assessors to treat business income as real estate income where it can be demonstrated that the land itself, rather than the business skill of the owner, is primarily generating the income.

Property owners can take steps to protect themselves from assessments that include business income by carefully reviewing the form of the income information they provide to the assessor. Owners should structure their operating statements so that all income sources not directly pertaining to the real estate are reported and categorized separately.

Taking this step makes it easier to argue to the assessor that the separately reported income should not be included in the real estate assessment. By failing to categorize income properly, owners allow their real estate income and other income to be blurred together in a single entry in their operating statement. This needlessly gives the assessor an opportunity to point to the operating statement as proof that the other income is intertwined with the real estate income and is thus assessable.

Robert L. Gordon is a partner with Michael Best & Friedrich LLP in Milwaukee, where he specializes in federal, state and local tax litigation. Michael Best & Friedrich is the Wisconsin member of American Property Tax Counsel, the national affiliation of property tax attorneys. He can be reached at rlgordon@michaelbest.com.

"Some analysts suggest the volume of troubled commercial loans could create a wave of foreclosures similar to those that swept through the residential market..."

By Paul D. Bancroft, Esq., National Real Estate Investor, November 2010

The odds are stacked against property owners in Las Vegas, where the commercial real estate market continues to suffer from a severe downturn. With nearly $17.2 billion in distressed assets across all commercial property types, Las Vegas ranks No. 1 among U.S. metros by proportion of distress to total inventory in the local market, according to New York-based Real Capital Analytics.

Some analysts suggest the volume of troubled commercial loans could create a wave of foreclosures similar to those that swept through the residential market, a specter that is eroding confidence in commercial real estate. Meanwhile, the pool of available buyers has shrunk and the return on investment they require has increased, depressing sale prices.

Vacancy rates are another metric that illustrates the severity of the downturn. The vacancy rate for all classes of office space in Las Vegas has slowed its rate of increase, but is projected to top out at a staggering 24.8% by the end of this year, according to Encino, Calif.-based real estate services firm Marcus & Millichap. By contrast, the firm estimates that the current, national vacancy rate for all classes of office is 17.7%.

Applied Analysis, a research consulting firm based in Las Vegas, reports that vacancy rates have risen for the past four years in every subsector of commercial real estate, from retail to industrial to office. The average price per acre of developable commercial land in Clark County has fallen from a peak of $939,000 at the end of 2007 to $155,000 today, a drop of more than 83%, according to Applied Analysis.

Brian Gordon, a principal at the research company, draws a direct correlation between the weak demand for space and the depressed value of commercial properties.

The cumulative effect of these trends is clear: The market value of commercial property has dramatically declined. The question that remains for property owners is whether the taxable values assessors assign to Las Vegas real estate will reflect the decline in market value. Unfortunately for taxpayers, the short answer is no.

Data lag skews values

During any period of changing real estate values, Nevada's taxable property assessments tend to fall out of step with the current market. The tendency to reflect outdated property values doesn't mean the staff of the assessor's office isn't keeping up with the latest newspaper headlines. Rather, it's because assessors are required to follow a methodology that doesn't reflect recent shifts in market value.

In Nevada, the assessor is required to adhere to a valuation methodology that, in the current market, is biased toward a value that will exceed market value. To begin with, the sales data assessors use to establish pricing is simply outdated.

Nevada tax law requires assessors to value the land and improvement components of an improved parcel separately. The land component is valued by comparing it to the sale of vacant land. The comparable transactions are drawn from sales that occurred six months to three years prior to the valuation date, a point in time when real estate was selling for higher prices than is the case today.

In a market in which values are rising, the reliance on "old" sales data would tend to result in a taxable value that is below market value. In a declining market, however, the reliance on old sales will tend to result in a taxable land value that exceeds market value.

A different problem derives from assessors' methodology for valuing the improvement component of a property. In Nevada, improvements are valued according to replacement cost, or what it would cost to build a duplicate asset today, less depreciation.

Replacement cost is established from cost manuals published by Los Angeles-based Marshall & Swift, which monitors materials pricing for the commercial and residential real estate industries.

Reliance on replacement cost may be relevant in a market that is not overbuilt. But in a market with excess inventory, the replacement cost of a building will not reflect economic obsolescence that makes the space less marketable to tenants, and therefore less valuable.

The appraisers in the Clark County Assessor's office currently are valuing properties for the tax year that begins on July 1, 2011 and runs to June 30, 2012. More likely than not, the methodology they are required to follow will result in taxable values that exceed market value.

If that occurs, the assessor is required to reduce taxable value to market value. As a practical matter, however, it is unlikely the reduction to market value will be made because the assessor's office simply does not have the time or property-specific information on vacancy, rent and expenses to determine the market value of all commercial properties. That limitation puts the onus on the property owner. Taxpayers will receive a notice of the taxable value assigned to their property for tax year 2011-2012 in early December. Even if that taxable value is less than the value it was assigned in the preceding tax year, the bias in the methodology employed by the assessor is likely to have resulted in a taxable value that still exceeds market value.

Owners must ask themselves what a snapshot of their property's market value would be on Jan. 1, 2011. If the market trends previously described continue, any reasonable level of analysis is likely to support a market value for most commercial properties that is less than the taxable value determined by the assessor.

