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

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

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

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

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

Evaluating Your Assessment

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

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

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

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

Filing an Appeal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why rent isn't rent

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Make your case

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HBU Isn't Always Visible in a Rear View Mirror

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

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

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

Gas Stations Typify Current HBU Issues

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

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

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

How Owners Can Use HBU

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

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

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

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

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

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

Elliott B. Pollack is a member of Pullman & Comley in Hartford, Connecticut and chair of the firm's Valuation Department. The firm is the Connecticut member of American Property Tax Counsel. He can be reached at ebpollack@pullcom.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Methodology matters

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

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

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

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

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

Courts side with owners

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

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

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

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

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

Andy Raines is a partner in the Memphis law firm of Evans & Petree PC, the Tennessee member of the American Property Tax Counsel (APTC), the national affiliation of property tax attorneys. He can be reached at araines@evanspetree.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gaining traction

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

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

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

Doing the math

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cris K. O'Neall is a partner in the Los Angeles law firm of Cahill, Davis & O'Neall LLP, the California member of American Property Tax Counsel (APTC), the national affiliation of property tax attorneys. Mr. O'Neall can be reached at cko@cahilldavis.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Court weighs in on business value

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

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

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

Actions Owners Should Take

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Different Methods, Different Results

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

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

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

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

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

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

Legal Flaws in GIM

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

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

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

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

"Many assessors routinely send Chapter 91 requests to taxpayers seeking information about income producing property."

By John E. Garippa, Esq., as published by Globest.com Commercial Real Estate News and Property Resource, February 22nd, 2008.

New Jersey taxpayers need to know about two critical issues as they consider possibilities for property tax relief.

The first issue is the filing deadline. All property tax appeals in New Jersey must be filed no later than April 1, 2008. This date requires that the appeal be received by the Tax Court on that date. Merely mailing the appeal with a postmark of April 1st will result in a dismissal. As a precaution, taxpayers would be well advised to file their appeal anytime after January 1, 2008. When the appeal is filed, all property taxes due and owing must be paid in order for the appeal to be considered by the court.

The second issue revolves around the need to timely respond to Chapter 91 requests that have been made by the assessor. Many assessors routinely send Chapter 91 requests to taxpayers seeking information about income producing property. These requests, which must be answered within 45 days of receipt, are sometimes ignored by taxpayers. That is a fatal error. If the assessor sends out such a request, it must be answered in order for the taxpayer to have the right to file a tax appeal the following year. Many valid tax appeals have been dismissed for this failure.

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

"Over the past 18 months, the residential market has faced significant erosion and downward pricing pressure with the subprime mortgage meltdown reducing the value of most residential property. The increasing inventory of unsold housing units causes additional downward pressure."

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

At the start of a new year, it is vitally important for New Jersey taxpayers to understand the challenges they should expect regarding property tax assessments. For 2008, many taxing jurisdictions have completed municipal-wide revaluations. Under New Jersey law, in a revaluation all tax parcels are valued at 100% of fair market value. The revaluation set for the 2008 tax year values all property as of October 1, 2007.

The difficulty in properly completing this assignment arises because it generally takes 18 months to properly complete an accurate revaluation. Most often, in the process of their work, revaluation firms consider comparable sales data and comparable income data derived during a 12-month period prior to the October 1 st date. They place greater reliance on that data which is closest to the October 1 st date.

Problems occur with revaluations when the data relied upon does not accurately measure the true value of property at October 1, 2007. In some markets, where a significant value change takes place, accuracy is almost impossible. This year that market will almost certainly be residential revaluations.

Over the past 18 months, the residential market has faced significant erosion and downward pricing pressure with the subprime mortgage meltdown reducing the value of most residential property. The increasing inventory of unsold housing units causes additional downward pressure. Revaluations commencing in 2008 are relying upon sales dating back to 2006, still a period of strength for the residential market. Taxpayers should carefully review their tax notices to determine if these revaluation notices accurately reflect the value of their property as of October 1, 2007.

In Commercial, a continuing challenge will be the fact that now most assessors routinely send Chapter 91 requests to taxpayers every year. These requests are designed to assist the assessor in determining current information about all income-producing property within a taxing jurisdiction. A taxpayer has 45 days to respond to this inquiry.

A failure to respond results in the automatic dismissal of any tax appeal filed thereafter for that tax year. Every year, hundreds of tax appeals are dismissed by the Tax Court because taxpayers failed to properly respond to these requests. While all taxpayers should be diligent in answering Chapter 91 requests, owners with larger portfolios need to stay particularly vigilant regarding these requests.

Taxpayers owning income-producing property also face challenges. High vacancies continue to be seen in many office markets, and the prospect of a slowdown in the economy puts pressure on many commercial values as well. Likewise, with the subprime mortgage market affecting other sectors, retail properties will face price pressure.

All of this makes valuing these properties difficult during 2008. Many of these properties will be worth less in the months after October 1, 2007, than they were prior to October 1. While that fact may not assist in reducing an assessment for 2008, it can be useful in negotiating assessments for 2009.

Key Points You Need to Know: Remember, it is not unusual during the tax appeal process for a tax assessor to request a dismissal for a prior year in order to reduce the following year's tax assessment. This allows the assessor to reduce an assessment for a subsequent year prior to collecting any taxes. The ploy puts the taxing jurisdiction in a position where they will not have to pay any property tax refunds.

The law in New Jersey presumes that assessments are correct. The burden falls on the taxpayer to demonstrate through probative evidence that the value placed by the assessor isn't correct. This makes it especially difficult for taxpayers when market value changes month to month and value must be proven as of October 1, 2007.

Once the tax rolls are closed and certified, a procedure that takes place by the end of the prior tax year, only by filing a valid tax appeal can an assessment be lawfully changed. The tax appeal process can be difficult and expensive, requiring significant proofs. Each taxpayer needs to be aware of the significant difficulties involved, and the fact that these problems are even more pressing when significant economic issues come into play.

Valuing real property in normal static times is difficult enough, valuing them during times of significant change can be almost impossible. Taxpayers face significant obstacles throughout all of 2008 as they try to obtain equitable tax assessments. Bringing together the combined knowledge and expertise of your entire tax team will benefit taxpayers in this tough environment.

