Justices recognize owner rights extend to surplus proceeds from properties sold after tax sales.

Federal courts rarely adjudicate property tax matters, which have traditionally been the province of state courts. In May 2023, however, the U. S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in a case that squared state property tax law up against the Fifth Amendment takings clause, which prohibits taking private property for public use without just compensation.

Taken for taxes

The events leading to Tyler vs. Hennepin County, began in 1999, when Geraldine Tyler purchased a Minneapolis condominium that she occupied until she moved into a seniors housing community in 2010. Ms. Tyler retained ownership of the condominium but failed to pay property taxes on it for several years, resulting in approximately $2,300 in unpaid taxes and $13,000 in interest and penalties.

Acting in accordance with Minnesota tax forfeiture procedures, Hennepin County seized the condominium and sold it for $40,000. This extinguished Ms. Tyler's $15,000 tax debt, and Hennepin County kept the remaining $25,000.

Minnesota's tax forfeiture procedure required the county to give the delinquent taxpayer adequate notice of the tax sale; notably, the procedure lacked a mechanism for a delinquent taxpayer to assert a claim to any sale proceeds remaining after paying off the tax debt.

Ms. Tyler brought a putative class action suit against Hennepin County in Minnesota federal court alleging that Hennepin County's retention of $25,000 in excess proceeds from the sale of her condominium was a taking of property without just compensation, and therefore an unconstitutional violation of the takings clause. The lower courts rejected her claims, and the case made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court first noted that the takings clause does not itself define private property which, if taken by a state, requires compensation. The Court then conducted a thorough analysis of historical practice and traditional property law principles to determine that the surplus value remaining after a forfeiture sale constituted compensable property under the takings clause.

The Court concluded that the right to surplus proceeds is simply an extension of the corresponding interest in the underlying property. Thus, the Court recognized that a taxpayer's compensable interest in property applies to the underlying property itself and to equity in that underlying property in the form of excess proceeds generated from a forfeiture sale of that property.

Accordingly, while Hennepin County had the power to sell Ms. Tyler's home to recover the unpaid property taxes, it could not use the tax debt "as a toehold" to confiscate more property than was due, the Court stated. Doing so effected a "classic taking in which the government directly appropriates private property for its own use," such that Ms. Tyler was entitled to just compensation from Hennepin County.

Mechanisms mandate?

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court's recognizing a property right in surplus proceeds does not mean that states must now automatically return surplus proceeds to delinquent taxpayers. Nor does it directly address how states should administer their tax forfeiture sales to prevent infringing on taxpayers' constitutional rights.

But the Court did give some guidance in Tyler as to what statutory measures might prevent a takings clause violation. The Court cited Nelson vs. City of New York, decided in 1956, in which the city foreclosed on properties for unpaid water bills. Under the applicable ordinance, the aggrieved property owners had an opportunity to request the surplus from any sale by filing a timely answer in the foreclosure proceedings asserting that the properties had a value exceeding the amount due.

The property owners failed to do so, however. The Supreme Court held that, because the owners did not take advantage of this procedure, they forfeited their right to the surplus. Because the ordinance did not absolutely preclude an owner from obtaining the proceeds from a judicial sale but simply defined the process through which an owner could claim the surplus, there was no takings clause violation.

States are already reacting to the Tyler decision. In New Jersey and Virginia, courts have struck down state court tax sale procedures as unconstitutional under Tyler. Nebraska has amended its tax sale statutes to conform with Tyler.

Louisiana is following suit: Under current law, a tax sale grants the purchaser a prospective ownership interest in the form of a tax lien. This lien represents a claim on the property but does not confer immediate ownership rights. The purchaser can acquire full ownership after the redemption period has passed.

After Tyler, the Louisiana Legislature proposed amending the state's constitution to require adding to the state's tax sale procedures a process for delinquent taxpayers to claim any excess proceeds from a tax sale. The measure must be approved by the electorate and is on the December ballot for voter consideration.

Chief Justice John Roberts noted in Tyler that a taxpayer must render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, but no more. While states are conforming their laws to Tyler, taxpayers and aggrieved property owners must still comply with governing statutory procedures to claim their surplus and prevent Caesar from getting more than he is entitled to.