Consequently, owners of most commercial properties in Las Vegas will have good reason to appeal to the county board of equalization for an adjustment this year. The deadline for filing an appeal is Jan. 18, 2011.

Paul Bancroft is a managing partner in the Tucson, AZ law firm of Bancroft, Susa & Galloway, the Nevada and Arizona member of American Property Tax Counsel, the national affiliation of property tax attorneys. He can be reached at pbancroft@bancroftlaw.com.

"Consider market developments after the valuation date. Even though an appraiser or the assessor generally ignores after-occurring transactions, an equalization board or court may find the information useful..."

By Elliott B. Pollack, as published by Commercial Property Executive Blog - October 2010

As municipalities reassess real estate within their jurisdictions, those counties and cities which are required to rely upon market value, as opposed to formulaic or historic cost based approaches, have a major problem. The lack of transactions in the late 2007-late 2009 time frame means that appraisers' jobs will be far more complicated.

How to estimate market rent when there are a few tenants signing leases? Is there a way to determine market-based capitalization rates when there are few sales from which rates can be derived? How to calculate band of investment capitalization rates when mortgage financing is so difficult to come by?

When assessors ask themselves these sorts of questions, their reply usually sounds something like this: "I have a job to do. Even in the absence of data, I must determine market value as of my jurisdiction's assessment date. I will do the best job I can in the circumstances."

This means that the ad valorem tax valuation of your commercial property today is difficult to calculate and is likely to be too high.

Take the time to review the accuracy of your assessment with competent appraisal and property tax counsel. If you are fortunate enough to own a trophy asset or a property in a major market, go to internet data sources for a preliminary analysis.

Consider market developments after the valuation date. Even though an appraiser or the assessor generally ignores after-occurring transactions, an equalization board or court may find the information useful.

Look at the values of comparable properties with an eye to determining the equity of your assessment. Even if a valuation appeal isn't possible, an equalization attack may be an option. Most importantly, talk with brokers and lenders. They may hold valuable information about failed financing applications, busted transactions and lease negotiations which will be of great assistance in weighing the approximate accuracy of the assessor's value.

Elliott B. Pollack is chair of the Property Valuation Department of the Connecticut law firm Pullman & Comley, LLC. The firm is the Connecticut member of American Property Tax Counsel, the national affiliation of property tax attorneys. He can be reached at ebpollack@pullcom.com.

"Property owners haunted by flawed approach to tax assessments..."

By Stewart L. Mandell, Esq., as published by National Real Estate Investor, October 2010

Flawed cost-based assessments are a common cause of unlawfully high property taxation. Year after year, inflated valuations by government assessors can impose excessive tax bills on a property, notwithstanding annual taxpayer efforts to correct them.

For property owners, persistently unfair assessments are like Talky Tina, the infamous talking doll in the television series The Twilight Zone. The evil toy ultimately prevails against homeowner Erich Streator, notwithstanding his repeated efforts to remove the doll from the Streator family home. The bad news for taxpayers is that assessors will continue to impose excessive, flawed assessments because they often employ error-prone appraisal methods in the interest of expediency. The following demonstrates a common route to a cost-based assessment.

Software can help assessors quickly calculate the cost of reproducing property improvements, an amount I'll call "cost to build today." To account for physical deterioration of improvements, assessors can use an age-life method.

For example, let's say a five-year old structure's estimated life is 50 years and its cost to build today is $10 million. The assessor deducts 10% for physical deterioration and adds the resulting $9 million value to the land value for a quick — and often inflated — assessment. The good news for taxpayers is that, unlike the Twilight Zone's Streator family, they have the means to seek and obtain justice.

A compelling case

A recently litigated tax appeal regarding a big-box retail building offers a persuasive example. The taxpayer-submitted appraisal included not only income- and sales-comparison based valuations, but also a proper cost approach.

The cost-based analysis differed in several ways from the tax assessor's hasty valuation. First, the appraisal explained that in addition to physical deterioration, depreciation must reflect functional obsolescence or drawbacks to the property itself, as well as external obsolescence. The latter refers to factors outside the property, such as reduced demand for space due to a recession.

The taxpayer proved that the original assessment was flawed because only physical deterioration had been subtracted from the cost to build today. Additionally, the property owner's appraiser presented comparable sales of other big-box locations where a taxpayer had purchased a site, developed a building and sold the property within a few years. These comparable sales were properties in which the owners had a fee simple interest.

For each comparable sale, the appraiser established the total depreciation of the improvements by first subtracting the original land purchase amount from the recent sale price to arrive at a current depreciated value for the building. Then the appraiser compared that building value to the cost to build today, which showed how much the building had depreciated over time.

The total depreciation at these similar properties supported the case for a lower assessment. In the most extreme example from several comparable sales, the value of the building and improvements was 56% less than the cost to build today. Total depreciation of the improvements in the comparable examples ranged from 42% to 56%. Applying this analysis, even after adding back the property's $700,000 land cost, the property assessment should have been about $3 million instead of more than $5 million.

In this case, the appraiser had comparable sales data on similar properties where land acquisition, construction and a sale had taken place in a relatively short time. In cases where the available comparable sales are of older properties, land sales may be used to establish the land value, rather than using the actual original price. As the accompanying chart shows, the taxpayer demonstrated that the government's assessment was unlawfully inflated by over 40%. Clearly, comparable sales can help taxpayers fight the kind of excessive taxation that should only exist in the fictitious world of The Twilight Zone.