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

Using comparable market sales for taxation can correct errors assessor errors.

"The tax professionals' initial work identified three relatively recent sales of comparable properties that suffered from functional and external obsolescence, much like the taxpayer's property."

By Stewart L. Mandell, Esq., as published by National Real Estate Investor, February 2008

Assessors typically value industrial and commercial properties using a cost approach that starts with land value, adds the cost of property improvements and subtracts some physical depreciation, often based on the property's age. Deducting only the physical depreciation from a property tax valuation often results in egregiously excessive taxation. However, by applying data regarding comparable market sales, taxpayers can remedy this problem, sometimes with extraordinary results.

Seldom are such factors as functional or external obsolescence, which can dramatically diminish property values, used in assessors' property tax valuations. Functional obsolescence arises from the flaws that exist in a property. Examples include an abnormal size, shape, or height, concrete floors that are exceptionally deep or too shallow and so forth.

External obsolescence results from outside forces such as industrial properties becoming vacant because production moves offshore, or a change in tax laws that reduces commercial property values. Fortunately, data from comparable property sale can be used to identify specific amounts of functional and external obsolescence; amounts that must be deducted from assessors' valuations to eliminate unlawfully excessive taxation.

Consider an industrial facility with above market operating expenses that houses manufacturing barely surviving global competition. In an actual case similar to this example, the assessor made a mere 4% reduction for functional and external obsolescence even after the taxpayer had fully described the obsolescence. Ultimately the taxpayer retained property tax professionals who knew how to use sales of comparable properties to demonstrate the diminished values the obsolescence caused.

How the process works

Assessor's records commonly contain errors in a property's age, total square footage, net leasable area, number of units, unit mix, and facility amenities. An error in the property's basic data can significantly increase a property's overall assessment. Providing a current rent roll to the assessor can help correct mistakes in a property's basic data. An owner may also wish to produce a site plan for the property along with the most recent marketing materials that show the project's different floor plans and amenities. Correcting basic errors in the assessor's records remains the simplest path to lower a tax assessment.

The tax professionals' initial work identified three relatively recent sales of comparable properties that suffered from functional and external obsolescence, much like the taxpayer's property. The professionals used these sales to quantify depreciation in a way that enabled them to reasonably estimate the obsolescence in the taxpayer's property. Using the steps followed by the professionals, taxpayers can garner stunning property tax reductions. Here's how:

• Determine the value of improvements by subtracting the value of the land from its sale price for each of the comparable properties.
• Determine the construction cost of improvements when new by researching construction costs in national estimating services such as Marshall Valuation.
• Calculate the property's total depreciation by subtracting the value of the improvements today from the cost to construct the improvements.
• Ascertain physical depreciation by dividing the property's effective age by its life expectancy.
• Estimate functional and economic obsolescence by subtracting the physical depreciation from its total depreciation.

The taxpayer's reward

Completing this analysis for the three comparable sales produced an indication of functional and external obsolescence that was far greater than the assessor recognized in his assessment. Having established a 40% to 48% range for obsolescence, the professionals then determined whether any further adjustments were warranted such as those due to differences between the sold properties and the taxpayer's property.

For example, unlike the sold properties, the taxpayer's property was both excessively large and had an unusual shape. These features would cause the taxpayer's property to suffer from even greater obsolescence than the sold properties.

As a result of the analysis, the assessor agreed that a proper cost approach required both the physical depreciation originally calculated plus an additional 40% reduction for obsolescence, an $8 million assessment reduction.

This example demonstrates that the property owner was able to deduct functional and external obsolescence without relying on an income analysis. In this case, property was located in a market where virtually all of the industrial properties were either owner occupied or vacant, making it impossible to obtain income information.

In the cost approach, where physical depreciation represents the only deduction, taxpayers should expect that properties with functional and external obsolescence will be overvalued.

When that happens it is crucial that taxpayers take action. To paraphrase the renowned philosopher, Mick Jagger, when it comes to property taxation, taxpayers may not be able to get what they want, but armed with the right information and professional assistance, they may be able to get what they need.

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.

Under the proposed ICAP legislation, retail facilities benefits would be dramatically reduced

"Most knowledgeable developers disagree with restricting the program's benefits and eligibility and want the program extended unchanged."

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

The Industrial and Commercial Incentive Program is New York City's largest commercial real estate incentive program, with approximately 15,000 applications filed since its 1984 inception. KIP provides partial real estate tax exemptions for new and renovated industrial and commercial buildings in most areas of the city. While the program's renewal seems certain, it's likely to undergo significant legislative revisions.

Critics contend that lClP operates at a substantial fiscal loss for the city, with approximately $371 million in real estate tax revenues foregone in 2006 alone. The city demands reforms to the current ICIP. Specifically, they want to restrict benefits to commercial and manufacturing buildings in geographic areas that truly require special real estate tax incentives to encourage construction, stimulate employment and foster significant new economic activity. Most knowledgeable developers disagree with restricting the program's benefits and eligibility and want the program extended unchanged. In the proposed legislation, three elements are particularly noteworthy:

1. Abatement vs. Exemption

The current IClP offers tax exemption for new and renovated buildings based upon building assessment increases directly attributable to construction, i.e. "physical increases" described in the application. Industrial and commercial buildings located in special exemption areas also qualify for exemption from assessment increases arising from inflation or market value appreciation, i.e. "equalization increases." It appears ICIP amendments will provide a tax abatement rather than an exemption. For that reason, the revised legislation is generally referred to as the Industrial and Commercial Abatement Program. While exemptions reduce the amount of assessment subject to real estate taxation, abatement's are tax credits that directly reduce tax liabilities imposed upon the property. A project's abatement base will reflect the difference between the assessed value of the completed building and 11 5% of its pre-construction assessed value.

2. Reduction of Retail Eligibility

Under the proposed new lCAP legislation, benefits for retail facilities would be dramatically reduced and would depend upon the type of project and its location. Critics of KIP contend that new retail facilities frequently displace sales from existing locations in the city rather than create new economic activity. Retail space within newly constructed or renovated commercial buildings in Manhattan south of City Hall would remain eligible for [CAP benefits. Commercial buildings in Manhattan between City Hall and 59th Street would not be eligible for abatement benefits on any retail space greater than 5% of the total floor area. In regular commercial benefit areas, retail space in excess of 10% of the building's floor area would not qualify for abatement benefits.