Judith Viorst, author of the children's book Alexander and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day, had nothing on 2020. By virtually every metric, 2020 was a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad year.

Most states have some sort of catastrophe exemption for a property tax abatement or reduction tied to a defined disaster event. These statutes are state-specific, however, and few states had authority to address whether a property had to have sustained physical damage to qualify for catastrophe relief on property taxes.

Most states, including Texas, eventually concluded that some form of physical damage was necessary for property values to be reduced following a disaster. Its neighbor, Louisiana, went the other direction, concluding that its disaster statute did not require physical damage, only that the property be inoperable due to a declaration of emergency by the governor. Accordingly, property values for the 2020 tax year could be reduced in Louisiana due to COVID-19-related economic losses.

Pandemic paper trails

Fortunately, 2021 gives all taxpayers a fresh start. Most states use Jan. 1 as the "lien date," or valuation date for determining fair market value of property subject to ad valorem tax. For income-producing properties, taxpayers now have a full year's documentation of COVID-19 impacts, which more accurately demonstrate the fair market value of their properties in the current, COVID-19 economic climate. At a high level, such documentation may include financial statements with year-over-year and month-over-month comparison of revenues to expenses and profits to losses.

Drilling down, taxpayers should be able to demonstrate the source of these changing numbers, such as reduced employee hours, decreased production outputs and sales, unoccupied rooms, canceled conferences and the like. Comparable sales information should also now be available.

This information generally relates to economic obsolescence, which is a loss in value due to causes outside the property and which are not included in physical depreciation. Taxpayers also must consider whether their property exhibits functional obsolescence, or a loss in value due to the property's lack of utility or desirability.

Functionality is tied to a property's amenities, layout and current technology. A property's functional obsolescence is measured through reduced or impaired use. Taxpayers can quantify the lack of use in 2020 and compare it to pre-2020 capacity and usage in arguing for a reduction in taxable value.

Value and evolving utility

Historical information is key to the taxpayer's case — as is evidence of adaptation to current market trends. For instance, a year ago, who would have imagined that neighborhood and big-box stores of all stripes would start delivering their products directly to customers' homes? Suddenly, abundant check-out lanes, wide aisles, sampling stations and sprawling parking lots are unnecessary. Retailers would rather have drive-thru lanes and dedicated carryout parking.

Hotels have been similarly affected. Traditional amenities such as atriums, event space and intimate lounges that preclude safe social distancing are passé. Motels with open-air access are enjoying a renaissance. Resourceful restauranteurs have figured out how to make street-side dining desirable. Patios are now essential. While many of these changes in use are likely temporary, some are expected to be longer-lasting.

Consider commercial office space. Prior to the pandemic, many office-using employers permitted only limited remote work but working from home has now become the new normal. Facility planners expect the traditional office environment to shift to a hybrid model, with expanded remote working, office-sharing, and fewer in-person communications. Large conference rooms are out and state-of-the-art multimedia systems have taken their place.

These trends impact real estate values because they affect how property is used, or more importantly, not used. Commercial real estate developers will not be laying out offices the same way they used to, and hoteliers will not be building out the same large conference centers post-COVID. And the reality is that much existing buildout, furniture and equipment is going unused. So for now, a replacement cost analysis is the most appropriate valuation method for those property types, because it reflects the functionality of the property and the fact that the property would not be rebuilt as is.

Of course, as more and more businesses adapt to post-pandemic market trends, the lack of utilization may be deemed industrywide rather than property specific. At that point, appraisers should treat the lost value as economic obsolescence, which is value losses stemming from factors occurring outside the property. In either case, taxpayers should be prepared to demonstrate the inutility of their property, and the cost of such inutility, to reduce taxable value.

Better than terrible

Whether or not 2021 is radically better than last year, at least taxpayers are now in a better position to show the adverse impact the pandemic has had on fair market values. And if that translates to lower ad valorem tax liabilities, then this decade is off to a very good start.

​States that impose inventory taxes put their constituent businesses at a competitive disadvantage.

Inventory taxes pose an additional cost of doing business in more than a dozen states, and despite efforts to mitigate the competitive disadvantage the practice creates for many taxpayers, policymakers have yet to propose an equitable fix.

Virtually all states employ a property tax at the state or local level. The most common target is real property, which is land and land improvements; and tangible personal property such as fixtures, machinery and equipment.