Stewart L. Mandell is a partner in the law firm of Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn LLP, the Michigan member of American Property Tax Counsel (APTC). He can be reached at slmandell@honigman.com.

"Taxpayers are left to rely on the courts to compel assessors to value golf courses by present use and condition only..."

By Michael Martone, Esq., and Michael P. Guerriero, Esq., National Real Estate Investor, September 2010

A battle is raging in New York and across the country between assessors and taxpayers at odds over the market value of golf courses and their associated membership clubs.

The front lines in this conflict are clearly demonstrated in Nassau County, N.Y., home to 400 overlapping tax districts and a population suffering the highest taxation burden in the state. The recession and nationwide decline in property values for golf courses have pushed many clubs into severe financial straits as thinning rosters force them to lower dues or scrap fees.

One prominent Long Island club recently sold to a developer. Another declared bankruptcy, and surviving golf courses are fighting to avoid similar fates. Closures outpace new openings as demand for golf declines and revenue growth remains flat in the face of rising costs especially property taxes.

Exacerbating the tax problem are assessors who turn a blind eye to the economic forces threatening the survival of private clubs, and who instead pay undue attention to alternative land uses. Taxpayers are left to rely on the courts to compel assessors to value golf courses by present use and condition only.

In most all cases a golf course sells for a price that includes its business operation and personal property, but only the value of the real estate may be considered in setting the property tax assessment.

Development factor

Many courses are bought and sold for their development potential, grossly inflating values. Where developable land is at a premium, reliance on comparable sales could tax private golf courses from existence. The cost approach, too, is generally reserved for specialty property.

For these reasons, courts require the assessor to value the private golf course based on its value in use when employing the income capitalization approach. With this approach, a not-for-profit private club is valued as if it were a privately operated, for-profit, daily fee operation.

The courts tend to determine a golf course's income stream by capitalizing the amount a golf operator would pay a property owner as rent for the course. They use this methodology because golf course operators typically pay a percentage of gross revenues as rent. That amount can be capitalized to arrive at a value. The capitalization of golf rent to value is a hotly litigated issue and influences the percentage rent to be used.

Conflicting formula

Rents for golf course leases are influenced by differences in tax burdens from one location to the next. Similar golf courses operating under a similar operating basis, yet in differing locations with disparate tax burdens, must be equalized to arrive at a fair and uniform tax value. In a recent case, the court sought how best to keep the influence of high tax burdens from unfairly distorting value.

In that case, the assessor preached the application of an ad-hoc, subjective adjustment to the percentage rent to reflect a greater or lesser tax burden. This approach assumes the rental amounts would be triple-net. In a triple-net lease the tenant pays the real estate taxes, and the percentage rent is adjusted to reflect local taxes on a case-by-case basis.

The taxpayer offered another, more reliable method, the "assessor's formula". This formula lets the assessor follow the law, which calls for like-kind properties to be equally and uniformly assessed. The formula takes into account the income stream, the cap rate and the tax rate.

For example, consider two identical properties a city block apart, but in separate tax districts. One district has high tax rates, and the other a low tax rate. Because the assessor's formula weighs all three elements used to arrive at market value, it produces fair tax assessments as opposed to a subjective adjustment that is not computed on a scientific basis.

The accompanying chart shows the difference in assessments when the assessor's formula is used instead of an ad hoc, subjective tax adjustment. The assessor's formula provides a superior method that both assessor and taxpayer can rely on.

Michael Martone is the managing partner of law firm Koeppel Martone & Leistman LLP in Mineola, N.Y. Michael Guerriero is an associate at the firm, the New York member of American Property Tax Counsel (APTC), the national affiliation of property tax attorneys. They can be reached at mmartone@taxcert.com and mguerriero@taxcert.com.

States moving to address proper valuations of LIHTC projects

"The cost approach calculates the expense of replacing a building with a similar one. That doesn't work in this context because without the tax credit subsidy, LIHTC projects could not be built in the first place..."

By Michael Martone, Esq., and Michael P. Guerriero, Esq., Affordable Housing Finance, September 2010.

An unfair property valuation by a local tax assessor can cripple the operation of a low-income housing tax credit (LIHTC) operation. Unfortunately, the inconsistency and uncertainty of how assessors value completed developments is a common impediment to financing LIHTC projects.

Without guidance at the state level, local assessors may value projects without consideration of the regulations that encumber the property and limit its income producing potential. Tax assessments based upon the highest use, rather than the actual use, of the property can even prevent development altogether.

The majority of states base their property tax valuations on fair market value. Typically, assessors value real estate by one of three methods—the market approach, the cost approach, or the income approach—and each presents challenges in relation to LIHTC assets.

The market approach of analyzing comparable sales is difficult to apply because there exists no market of tax credit property transactions to rely upon.

The cost approach calculates the expense of replacing a building with a similar one. That doesn't work in this context because without the tax credit subsidy, LIHTC projects could not be built in the first place.

The income approach is generally favored when valuing income-producing property, such as an apartment building that generates a cash stream of paid rent. However, conflict exists over whether to value the property based upon estimated market rents or the actual restricted rents that are inherent in an LIHTC operation.

For example, in New York, just as in many states, there existed no clear statutory guidance or case law to provide a uniform method of assessment for affordable housing. Many times assessors took the position that these properties should be assessed on an income basis as though they operated at market rents. The result was inflated property tax bills based on market rents that LIHTC projects cannot charge due to rent restrictions.