3. Reduction of Eligible Construction Period

The old ICIP program called for commercial or industrial construction work to be performed between the date the first building permit is issued and the sixth taxable status date (Jan. 5) there after. Failure to meet these construction benchmarks would not mean denial of benefits but merely serves as a cap on the exemption base.

Under ICAP, owners generally would have to complete new buildings within five years of the permit date and renovation projects within two years of the permit date. Failure to complete construction within these periods would mean revocation of all abatement benefits granted from inception. The abatement base would be limited to physical assessment increases within three years after the permit date for new buildings and one year after the permit date for renovations. ICAP would reduce the lClP construction period from almost six years to one to three years, depending upon whether the project is a new or renovated structure. Clearly, ICAP offers far less generous benefits than those available under KIP. To capture lClP benefits, owners must 1) file a preliminary application with the New York City Department of Finance prior to June 30,2008 and 2) obtain a building permit no later than July 31,2008. These dates are critical if owners want to qualify their projects under IClP rather than ICAP.

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

Assessors' misuse of highest and best use principle proves costly.

"To support inflated values, taxing units attempt to narrowly define the highest and best use of the property."

By Michael Shapiro, Esq., as published by National Real Estate Investor, December 2007

In many states, the war over property tax assessments based on "value to the owner" as opposed to "market value" has ended with a clear victory for market value. Nonetheless, some jurisdictions continue to try changing this outcome by misusing "highest and best use."

Assessors' attempts to misuse highest and best use can be seen most often in buildings used by big-box retailers and manufacturers, as opposed to properties such as hotels, office buildings and shop-

ping centers, typically valued using the income approach.

To support inflated values, taxing units attempt to narrowly define the highest and best use of the property. They claim that a taxpayer's comparable sales aren't evidence of market value because the sale properties have a different highest and best use than the property being assessed.

Two methods, two results

An assessor may contend, for example, that only stores purchased by Jones Corporation can be used to value a store used by Jones Corporation. This effectively eliminates comparable sales as a basis for valuation. One tax court addressed this issue when it held that a property's highest and best use cannot be defined "so narrowly that it precludes analysis and value based on market data."

The accompanying chart demonstrates the difference between the assessor's valuation of two big-box stores based on his narrow definition of highest and best use and the actual selling price of those same stores in the open market.

The assessor defined highest and best use as that use being exercised by that specific retailer. That definition led the assessor to value big-box store No. 1 at $62 per sq. ft. and big box store No. 2 at $58 per sq. ft. Actually, store No. 1 sold to another retailer for $49 per sq. ft. and store No. 2 was bought by a different retailer for $38 per sq. ft.By narrowly defining highest and best use, the assessor ignored market data and over assessed the property.

The relevance of a comparable sale's highest and best use was addressed in the case of Newport Center v. City of Jersey City. The New Jersey Tax Court held that a comparable sale should be admissible evidence of value, regardless of its highest and best use, if the claimed comparable sale provides logical, coherent support for an opinion of value.

Many jurisdictions want to effectively reinstate value to the owner, in legal terms called "value-in-use," as the lawful standard for property tax valuations, thereby inflating assessments by eliminating from consideration the sales-comparison approach to value. In the sales comparison approach, sales often provide the best indication of a big box or manufacturing property's market value.

Sales prices reflect loss in value from replacement cost due to obsolescence. That obsolescence generally includes a significant amount of external obsolescence, which represents loss in value caused by some negative influence outside the property.

For example, external obsolescence could result from limited market demand for a big-box store or manufacturing plant built to meet the needs of a specific user. Value may also be adversely influenced by functional obsolescence, a loss in value due to design deficiencies in the structure, such as inadequate ceiling heights, bay spacing or lighting.

What's a comparable sale?

Appraisers are taught to only use sales comparables with the same or similar highest and best use to that of the property being appraised. However, even this limitation is too restrictive.

For example, years ago a former automobile assembly plant was offered for sale and eventually sold for demolition and construction of a shopping center. No automobile manufacturer, or for that matter any other manufacturer, was willing to pay more for this property than the developer who bought it to build a shopping center.

Thus, the market spoke and defined the market value of the former automobile plant. In short, if a property is physically similar to the property being valued, but sells for an unusual use, that sale should not necessarily be disregarded as a comparable sale.

The sale of the former automobile assembly plant for use as a shopping center may not be the ideal comparable sale to value industrial property. However, that sale certainly puts a cap, or limit, on the value of a similar industrial facility, subject of course to adjustments for relevant differences such as location or size.

By understanding the issues involved in using comparable sales to achieve market value assessments, taxpayers can successfully appeal property tax assessments when they are based on the misuse of highest and best use.

Michael Shapiro 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 mshapiro@honigman.com.

"When the taxpayer rejects the protection of the Freeze Act, they must file a tax appeal and prosecute it in the normal course of events. More often than not, a taxpayer thinks twice, or maybe more, about rejecting the Freeze Act's protection, since filing tax appeals requires significant expenditures of time and capital."

By John E. Garippa, Esq., as published by Real Estate New Jersey, December, 2007

New Jersey taxpayers have long struggled against high tax assessments and property taxes imposed by the tax authorities. Historically, even when taxpayers successfully reduced high assessments, there were taxing jurisdictions that filed appeals year after year to increase those reduced assessments. Despite the fact that a taxpayer successfully reduced his assessment in a court proceeding, there was nothing to prevent an increase in assessment for the following tax year.

As a result of this abuse of the system, the Legislature passed New Jersey Statute 54:51A-8, a law commonly referred to as the Freeze Act. The single greatest defensive tool any taxpayer in New Jersey can employ, it was passed to protect taxpayers from the need to file and prosecute annual tax appeals. Now more than ever, it has become crucial that taxpayers have a clear understanding of how the Freeze Act works and under what conditions it may not work.

For the Freeze Act to apply, a final judgment by the Tax Court must have been rendered regarding a real property tax assessment, and that judgment must be binding and conclusive on all parties, including the taxing district and municipal assessor. Generally, the Act makes that final judgment of the Tax Court binding for the next two successive assessment years.