Nine states also tax business inventory. Those are Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Arkansas,Mississippi, Kentucky, West Virginia, Maryland and Vermont. Another four states – Alaska, Michigan, Georgia and Massachusetts – partially tax inventory. In these 13 states, inventory tax contributes a significant portion of overall property tax collections.

From a policy standpoint, however, inventory tax is probably the least defensible form of property tax: It is the least transparent of business taxes; is "non-neutral," as businesses with larger inventories, such as retailers and manufacturers, pay more; and it adds insult to injury for businesses whose inventory is out of sync with finicky consumer buying habits.

A few fixes

Taxpayers have had few options in attempting to reduce inventory tax liability because an inventory's valuation is seldom easily disputed. So, modeling a classic game of cat and mouse, some enterprising businesses would move their inventory to the jurisdiction with the lowest millage, frantically shuttling property about before the lien date. Taxing jurisdictions eventually caught on, however, and many of these states adopted an averaging system whereby taxpayers must report monthly inventory values that are then averaged for the year. So much for gaming the timing of taxes.

The underlying problem is that imposing an inventory tax puts that state's businesses at a competitive disadvantage. At the same time, local jurisdictions cannot easily afford to give up the revenue generated by inventory taxes.

When West Virginia was contemplating phasing out its inventory tax, one state legislator pointed out that the proposal placed elected representatives in the predicament of telling educator constituents the state could not afford to pay them sufficiently, while turning to another group of business constituents and relieving them of a tax burden which would create a hole in the state's revenues.

Some states including Louisiana and Kentucky have implemented creative workarounds, such as giving income or corporate franchise tax credits to businesses to offset their inventory tax liability. But these imperfect fixes add uncertainty and unnecessary complexity to a state's tax code.

For instance, when Louisiana implemented a straightforward inventory tax credit in the 1990s, businesses paid local inventory tax and were reimbursed for the payments through a tax credit for their Louisiana corporation income/franchise tax liability. The state Department of Revenue fully refunded any excess tax credit.

Between 2005 and 2015, however, the state's liability more than doubled. In 2015, the Legislature imposed a $10,000 cap on the refundable amount of an inventory tax credit and allowed any unused portion of an excess tax credit to be carried forward for a period not to exceed five years. Then in 2016, lawmakers increased the fully refundable cap to $500,000 and adjusted how the excess tax credit could be taken, but left the carry-forward period unchanged. This has created another inventory tax timing problem: Businesses now lose any unclaimed excess tax credit at the end of that carry-forward period, and businesses have no assurances that the tax credit amounts won't be lowered or otherwise made less user-friendly the next time the state faces a fiscal crunch.

Kentucky recently implemented its own inventory tax credit system. Even less taxpayer friendly than Louisiana's approach, it provides only a nonrefundable and nontransferable credit against individual income tax, corporation income tax and limited liability entity tax. The state is phasing in the tax credit in 25% increments each year until it is fully claimable in 2021.

Texas has taken a different tack by offering businesses a limited, $500 exemption for inventory tax. Unadjusted for inflation since its implementation in 1997, however, the exemption for business personal property has lost relative value as the cost of living has increased. The Texas Taxpayers and Research Association recently evaluated Texas' inventory tax and found that the $500 exemption in today's dollars is equivalent to only $367 in 1997 dollars. The association further noted that a property valued at $500 generates, on average, a tax bill of $13, which is less than the likely cost of administering the tax. Not surprisingly and quite rightly, the association recommended increasing the amount of the exemption.

Clearly, these workarounds are not really working for this problem. What's the best solution for Louisiana, Kentucky, Texas and the rest of the inventory tax states? Join the rest of the crowd and simply abolish the inventory tax, as a task force created by the Louisiana Legislature recommended in 2016. No more cat and mouse games, no more paltry exemptions and no more convoluted tax credits. At least in this regard, businesses in all states would be on the same competitive footing.

​The FTZ Act prohibits state and local taxes on tangible personal property.  Here's what you should know about the potential for reducing your tax bill.

Foreign-trade zones can offer substantial tax savings for businesses involved in various aspects of manufacturing and international trade. While there are costs involved in setting up and maintaining such a zone, the prospect of escalating trade wars is spurring companies to explore the FTZ designation as a potential cost-control measure.