State legislation has slowly matured in this area. In 2005, New York became the 14th state to address the proper valuation of LIHTC properties. Other states that have passed legislation adopting a uniform method of assessment include Alaska, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maryland, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, Utah, and Wisconsin.

New York's Real Property Tax Law directs local assessors to use an income approach that excludes tax credits or subsidies as income when valuing LIHTC properties.

To qualify, a property must be subject to a regulatory agreement with the municipality, the state, or the federal government that limits occupancy of at least 20 percent of the units to an "income test." The law requires the income approach of valuation be applied only to the "actual net operating income" after deduction of any reserves required by federal programs.

The New York statute is representative of other states, such as California, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, and Nebraska.

Maryland's tax code states that tax credits may not be included as income attributable to the property and that the rent restrictions must be considered in the property valuation.

Likewise, California mandates that "the assessor shall exclude from income the benefit from federal and state low-income tax credits" when valuing property under the income approach.

However, there are still many states without legislation, leaving the valuation of these projects to the whims of a local assessor who may not understand the intricacies of an LIHTC project.

Michael Martone is the managing partner of law firm Koeppel Martone & Leistman LLP in Mineola, N.Y. Michael Guerriero is an associate at the firm, the New York member of American Property Tax Counsel (APTC), the national affiliation of property tax attorneys. Michael Martone can be reached at mmartone@taxcert.com.

" Few U.S. markets are stable these days, however. In today's economic tumult, a property's leased fee position—its value based on contract lease rates—may not reflect current, dire market conditions that can bring down its taxable value..."

By Mark Maher, Esq., as published by Commercial Property Executive, September 2010

Many states assess commercial property on a fee-simple basis, using market rents and vacancy rates to calculate a property's potential income and value. That may work in a stable market, where multi-tenant properties have rent rolls that continually turn over and are consistent with market rents.

Few U.S. markets are stable these days, however. In today's economic tumult, a property's leased fee position—its value based on contract lease rates—may not reflect current, dire market conditions that can bring down its taxable value. It's more important than ever to educate the assessor to the realities of leasing in 2010.

In many cases, the data in the rent roll don't convey the full story of a property's performance. Tenants may be missing payments or be late in meeting their obligations. Some spaces might be rented but physically vacant as companies close sites and consolidate operations. This "shadow space" that is leased but unoccupied reduces the appeal of the rest of the property to potential new users. Worse yet, shadow space is often available for sublease and directly competes with the landlord for tenants, usually at attractively low rates.

Another common source of overvaluation by assessors is published asking rental rates, which many jurisdictions equate to market rates. Such information is easily available and busy assessors often revert to it as a starting point for valuing properties.

The property owner's leasing team is the best source of information to establish the new, lower market rents that will produce an assessment in line with true value. The taxpayer can build a case by providing examples of tenants signing leases for low rent, but that task may prove challenging because few tenants are currently taking new space.

As an alternative, property owners can marshal anecdotes of failed leasing efforts in order to counter asking-rent data. Lost and dead leasing deals need to be detailed so that assessors can place themselves in the property owner's shoes.

Remember that few assessors have experienced a precipitous downturn before. It's in the taxpayer's best interest to educate assessors on the realities of leasing in a down market.

Mark Maher is a partner in the Minneapolis-based law firm of Smith Gendler Shiell Sheff Ford & Maher, the Minnesota member of American Property Tax Counsel (APTC), the national affiliation of property tax attorneys. He can be reached at mmaher@smithgendler.com.

"The tax credits threaten to reduce tax revenue to the state. To minimize lost revenue, taxing entities are attempting to limit use of the tax credits for industrial personal property by seeking to reclassify many of those assets as commercial..."

By Michael Shapiro, Esq., as published by National Real Estate Investor - online, August 2010

Detroit, along with the rest of Michigan is wrestling with two major tax issues that frequently involve litigation and have costly implications for owners of commercial and industrial properties. The first issue relates to the fact that the applicable tax statute in Michigan treats industrial properties differently than office, retail, hotel and other commercial properties.

Starting with the 2008 tax year, the Michigan legislature granted Michigan Business Tax credits to owners of industrial personal property. These credits are intended to offset property taxes and reduce the tax rate levied on industrial personal property.

As the accompanying chart indicates, for the 2009 tax year, Detroit's rate for commercial personal property was $70.92 per $1,000 taxable value (generally 50% of market value). Meanwhile, the personal industrial property rate was $59.14 per $1,000, effectively reduced to $38.44 per $1,000 by the Michigan Business Tax credits.

The tax credits threaten to reduce tax revenue to the state. To minimize lost revenue, taxing entities are attempting to limit use of the tax credits for industrial personal property by seeking to reclassify many of those assets as commercial.

The Michigan Department of Treasury recently announced that it filed almost 10,000 property tax classification cases affecting 2009 property taxes. In addition, state officials have encouraged local communities to file classification appeals in the State Tax Commission for 2010, all with the intent of changing property classifications from industrial personal property to commercial personal property.

Raw deal for industrial owners

Many of the actions have been initiated by the state or local jurisdiction based solely on the name of the owner, and without regard to the actual use of the property or the property's legal classification. If a company's name is Joe's Manufacturing, it will not have a classification action brought against it, whereas Joe's Warehouse will be the subject of such an action.