However, exceptions exist to this general rule. If the taxpayer's property increased in value more than the general rate of increase in value of all other property in that taxing jurisdiction, the jurisdiction must file an appeal to void the Freeze. For the most part, the Tax Court has strictly interpreted this change in value standard in a manner that protects taxpayers.

The appeal process requires the tax authority to take two steps. In the first, they have to prove an increase in value more than other properties in the area. Second, they still bear the burden of proof in substantiating the correctness of their valuation of the property.

Some unusual external changes have precipitated the voiding of the Freeze Act protection. For instance, the increase in value of property in close proximity to the proposed casino district in Atlantic City gave rise to an increase in property value that voided the Freeze Act protection.

Another example of how the Freeze act was voided involved the development of a super regional mall near a commercial property that was protected under the Freeze Act. The court concluded that the construction of the super-regional mall and the development of the casino district in Atlantic City, in each instance, caused a substantial change in property values to commercial property in those vicinities.

The following four other conditions cause the Freeze Act to be voided: A complete reassessment or revaluation of all property in the taxing jurisdiction, the subdivision of a property, a zoning change to the property and any construction change to the property that results in an added assessment. In each of these conditions, the taxing jurisdiction merely asserts that one of these is met at the subject property. No need then exists for the court to determine if a change in value has occurred.

In certain circumstances, the taxpayer may determine that it is in their best interests to waive the protection of the Freeze and seek an even lower assessment. This situation may take place where real estate values continue to deflate. When the taxpayer rejects the protection of the Freeze Act, they must file a tax appeal and prosecute it in the normal course of events. More often than not, a taxpayer thinks twice, or maybe more, about rejecting the Freeze Act's protection, since filing tax appeals requires significant expenditures of time and capital.

The use of the Freeze Act and the decision to waive its protection requires an exercise of professional due diligence, which calls for the taxpayer to appraise the property to determine whether continued erosion in the value of the property or a change in the ratio of assessment to value in that taxing jurisdiction has been experienced. If a review of either of these determinants indicates that the property continues to be over assessed, it might be prudent to forsake the protection of the Freeze Act and proceed in filing an appeal.

However, this is not a step to be taken lightly because, in dealing with New Jersey property taxes, prudence is often the better part of valor.

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

By Joel R. Marcus, Esq. as published in Real Estate New York, December 2007

The new law also curtails exemption benefits for as-of-right areas

"The new law, however, greatly expanded the exclusion zones throughout the city to include all of Manhattan and most of Brooklyn's Carroll Gardens, Cobble Hill, Boerum Hill, Park Slope, Sunset Park and Downtown Brooklyn; along with parts of Long Island City, Astoria, Woodside, Jackson Heights and Willets Point in Queens."

On Aug. 24, Gov. Eliot Spitzer signed into law three bills that dramatically revamped New York City's 421a exemption program. The program was created in 1971 to encourage the construction of new multifamily dwellings by granting a partial exemption from increases in real estate taxes resulting from the new residential construction.

The new law compared to the old law. The previous law covered only projects commend prior to July 1,2008 and made 421a benefits available in any area of the city, except for those areas identified as geographical exclusion areas. The areas not classified as exclusion areas are commonly called "as-of-right' areas. The exclusion areas generally included portions of Manhattan between 14th and 96 th streets and the Williamsburg-Greenpoint areas of Brooklyn. Projects qualified for benefits in the exclusion zones if at least 20% of the units were created as affordable housing or if the developer purchased negotiable certificates for creation of affordable housing units off-site.

The new law, however, greatly expanded the exclusion zones throughout the city to include all of Manhattan and most of Brooklyn's Carroll Gardens, Cobble Hill, Boerum Hill, Park Slope, Sunset Park and Downtown Brooklyn; along with parts of Long Island City, Astoria, Woodside, Jackson Heights and Willets Point in Queens. Projects started between July 1,2008 and Dec. 27,2010 in these areas qualify for benefits only if at least 20% of the building's units are affordable to families whose income at initial occupancy doesn't exceed 60% of the area median income.

The new law reduces 421a benefits outside the exclusion zones. The controversy surrounding the new citywide exclusion zones may obscure the fact that the new law dramatically curtails 421a exemption benefits for as-of-right areas.

Under the old law, all assessment increases in excess of the pre-construction assessment, commonly known as the mini-tax, were exempt. Under the new law, benefits for as-of right projects are restricted to the first $65,000 in assessed valuation per dwelling unit. The cap increases by 3% each year, beginning in 2009/10. For the current tax year, the cap is equal to $7,750 in actual taxes per unit ($65,000 x 11.928%).

The new law also dramatically reduces tax benefits for nonresidential space in new multifamily dwellings. Under the old law, up to 12% of the building area could be used for commercial purposes, without loss of exemption. Developers often incorporated valuable retail space in their buildings to lease at market rates while enjoying full 421a exemption benefits. Under the new law, all commercial space in a building is considered one unit and is subject to the $65,000 exemption cap, greatly reducing the tax break for commercial space.

To demonstrate the effect of the exemption cap, consider a new 100,000-sf condominium building with 100 dwelling units and one retail unit constructed in an as-of-right area. The building includes 12,000 sf of retail space and carries a $100,000 mini-tax. The completed building is assessed for $1 5 million. Under both the old and new laws, the project would qualify for a 15-year exemption benefit.

Under the old law, taxes during the construction period and for the first 11 years after completion equaled the mini-tax multiplied by the tax rate. Assuming that the 2007/08 tax rate of 11.928% remains in effect, annual taxes for the entire building would equal $1 1,9280 approximately $118 per residential and retail unit. The exemption would not be affected by the retail space as it does not exceed 12% of the building's floor area. Under the new law, taxes for the entire building, including the retail space, would still be the same mini-tax ($100,000) each year during construction. However, for the first 11 years after construction is completed, the 101 - unit building would be subject to the exemption cap, as adjusted. For the first year, only $6,565,000 (101 units x $65,000) of the building's $15-million assessment qualifies for exemption. Taxes for the fiat year of the benefit period would exceed $1 million for the building or approximately $9,960 per residential and retail unit, a 1,000% increase. The new law will likely affect the feasibility and pricing of all new projects.