Because the law involved is relatively new, most taxpayers receiving notice of these appeals have little to no idea what the action involves.

At the heart of the issue is the definition of industrial personal property, and the statute is reasonably clear that personal property located on industrial real property is industrial personal property.

Notwithstanding the statute, the state and State Tax Commission claim that the use of personal property governs its classification and that personal property has to be used for manufacturing or processing in order to be deemed industrial. There is nothing in the applicable statute to support that position, however.

The classification appeals recently filed make it apparent that the state and State Tax Commission recognize their claims may not prevail. As a result, in more recent filings they are seeking to change the classification of the underlying real estate from industrial to commercial.

It appears that most actions by the State Tax Commission and the State have been taken without any property specifics other than the name of the owner. If those reclassifications succeed, then the personal property at the site would also be redefined as commercial and not industrial personal property.

Taxpayers affected by such actions should consult with competent property tax counsel for advice on whether to defend such claims and, if so, how to proceed. In some instances, the government may have missed a critical deadline, which will give taxpayers an additional basis for prevailing.

Backlog of appeals

The second source of property tax litigation in Detroit and other Michigan communities is shared by thousands of property owners across the country. Nearly everywhere in the United States, property values are depressed by as much as 40% or more from where they were before the onset of the recession in December 2007.

And just like local governments in other states, Michigan's taxing entities are strapped for cash and reluctant to voluntarily lower valuations to reflect current market conditions. It's no surprise that thousands of property owners have appealed assessments in hopes of lowering their property tax bills.

What may be surprising to property owners who haven't already filed an appeal is that an unprecedented deluge of valuation protests has slowed down the panel that reviews them. As of July 31, there were approximately 2,600 non-small-claims cases pending before the Michigan Tax Tribunal for the 2008 tax year, and another 5,600 cases for 2009. Approximately 3,900 such new cases have been filed in 2010.

The tax tribunal recently adopted new procedures and is laboring to reduce this backlog and expedite the time it takes cases to move from filing to resolution. Most property tax practitioners applaud the tribunal's recent efforts in this regard. Even so, for anyone considering an appeal, it makes sense to start the process sooner rather than later and get in line to have the case heard.

Michael Shapiro chairs the tax appeals practice group at Michigan law firm Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn LLP. The firm is the Michigan member of American Property Tax Counsel, the national affiliation of property tax attorneys. HE can be reached at mshapiro@honigman.com.

"In many cases, taxing jurisdictions cannot support or defend the values that are placed on those properties under appeal..."

By Philip J. Giannuario, as published by Commercial Property Executive Blog, August 2010

With real estate values down in all sectors across the nation, tax appeals are climbing to record numbers. In many cases, taxing jurisdictions cannot support or defend the values that are placed on those properties under appeal.

As municipal revenues run thin and state governments cut programs to balance their budgets, those governments understandably want to avoid returning significant amounts of money as tax refunds.

As a result, many taxing authorities are exploiting technicalities in state laws to seek dismissals of valid appeals. That makes it critically important that property owners stay abreast of all state requirements that may bear on tax appeals, and rigorously follow required procedures.

New Jersey's Chapter 91 statute provides a clear example of the kinds of technicalities state's employ. The statute requires the assessor to send a request to the owner of income-producing properties and ask for financial data related to the asset. The owner then has 45 days to respond to the demand. If the owner fails to respond in that time, he or she forfeits the right to challenge that year's assessment.

In a recent New Jersey case, a municipality moved to dismiss an appeal for a failure to respond to the income and expense request. The property owner had designated an agent to receive property tax notices and correspondence. Although the agent received the request, the agent failed to file the form with the municipality.

The owner argued that the strict words of the statute required the assessor to serve the owner directly. The court held that the only address on file was that of the agent, however, and reasoned that the owner was bound by the statute. On those grounds, the court dismissed the case.

The simple lesson to learn from this example is that a number of procedural hurdles exist in each state's tax law. Taxpayers must become knowledgeable about all applicable procedural rules and create failsafe, redundant systems to guard against the needless loss of their tax appeal rights.

Philip J. Giannuario is a partner in the Montclair, New Jersey law firm Garippa Lotz & Giannuario, the New Jersey and eastern Pennsylvania member of American Property Tax Counsel, the national affiliation of property tax attorneys. Phil Giannuario can be reached at phil@taxappeal.com.

"In Kelo, the Court held that while government may not take one's property for the sole benefit of another private party..."

By Michael R. Martone, Esq., as published by Globest.com - July 2010

Constitutional limits on the government's power to take property for use by private entities for the public purpose of economic revitalization have been the subject of much debate in New York. The state has struggled to define itself in the wake of the Supreme Court's controversial 2005 ruling in Kelo v. City of New London, which sparked a national debate about the eminent domain power.

In Kelo, the Court held that while government may not take one's property for the sole benefit of another private party, it may do so for the public purpose of economic revitalization. The ruling deferred to the City's taking of private property for inclusion in its redevelopment plan, hoping to revitalize its depressed economy.

The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the Federal Constitution mandates "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without compensation." Kelo says that where a legislature adopts a comprehensive economic plan it determines will create jobs, increase revenues and revitalize a depressed area, the project serves a public purpose and qualifies as a permissible public use under the Takings Clause.