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

Frustrated by your assessment? You've got until Dec. 31 to fight it.

"To successfully appeal, you need to prove that the actual price for which you could sell your property, its "real" real Market value, is below the assessed value. How do you determine the real market value?"

By David Canary, Esq., as published by Daily Journal of Commerce, November 14th, 2007

Your property tax bills have arrived in the mail and, understandably, you're upset with the amount you're paying on your real and personal property. But there is some good news: You have a right to appeal.

So, what are you appealing? Unfortunately, not the tax itself. The amount of property tax you pay cannot be the basis for an appeal. A property tax is the product of multiplying two numbers, the tax rate and the assessed value of the property. Measure 5 limits the tax rate to 1.5 percent of real market value plus any local option property tax. Only in very limited circumstances may property owners challenge the rate.

What you are appealing is the property's assessed value. The assessed value is the lower of two figures: the maximum assessed value (MAV) or the real market value (RMV) of the property.

Under 1997's Measure 50, except for six exceptions, assessed value cannot increase more than 3 percent per year — which becomes the property's maximum assessed value. Real market value, on the other hand, is the amount the property would sell for between a willing buyer and a willing seller in the open market in an arm's length transaction.

Both the real market value and the assessed value appear on the property tax bill. Typically, the assessed value will be below real market value, in which case you are being assessed on the property's maximum assessed value.

To successfully appeal, you need to prove that the actual price for which you could sell your property, its "real" real Market value, is below the assessed value. How do you determine the real market value? First, if you recently bought the property for less than the assessed value, the sale price is a good indication. However, don't base your appeal upon the assessed value of other properties. The Oregon Tax Court has ruled that the assessed value of other properties isn't a sufficient legal basis for seeking a property tax reduction.

An examination of the income generated by your income-producing property may give you an indication that the assessed value is too high. Income may be generated by lease or rental rates of commercial real estate or, in the case of owner-occupied industrial property, by the cash flow generated by the operating facility. If the income generated from the property is far below the expected rate of return of the debt and equity capital invested in the property, this may indicate that the property is over-assessed because it suffers from functional or economic obsolescence.

The best evidence of the property's real market value is an appraisal by a qualified expert for property tax purposes. It may be that your property has been appraised already for other purposes — insurance, partnership buyout, or estate planning purposes. These appraisals may give you an indication whether the assessment of your property is inappropriately high. But appraisals for property tax purposes require that the appraiser render an opinion of the real market value of the fee simple interest of the property as of January 1 st of the tax year. An insurance appraisal that estimates insurable or replacement value is not sufficient. Likewise, an appraisal for estate planning or investment purposes may not fit the requirements necessary for an appeal.

A competent appraiser will determine the real market value of the property by use of one or more of the three approaches to value: the cost approach, the sales comparison approach, and the income approach. The cost approach adds the land value to the depreciated cost of the property's improvements. The sales comparison approach compares the sale price of comparable properties with the property being appraised and makes adjustments for any differences between the two. Finally, the income approach capitalizes either the market rental rate or the cash flow of the property by an appropriate rate of return that reflects the return on, and return of, the investment.

Taxpayers who own residential or commercial properties must first appeal their assessments to the County Board of Property Tax Appeals. Owners of the industrial property can either appeal to county bard, or appeal directly to the Magistrate Division of the Oregon Tax Court. However you chose to proceed, please remember that your appeal must be filed no later than December 31, 2007.

David Canary has specialized in state and local tax litigation for the past 18 years. He has worked for the past 13 years as an owner in the Portland office of Garvey Schubert Barer and prior to that was an assistant attorney general representing the Oregon Department of Revenue. He has the distinction of trying several of the largest tax cases in Oregon's history. He is the Oregon member of American Property Tax Counsel and an active member of the Association of Oregon Industries' Fiscal Policy Council. He can be reached at dcanary@gsblaw.com or 503-228-3939.

"The Kentucky General Assembly authorized cities and urban county governments to establish programs that grant property tax moratoriums for existing residential or commercial properties "for the purpose of encouraging the repair, rehab, restoration or stabilization of existing improvements."

By Michele M. Whittington, Esq., Bruce F. Clark, Esq., as published in Midwest Real Estate News, November, 2007

The Louisville-Jefferson County Metro Government offers a property tax incentive designed to encourage redevelopment of economically-blighted properties. While not a widely advertised offer, property owners and developers should be aware of this opportunity to reduce their property taxes.

The Kentucky General Assembly authorized cities and urban county governments to establish programs that grant property tax moratoriums for existing residential or commercial properties "for the purpose of encouraging the repair, rehab, restoration or stabilization of existing improvements." This program was established as the result of an amendment to the Kentucky Constitution passed in 1982 by Kentucky voters.

In 1983, Jefferson County was one of the very few local governments to implement the newly passed legislation, and in 2003, the then-merged Louisville-Jefferson County government continued the program. In essence, it encourages redevelopment of existing properties by "freezing" for five years a property's tax assessment at pre-rehab levels. Unfortunately, the moratorium applies only to the "county" portion of the tax assessment, which currently amounts to $0.125 per $100 of assessed value. Efforts to extend the moratorium to other portions of the total property tax assessment have thus far been unsuccessful. Nevertheless, the moratorium presents an additional incentive for a property owner to rehabilitate an eligible property.

The moratorium program is jointly administered by the Jefferson County Property Valuation Administrator ("PVA") and the Louisville-Jefferson County Metro Government's Inspections and Licensing Department ("IPL"). The eligibility requirements for the moratorium are relatively straightforward. First, the existing residential or commercial structure(s) must be at least twenty-five years old. Second, either (a) the cost of the repair or rehab must be at least twenty-five percent of the pre-rehab value (as determined by the PVA's assessment); or (b) the property must be located within a "target area," an economically-depressed area based on residents' income. In the latter case, the cost of the repair or rehab must be at least ten percent of the pre-rehab value.

A property owner wishing to apply for the moratorium needs to submit an application to the IPL. In addition to other requirements, the application must include proof of the building's age, a description of the proposed use of the property, a general description of the work that will be performed to repair or rehabilitate the property and a schedule for completion of the proposed work. The owner should also obtain the necessary building permits and submit them to IPL. Once the application has been submitted, the owner has two years to complete the project. Upon completion of the project, the owner notifies the IPL, which inspects the property for compliance with the rehab plan set out in the application. If the project has been successfully completed, the IPL notifies the PVA, and they issue a moratorium certificate.

The moratorium's benefits can be calculated by determining the difference between the property's pre-rehab and post-rehab value. The PVA certifies the pre-rehab assessment of the property as part of the application process. Once the project is completed, the PVA reassesses the property at the higher post-rehab value; however, with the moratorium in place, the assessment for the county portion of the taxes will be "frozen" at the pre-rehab value. For example, assume that a developer purchases a qualifying property for $1,000,000. After rehab, the PVA reassesses the property for $10 million. With the moratorium in place, the assessment remains at $1,000,000 for purposes of the county portion of the tax, while the assessment for all other property taxes (state, school and others) increases to $10 million. The resulting tax savings for the property add up to approximately $11,250 per year for five years, or a total tax savings of over $55,000.

Property owners considering rehab of an eligible property should pay particular attention to the pre-rehab assessment. If the owner believes the property may be over-assessed, she should meet with the PVA and present evidence of the true value of the property prior to applying for the moratorium. Given the fact that the moratorium freezes the assessment at the pre-rehab value, a decrease in the assessment results in a corresponding increase in the tax savings, once the moratorium certificate is issued.

Conversely, a developer planning to purchase a property for redevelopment should be aware that the PVA's pre-rehab assessment will most likely be governed by the price the developer pays for the property, rather than by the pre-purchase assessment. Using the previous example, assume that a developer purchases a property for $2 million. Prior to the purchase, the PVA had the property assessed at $1 million. The PVA will inevitably pick up the purchase price from the deed and will reassess the property at $2 million, thus decreasing the tax benefit gained from the moratorium.

In any case, owners and developers should be aware of the moratorium process in order to take advantage of the potential tax savings on eligible properties.

Michele M. Whittington is Counsel in the Frankfort office of Stites & Harbison, PLLC, the Kentucky member of American Property Tax Counsel, the national affiliation of property tax attorneys. Michele Whittington can be reached at mwhittington@stites.com.

Bruce F. Clark is a Member in the Frankfort office of Stites & Harbison, PLLC, the Kentucky member of American Property Tax Counsel, the national affiliation of property tax attorneys.He can be reached at bclark@stites.com.

"When you receive your tax statement, determine if the property belongs to you and if you are responsible for the payment of taxes."

By David Canary, Esq., as published by Daily Journal of Commerce, October 9th, 2007

By statute, county assessors must deliver property tax statements to taxpayers by Oct. 25 of each year- just before Halloween. This requirement applies to all property, real or personal, whether owned by homeowners or utilities. To avoid any unpleasant surprises, it is important that taxpayers understand and carefully review their tax statements.

If you don't receive a tax statement for property you own and you're responsible for the payment of taxes, contact the county assessors office to determine if the assessor is unaware of a recent change of address or ownership.

When you receive your tax statement, determine if the property belongs to you and if you are responsible for the payment of taxes. If there has been a recent sale of the property, the assessor may not have noted the change of ownership, Taxpayers have a duty to now the assessor of changes in title and changes in address. Do not assume the new owner, or lessee of the property (in the case of a triple net lease), will pay the property taxes.

Review the real market value and assessed value appearing in the upper left corner of the tax statement. The assessor calculates a real market value for both land and improvements for the current and previous tax years. Below the total real market value is the assessed value for the total account for the current and previous years.

The assessed value may be less than the total real market value, but it may not be more. This is because Measure 50 requires the assessor to calculate two values — the real market value and the maximum assessed value. The lesser of the two values is the assessed value — the value upon which you pay taxes. If the assessed value is less than the real market value, generally, the real market value has no effect upon the property taxes you pay. Next, it is important to compare the assessed value for the current tax year to the assessed maximum assessed value cannot increase more than 3 percent above the property's assessed value from the prior year. There are exceptions, and the taxpayer must investigate to determine if they apply.

A property's maximum assessed value may exceed the 3 percent cap if the new property or improvements were added. Minor construction or general ongoing maintenance and repair does not constitute new property or an improvement.

Further, the improvements must have been made since the last assessment. Improvements made to the property three or four years ago cannot be added to the tax roll under Measure 50 although assessor may add them as omitted property.

Finally, it is the real market value of the new property or new improvements not the cost that is added to the tax rolls under this exception. This is particularly important if the improvement was a major but necessary repair that did not necessarily add value to the property.

Partitioned or subdivided property may be reassessed by the assessor and with some limitations, the reassessment may increase the assessed value by more than 3 percent. Likewise property that has been rezoned may be reassessed and the assessed value increased, but only if the property is used consistently with the rezoning. However, the total assessed value of properties subject to a lot line adjustment should not be affected by the adjustment by more than 3 percent.

The value of property that is added to the tax roll for the first time as omitted property, or property that becomes disqualified from exemption of special assessment, may increase the previous years assessed value by more than 3 percent under Measure 50. Finally, taxpayer that own or lease business personal property should carefully review their tax statements to determine if any penalties have been assessed. Taxable personal property must be listed, and reported to the assessor by March 1 of each year. If the personal property return is not filed timely, the taxpayer may face penalties up to 50 percent of the taxes due.

Under new legislation, upon application to either the assessor or the Board of Property Tax Appeals, under certain circumstances a taxpayer may obtain a waiver of the penalties. Taxpayers who believe their property has been improperly assessed should contact the assessor immediately. The assessor has the discretion to change the tax roll after it's finished, provided the change reduces the value of the property. But only payers who are vigilant and know their rights scan avoid those nasty Halloween surprises.

David Canary has specialized in state and local tax litigation for the past 18 years. He has worked for the past 13 years as an owner in the Portland office of Garvey Schubert Barer and prior to that was an assistant attorney general representing the Oregon Department of Revenue. He has the distinction of trying several of the largest tax cases in Oregon's history. He is the Oregon member of American Property Tax Counsel and an active member of the Association of Oregon Industries' Fiscal Policy Council. He can be reached at dcanary@gsblaw.com.

"Despite the law, there appears to be one abiding maxim that all tax assessors observe: Every high sale price represents a market value sale, and every low sale price is seen as a distress sale."