An outraged public ridiculed Kelo as a gross violation of property rights for the benefit of large corporations at the expense of individual property owners. Since the ruling, 43 states have taken legislative action limiting the use of eminent domain. New York, however, has been criticized for failing to take similar action.

Condemnation in New York

Under New York's Eminent Domain Procedure Law, the State must first conduct a public hearing and determine that a taking would serve a public purpose so as to qualify as a public use. Next, the State must provide the property owner with just compensation for property taken. Each step is subject to judicial review.

Historically, it is extremely difficult for affected property owners to challenge a finding of public necessity to prevent a taking. Courts generally defer to a legislative prerogative, and vague definitions of public purpose can be used to justify most seizures. The courts have scrutinized economic revitalization as a justifiable cause for seizure, however, property owners have challenged the power of the Empire State Development Corp. (ESDC) to force the sale of private property.

The ESDC, the state's development arm, can force the sale of property either for a civic purpose or to eradicate urban blight - amorphously defined as substandard and insanitary. Two recent decisions closely examined the ESDC's involvement with private development projects in the name of economic revitalization.

Atlantic Yards Project

In Goldstein v. NYS Urban Development Corp., the Court of Appeals upheld the ESDC's taking of private properties in Brooklyn for inclusion in a 22-acre mixed-use development project known as the Atlantic Yards. The project includes a basketball arena for the New Jersey Nets and 16 commercial and residential high-rise towers.

The ESDC relied upon studies finding that the area was blighted and warranted condemnation for development. The Court noted that the removal of blight is a sanctioned predicate for the exercise of eminent domain and rejected the challenge to the blight findings, accepting as reliable the comprehensive studies supporting the ESDC's determinations.

The Court said it must defer to what is the legislature's prerogative and may intervene only where no reasonable basis exists, which was not the case in Goldstein. The dissent invited close scrutiny of blight findings, arguing that the courts give too much deference to the self-serving determinations of the ESDC.

Columbia University Expansion

Meanwhile, in Kaur v. NYS Urban Development Corp., the Appellate Division rejected as unconstitutional the ESDC's takings to assist Columbia University in building a satellite campus in the Manhattenville area of West Harlem. The court denounced the ESDC's blight determination as mere sophistry that was concocted years after Columbia developed its plans. Citing a conflict of interest, the Court chastised the ESDC for hiring Columbia's own planning consultant to conduct the blight study.

The Court declared that as a private, elite institution, Columbia could not claim a civic purpose to its expansion sufficient to meet the public use standards. That the University was the sole beneficiary of the project is reason alone to invalidate the taking, the Court wrote, especially because the alleged public benefit is incrementally incidental to the private benefits of the project.

The State appealed and it remains to be seen how the Court of Appeals harmonizes the Appellate Division's aggressive Kaur approach with its own deferential Goldstein holding. The rights of property owners throughout the state hang in the balance.

Michael R. Martone is the Managing Partner in the Mineola law firm of Koeppel Martone & Leistman, L.L.P., the New York State member of American Property Tax Counsel, the national affiliation of property tax attorneys. Michael Martone can be reached at MMartone@taxcert.com. Michael Guerriero contributed to this column. He can be reached at MGuerriero@taxcert.com.

"Appraisers seem conditioned to accept the property's current status, and it is almost politically incorrect to challenge it..."

By Elliott B. Pollack, Esq., as published by Hotel News Resource - July 2010

The first step a real estate appraiser must take before valuing a property is to identify its highest and best use (HBU). Indeed, it is a truism that everything in an appraisal flows from this determination.

HBU is "the reasonable, probable and legal use of vacant land or improved property, which is physically possible, appropriately supported, financially feasible and that results in the highest value." That being said, appraisers rarely conclude that the HBU of a property is different from the current use. Why? Appraisers seem conditioned to accept the property's current status, and it is almost politically incorrect to challenge it. Moreover, the fee structure under which many appraisers function discourages them from taking on this often expansive mission.

Nevertheless, the horrible economic conditions of the last two-plus years have severely undermined the viability of many hospitality properties. As more operations become marginal, appraisers should question whether the profitable years of a particular hotel may be in its past. This is true even if it wouldn't make sense to immediately demolish and construct some other use, or to simply turn the property into a parking lot.

Take the case of a tired, decades-old, un-flagged property that suffers from deferred maintenance. Is it reasonable to conclude that a buyer, or even the current owner, would make the necessary investment to prolong its life much longer? If not, then the appraiser should consider whether the amount of physical, functional and economic obsolescence inherent in the property has numbered its days. Even though operations may continue for another few years, given the lack of alternative uses presently, the effect on appraised value is the same.

With properties struggling to remain viable, the appraiser should research whether or not current hospitality HBU will likely come to an end in the foreseeable future. If that outcome is likely, the appraiser should consider developing a discounted cash flow that incorporates demolition costs and future revenues as a surface parking lot or some other improved use. If similar properties in the area have been demolished or converted to alternate uses, such as housing for senior citizens, then support for a new HBU becomes even stronger.

The appraiser who fails to grapple with the sort of fact pattern set forth above will be doing his client a disservice, and may generate an excessive valuation and an unduly heavy ad valorem tax burden for her client.

Elliott B. Pollack is chair of the Property Valuation Department of the Connecticut law firm Pullman & Comley, LLC. The firm is the Connecticut member of American Property Tax Counsel, the national affiliation of property tax attorneys. He can be reached at ebpollack@pullcom.com.