By John E. Garippa, Esq., as published by Real Estate New Jersey, September 2007

New Jersey, as in most other jurisdictions in the US., all real property must be valued and assessed based on market value. It's the law. Market value is defined as the price paid by a willing buyer to a willing seller, each acting knowledgeably, without duress.

Despite the law, there appears to be one abiding maxim that all tax assessors observe: Every high sale price represents a market value sale, and every low sale price is seen as a distress sale. Further, every high sale can be relied upon to set an assessment and every low sale must be disregarded because it took place under distress. However, the real issue revolves around: Is every sale a market event that represents fair market value for assessment purposes? The Tax Court of New Jersey has focused on this issue and determined that a category of events exists that rule out a sale as a reliable indicator of fair market value for assessment purposes.

A transaction set up as a 1031 tax-free exchange represents one such category identified by the Tax Court. Under 1031, sellers of investment-grade real estate may defer paying capital gains by using the proceeds from one sale as an investment in another similar property or properties. The seller has 180 days from the original closing date to complete the exchange. Also, within 45 days of closing, the taxpayer must provide the IRS a list of three or more potential replacement properties.

In a recent case, the Tax Court agreed with the taxpayers arguments that his 1031 sale price was significantly higher than market value. The court concluded that the sale price was motivated by tax and business issues rather than typical real estate motivations. The court also concluded that the tax free exchange laws placed enormous pressure on a seller to conclude a transaction within 180 days. Fundamentally, the sale took place primarily to defer gains from another sale.

Another category of sales rejected by the Tax Court compromise those that have not been properly marketed. For example, a Fortune 500 company sold a corporate headquarters for $16 million. The sale was conducted via sealed bids over a short period of time. The bid package included language that prohibited the bidders from changing any of the sale terms. The court determined that the bid package was not sent to all potential buyers. As a result of these perceived defects in marketing the property, the court rejected the sale price and concluded to a market value of $49 million.

In contrast to the prior set of facts, the Tax Court has also concluded that the sale of a complex property can be market value. In another case, an oil refinery was sold after it was marketed for more than 18 months. The owner hired an investment banker to market the property. The investment banker identified all of the potential buyers. Comprehensive information packages identifying the property were transmitted all over the world. At the end of this marketing period, the seller received two bids, eventually resulting in a sale. The court concluded that such a significant amounted to a valid sale that could be used to value the property for tax assessment purposes.

Some of the same arguments made with regard to 1031 property can also be advanced for high purchase prices paid by REITs. REITs offer significant tax advantages to shareholders; however, they must meet strict tax requirements in order to qualify for that status. A RElT must distribute 90% of its income to shareholders. Thus, in order for a RElT to grow, it must continually purchase properties, as it cannot grow via the normal accumulation of cash.

Growth is critical because it leads to higher stock prices and allows for more diversification in the portfolio. Additionally, REITs use capital markets to which most other buyers do not have access. These large capital markets fund REIT purchases at low interest rates that further the aims of the REIT. All of these issues would normally cloud the price paid by a "willing buyer, acting without duress."

In an era characterized by unusually high sales prices, tax payers need to remember an important caveat: Even the New Jersey Tax Court recognizes that not every sale represents fair market value for tax assessment purposes. Owners involved in transactions with high sales prices need to carefully examine their property tax assessments to determine whether a valid market price was used in levying their assessment.

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

"A sale involving a first-generation lease is more a financing operation than a transaction in real estate. In the past, many single-tenant real estate users — often retailers not wanting to tie up capital — financed their real estate through sale-leaseback transactions where they recouped the capital costs by inflating both rent and the corresponding sale price."

By Kieran Jennings, Esq., as published by National Real Estate Investor, Summer Special Edition, July 2007

In a build-to-suit transaction, the value of the property to the user who had it built is greater than the value that property holds for the next user.

For instance, a store built as a McDonald's would not have the same value to a Taco Bell. Although both users are fast-food chains, the layout, design and exterior appearance all work to identify, market or assist the first occupant's business.

The decrease in value from the original user to the subsequent user represents built-in obsolescence. Failure to recognize this obsolescence often subjects first generation owners to excessive property tax assessments.

A triple-net-lease property that was a build-to-suit may be sold to a new owner, even if the original user remains the tenant. In this case, the sale price reflects the value of the tenant's lease. The assets involved in the purchase include both the lease and the real estate.

Because the revenue created by the lease primarily drives the price of the deal, an assessment based on sale price can result in an illegal assessment when it is based on the value of the property to the user.

Fighting back

The first step in reducing improper taxes requires that owners prove to the assessor or the courts that the rent and/or sale represent value to the user, not the market value of the property. The next task is to prove actual market value for the real estate.

A sale involving a first-generation lease is more a financing operation than a transaction in real estate. In the past, many single-tenant real estate users — often retailers not wanting to tie up capital — financed their real estate through sale-leaseback transactions where they recouped the capital costs by inflating both rent and the corresponding sale price. This practice is still prevalent today. The user currently has a relationship with a local developer who will acquire the site and build the property on behalf of the user to suit the user's needs. As with a sale-leaseback transaction, the user will enter into a long-term lease based on the costs of building the property to meet the user's specific needs.

The developer then either retains the property or sells it with the lease in place. Thus, the tenant has outsourced to the developer the financing, site selection, construction and other exterior and interior finishes. The third-party purchaser sees the transaction as essentially buying a bond secured by real estate.

Until the first-generation user vacates the property and the real estate is exposed to the open market, the real estate value has not been tested. Furthermore, because the lease drives the sales price of a net-lease property, only a second generation lease reveals true market value and produces a correct assessment.

Case study makes the point

Data from a recent drug store case illustrates the difference in first- and second generation leases for comparable properties built as national retail drug stores. The average drop of $19 per sq. ft. in rent from the first-generation user to the second generation illustrates the difference between value in use and market value.

The difference is due to obsolescence, a fact first-generation tenants must demonstrate to assessors. Data like that shown in the accompanying chart prove the existence and value of the obsolescence.

Not only are the rents affected by the first-generation tenant, the capitalization rate is significantly lower than market rates. The net-lease market into which these properties are sold is among the most active and developed in the real estate market, allowing for substantial liquidity, efficient pricing, and tax deferral through 1031 exchanges.