Get Real About Tax Assessments

"A property's chain affiliation may affect its assessed value for property-tax purposes..."

By Stephen H. Paul, Esq., as published by Scotsman Guide, June 2010

Imagine this scenario: Two hotels in the same city are of similar age, size and construction quality. Both are located in popular areas with convenient access to sites attractive to overnight travelers. They're nearly indistinguishable — hotel guests would enjoy comparably satisfying overnight stays. But one hotel's assessed value for property-tax purposes is materially greater than the other. Why the difference?

There is a good chance that the hotel with the higher assessment operates under the flag of a recognized hotel chain and the other does not.

Should the flagged property's owner face the penalty of a higher tax bill because of the flag? Uniform appraisal standards and various state-tax authorities say that it should not. After all, tangible real property is assessed, not intangible personal property.

Moreover, in the past 10 to 12 years, several courts have handed down opinions that intangible value, such as that springing from a flagged hotel's identity, must be excluded from the real property's value. But including intangible value in the real-property assessment of properties such as flagged hotels remains an important and ongoing local property-tax issue across the country.

Other property types — such as restaurants, shopping malls, theaters, racetracks and casinos — also are affected by this issue. Property-owners and others concerned about their taxable values — e.g., potential buyers, their mortgage brokers, real estate agents and lenders — must be aware of this. Owners and buyers should be prepared to challenge assessments, and brokers should understand how to assure that these properties' tax valuations are performed correctly.

Property assessors and appraisers refer to the intangible value in varying fashions. They may talk about "business enterprise value," "going concern value" or "capitalized economic profit." But the basic concept is the same: It refers to including the intangible assets and rights that make the taxable property usable in the value. It is the value associated with the business operation, rather than the property itself.

There are three generally accepted approaches to valuing real property: the cost approach, the sales-comparison approach and the income-capitalization approach.

Regardless of the method used, assessors should be identifying and excluding all value outside of the real estate itself from the real property's value. How an assessment limits the property's valuation to the real estate's taxable value varies by approach.

The cost approach

Because this approach focuses on costs of land and improvements, it might appear unlikely that added value associated with the property's economic activity could embellish the assessment. Assessors must pay close attention to functional and economic obsolescence that may reduce the property's cost value, however. Functional obsolescence is the loss in a property's utility resulting from distinctive floor plans, site designs, or difficulty of upgrading or modifying property for a particular use, among other things.

Flagged or chain properties often are constructed according to designs specific to the chain. They also often have logos and other items that can hurt the real property's value because of the costs of modifying the property for other uses.

Economic obsolescence occurs because of external factors. For chain hotels, restaurants and other businesses, property-value reductions often come from market-demand changes because of a recession, changes in the public's tastes and market saturation with similar chain businesses.

Owners of chain-business properties more frequently cannot sell or lease property for as much as the tax-assessed value based on cost. Functional and economic obsolescence can factor into this.

An appraiser should identify and quantify the obsolescence and exclude it from the property's value. Failing to reduce the assessment for obsolescence may result in assessing the property too high because of characteristics attributable to the chain venture.

Sales-comparison approach

With this approach, appraisers analyze recent sales of comparable properties to determine the subject property's value. They adjust the comparable sales to quantify differences between the sold properties and the subject property. An appraisal used for real estate tax purposes should identify the intangible values reflected in the comparable properties' sales prices and eliminate them from the sales.

If sales of vacant properties, properties of non-chain-business enterprises, or sales of chain or flagged properties to non-chain operators who drop the chain affiliation are available, the sales approach should be used to avoid overstatement of value that otherwise might result.

Essentially, appraisers should use sales of comparable properties, sans the flagged or chain business, to arrive at a value.

The income approach

This approach aims to determine the property value by capitalizing the annual net operating income. For real estate assessment purposes, the income considered must come from the real estate only and not from the business interest occupying the property.

Thus, the income attributable to the property's intangible component — as well as to the tangible personal property — must be identified and extracted to arrive at a value. This can be difficult, but it is necessary if an appraisal relies on the income approach.

An appraiser might identify and analyze the comparable properties' incomes to develop a market value. As with the sales approach, in developing a model to determine market value based on income, the appraiser should select non-chain properties to avoid contaminating the data with associated intangible value and should reconcile income and expense items to account for property differences.

Regardless of the approach, a flagged property's value must be scrutinized to eliminate intangible value. The cost approach must account for functional and economic obsolescence. The sales approach must avoid inclusion of going-concern value in comparable sales. And the income approach should not entail simply a capitalization of the net operating income of the business occupying the property without isolating and eliminating business-enterprise value.

Owners of flagged or chain properties must be aware of how intangible value can disrupt property values and must be prepared to challenge assessments. Potential buyers should scrutinize appraisals for overvaluation arising out of the inclusion of intangible value. Brokers and lenders should approach appraisals with equal scrutiny in evaluating the security for mortgages. If intangible value is included in a flagged hotel's assessment and the hotel later loses its chain affiliation, the loan's security would be compromised. Lenders can mitigate this risk by being aware of the issue and assuring that any intangible value is identified and eliminated in the property's initial valuation.

Appraisers of flagged properties have the difficult task of identifying and quantifying intangible value attributable to a business enterprise and distinguishing it from the real property value. With diligent prodding from parties interested in the property's appraisal, an incorrectly large assessment is avoidable.