As a result, the capitalization rates have been reduced to exceedingly narrow margins. Therefore, cap rates derived from sales of first-generation property should not be used in determining assessments.

Proving market value

Assessment laws generally provide that property must be valued using market terms and conditions. Therefore, market rents, those paid by tenants in comparable properties, not contract rents, those paid by the net-lease tenant, determine the income attributable to the real estate.

The difference between market rents and contract rents demonstrate the amount of the obsolescence. Furthermore, the differences in sales prices of property from first-generation users to the next generation can also be used to prove obsolescence.

The road to a fair and honest assessment is not easy, but as illustrated in the accompanying chart, the difference between use value and market value can be substantial.

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

"The first thing any taxpayer needs to know to determine if they want to appeal their taxes is whether a reduction in assessed value yields tax savings. In states that place no limits on the amount of tax increase possible, owners can be certain that reduction in assessed value will generate a tax savings. However, several states' laws require the taxes rise by only a limited percentage in a given year."

By J. Kieran Jennings, Esq., as published by Affordable Housing Finance, Summer Special Edition 2007

Affordable housing owners looking for ways to save money and eliminate non-productive overhead should start by examining their property taxes. That doesn't require taxpayers to become experts in real estate tax law; they need only a working knowledge of the issues to identify when or if should hire an expert .

The basic issues

The first step in this process is to learn how assessors determine property taxes. One of the main indicators of fair market value that assessors use is the income that could be produced from the property using current rents, vacancies, and market expenses. In most states, real estate assessments are based on some percentage of a property's fair market value. Most often, the actual taxes are calculated using a millage rate (for example, $.001) multiplied by the assessment.

Right now owners of affordable housing face unprecedented increases in fuel and utility costs. And, because net income is a key indicator of market value, an increase in operating expenses likely causes a decrease in value. That means an owner's property might not be worth what the taxman says it is, and an appeal may be necessary.

Where does the taxpayer begin?

The first thing any taxpayer needs to know to determine if they want to appeal their taxes is whether a reduction in assessed value yields tax savings. In states that place no limits on the amount of tax increase possible, owners can be certain that reduction in assessed value will generate a tax savings. However, several states' laws require the taxes rise by only a limited percentage in a given year. In such states, a complex analysis is required to determine whether a reduction in assessed value actually results in a tax savings. This type of analysis calls for the skills of a property tax professional.

Some states' assessments may be based on ratios sometimes known as sale ratios or common-level ratios. In states such as New Jersey and Pennsylvania, an assessment may have originally been based on 100 percent of the appraised market value of the property, but over time that 100 percent assessment no longer reflects market value. So, at regular intervals, each county in these states conducts a study comparing the sale prices of all properties sold in a given period with the last assessed value of these same properties. For example, if the assessed values of properties sold for an average of 50 percent of the sales prices of those same properties, then the sales ratio for that period of time will be 50 percent for all properties in the municipality. This ratio then is used to convert the assessed value back to market value. Owners will want to track down the current-year ratio percentage and then review their assessment to ensure that the correct ratio has been applied in developing their assessment.

Finally, many states establish predetermined ratios. Ohio, for instance, places its predetermined ratio of assessment at 35 percent of the appraised market value every year in all counties. Assessed market value is determined by dividing the assessed value by the ratio percentage. As an example, a $35,000 assessment divided by 35 percent yields an assessed market value of $ 100,000, which then can be compared to the actual fair market value of the property. If the assessed market value appears to be higher then the actual fair market value (what a willing buyer would pay a willing seller in an arm's length transaction), then the taxpayer should consider contesting the assessment.

What can taxpayers do when over-assessed?

If you determine that your property has been over—assessed, file an appeal to reduce your real estate taxes. In some states, that will mean filing a formal complaint by a particular date. In other jurisdictions, the filing deadline depends on the mailing date of the assessment notices. Some jurisdictions mandate that parties must appeal their assessment within 15 days of receiving notice. If the deadline passes, in most jurisdictions, the taxpayer is prohibited from contesting their taxes until the following year. It is, therefore, imperative to know the local rules.

How does the taxpayer prove the case in an appeal?

As with every aspect of assessment law, proving the case varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Most typically, an appeal that has merit can be proven with a qualified appraisal. However, the rules regarding how that appraisal is prepared can vary from state to state. For instance, some states mandate that actual income and expenses be used to determine the market value of the property. In other states, an appraiser or property owner must prove the value based on unencumbered market conditions. An unencumbered market condition exists when a property built under Sec. 42, with a majority of its rents restricted, is appraised as if the property were conventional apartment. However, a property that enjoyed greater occupancy or rents because of Sec. 8 rent subsidy may be able to use a lower income figure based on prevailing market conditions. The income approach to value represents the common thread across exists the country for establishing market value.

Must an attorney file a property tax appeal?

Rules governing appeals vary greatly from state to state. In most states, an attorney is not required to file an appeal at the local level, but an appeal in court almost always requires an attorney. However, in a number of states, the courts have determined that the filing of property tax appeal is the practice of law, requiring an attorney

What risks and benefits come with contesting taxes?

Risks come into play when the appeals process is poorly handled, as that can impair a taxpayer's ability to reduce a property's value to its proper level in the future. Evidence poorly presented often remains in the record and is not retractable. Furthermore, in several states and with increasing frequency, school districts participate in the appeals process. In those states, the hearings may put the taxpayer at risk for an increase in assessment, if such is warranted.

The benefits of controlling real estate taxes far outweigh any risks involved, and by spending a little time learning the process, taxpayers can all but eliminate those risks. A newly established assessment often forms the basis for future assessment. Thus, a reduced tax this year positions an owner for future years because tax increases compound over the years. Even if assessments steadily climb in future years, having started at lower base can save money indefinitely.

Keeping real estate taxes and all non-productive expenses down becomes crucial to the economic health of an affordable housing property.

J. Kieran Jennings, partner at Siegel Siegel Johnson & Jennings Co., LPA, with offices in Cleveland and Pittsburgh. The firm is the Ohio and Western Pennsylvania member of the American property Tax Counsel, the national affiliation of property tax attorneys. He can be reached at kjennings@siegeltax.com.