Stephen H. Paul is a partner in the Indianapolis law firm of Baker & Daniels LLP, the Indiana member of the American Property Tax Counsel. He can be reached at stephen.paul@bakerd.com.
Mr. Paul thanks his colleague Fenton D. Strickland for his contributions to this article.

Seeking Reassessment? Act Now, Tax Attorneys Warn

By Suzann D. Silverman as published by Commercial Property Executive, June 2010

With the Federal Reserve repeatedly calling attention to commercial real estate assets' decline in market value and reduced access to financing, taxing jurisdictions have shown greater openness of late to appeals for reduced property taxes. That trend has offered many owners some badly needed breathing room. But as municipalities themselves become more strapped for cash, winning tax appeals looks likely to become much more challenging.

The commercial property sector is a natural place for municipalities to look for revenue, noted Elliott B. Pollack, chairman of the property valuation department of Pullman & Comley L.L.C. and a director of the American Property Tax Counsel. After all, commercial properties already make up a large proportion of communities' tax bases, and most legislators would much rather hike taxes on a local office building than on their constituents.

Some states have enacted tax caps, according to Stephen Paul, a partner at Baker & Daniels L.L.P. and vice president of the Tax Counsel.

But those limits can be deceiving. In Indiana, where he practices, residents' taxes are limited to 1 percent of value, while apartments are capped at 2 percent and commercial property at 3 percent. The risk, Paul said, is that the greatest pressure to raise assessments will be on commercial properties, which have the highest ceiling by percentage.

And when property values do inevitably begin to climb, the raw tax liability will naturally rise with them.

Paul expects a surge in tax litigation to result, with local appeals becoming harder to win and a greater number reaching the state level.

Eventually, these cases will get a fair hearing, he believes, but that outcome may require a time-consuming, expensive effort by owners.

The steady erosion of municipal finances across the country presents an additional reason for concern, according to John E. Garippa, senior partner of Garippa Lotz & Giannuario and president of the Tax Counsel.

While bonding capacity should yield enough cash for municipalities to cover refunds, at least in theory, Garippa foresees potential for reductions in many municipalities' ability to bond. Legislation may also cause delays by extending the deadlines for municipalities to distribute tax refunds.

The predicted rise in interest rates is also likely to have an impact, he noted, driving cap rates up and asset values down. "That's why it's important for clients to be on top of this," he cautioned.

When it comes to property tax disputes, being on top of it means preparing in advance to appeal to ensure that deadlines are met, and then gathering the details necessary to persuade the court. While many property owners file appeals every year (most settle rather than try their luck in the backlogged courts), there are still a good number that do not, Garippa said. But with assessments based on the previous year's data, current assessments may not fully reflect the market downturn. That offers an opportunity to argue for an assessment decrease.

In New York City, for instance, the Real Property Income & Expense filings that the finance department required in 2009 were based on 2008 data, which did not reflect the full extent of the commercial real estate market crash that occurred at year-end 2008, explained Joseph Giminaro, special counselor & co-manager of the tax certiorari department for Stroock & Stroock & Lavan L.L.P. It is too soon to evaluate how the tax commission will view updated data, but Glenn Newman, president of the commission, has indicated that he wants to see all data that shows the difficulties property owners are enduring. "I think it's very favorable that the tax commission is openly saying it wants to hear these stories," Giminaro observed.

That positive attitude seems common nationally. Tax certiorari attorneys, who specialize in tax appeals, are achieving some significant reductions.

In the hospitality arena, for example, "it is not unusual to see total assessments drop by more than a third," said Garippa, who represents some of the nation's largest hotel operators. Big-box stores saw a similar drop in the past year, he noted. Pollack, too, has seen significant decreases; he reports that appeals for hotel properties are typically garnering tax reductions of 20 to 40 percent. And while hotel and retail properties have been subject to the largest overassessments, owners of other property types can also mount successful appeals. Older industrial properties are another big area.

Taxing jurisdictions typically have based value largely on income capitalization and replacement value, not comparable sales, but one area that offers growing potential to strengthen appeals is brand value, since so-called intangible benefits are not taxable. Retail and hospitality properties are the categories whose brand value is most readily recognized by tax courts, according to Paul. Part of hotels' income is derived from the flag, and shopping centers typically count on big-name stores to attract customers.

Mall owners have brought branding to a new level in recent years with efforts for company name recognition among consumers. Office property owners are newer to this strategy and have had less success. However, that will come with time, Paul predicted.

In the meantime, with data now available on the softer market and municipal difficulties looming, "now's the time to take a tax appeal," Paul said.

Stephen H. Paul is a partner in the Indianapolis law firm of Baker & Daniels LLP, the Indiana member of the American Property Tax Counsel. He can be reached at stephen.paul@bakerd. com

Elliott B. Pollack is chair of the Property Valuation Department of the Connecticut law firm Pullman & Comley, LLC. The firm is the Connecticut member of the American Property Tax Counsel, the national affiliation of property tax attorneys. He can be reached at ebpollack@pullcom.com

John E. Garippa is senior partner of the law firm of Garippa, Lotz & Giannuario with offices in Montclair and Philadelphia. Mr. Garippa is also president of the American Property Tax Counsel, the national affiliation of property tax attorneys, and can be reached at john@taxappeal.com