First, some background. FTZs are the U.S. equivalent of what are known internationally as free trade zones. Authorized under the Foreign Trade Zones Act of 1934, they are usually in or near U.S. Customs and Border Protection ports of entry, and are generally considered outside CBP control. Many communities have integrated these zones into state or local economic development incentive programs.

Broadly speaking, FTZs are designed to stimulate economic growth and development. In an expanding global market, countries increasingly compete for capital, industry, and jobs, and FTZs promote American competitiveness by encouraging companies to maintain and expand their U.S. operations. The zones accomplish this by removing certain disincentives associated with operating in the U.S.

The best-known incentive is designed to level costs among domestic and foreign- manufactured goods. For a product manufactured in a foreign country and imported to the United States, the duty is based on the finished product rather than on its individual parts, materials, or components.

Domestic manufacturers must often pay duties on multiple parts, materials, or components that are imported to be incorporated into a finished product. When those duty payments are added together, the cost of the finished product is higher than for comparable finished goods. FTZs correct this imbalance by assessing duties on products manufactured in an FTZ as if they were manufactured abroad.

Companies operating in FTZs enjoy a number of other benefits:

• No duties or quotas on re-exports

• Deferred customs duties and federal excise taxes on imports

• Streamlined customs procedures

• Exemption from certain state and local taxes

These benefits become increasingly valuable to domestic companies during trade wars, particularly when the disputants impose steep tariffs on manufacturing parts, materials, and components.

STATE AND LOCAL FTZ RULES

FTZs are subject to the laws and regulations of the U.S., as well as those of the states and communities in which they are located, with one significant exception: The Foreign-Trade Zone Act specifically prohibits state and local ad valorem ("on the value") taxation of imported, tangible personal property stored or processed in one of these zones, or of property produced in the United States and held in the zone for export.

Several states, including Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Texas, Virginia and West Virginia, impose ad valorem tax on business inventory. In a handful of other states, including Alaska, Georgia, Massachusetts, and Michigan, some jurisdictions tax some inventories. But even in these states, most legislatures have carved out "freeport" exemptions from ad valorem taxes on merchandise being shipped through the state.

The problem is, the longer it takes for the merchandise to be shipped out of state, the greater the temptation for an enterprising tax assessor to conclude that the merchandise is no longer actively in transit. In such cases, the exemption may no longer apply and the merchandise could become subject to an inventory ad valorem tax.

FTZs may offer a safe harbor from these taxes. Foreign and domestic merchandise may be moved into a zone for operations, including storage, exhibition, assembly, manufacturing, and processing. Such merchandise may remain in a zone indefinitely, whether or not it is subject to duties. And, while no retail trade of foreign merchandise may be conducted in an FTZ, foreign and domestic merchandise may be stored, examined, sampled, and exhibited in the zone.

Of course, there is a catch. When a proposed FTZ designation could result in a reduction to local tax collections, the zone's governing authority must consider the potential impact on local finances. Specifically, an applicant must identify the local taxes for which collections would be affected, and provide documentation that the affected taxing jurisdictions do not oppose the FTZ designation. Importantly, in jurisdictions that already have "freeport" exemptions to ad valorem taxes, the adverse impact would be limited only to the amount of ad valorem taxes imposed on inventory that is determined by a tax assessor to have come to rest in the state, such that it is no longer subject to the "freeport" exemption.

There are costs associated with FTZs, including application fees and assessments as well as operating fees to maintain the designation. Therefore, individual companies must conduct their own cost/benefit analyses and determine whether these zones are right for them. A competent legal or tax advisor can help to project initial and ongoing costs.

Considering the other trade uncertainties currently buffeting manufacturers, eliminating ad valorem tax exposure alone may warrant using an FTZ.

The federal government has long encouraged owning a home over renting. Housing subsidies in the tax code effectively lower the after-tax cost of homeownership, which has helped taxpayers move out of residential rentals and into their own homes. The Jeffersons might not have credited tax policy for it in their 1970's sitcom, but it has assisted taxpayers in "moving up" to bigger and better homes. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (TCJA) makes sweeping changes to the tax code for individual taxpayers that directly impact their ability to transition from renting to owning their home.

About 34 million households, or 44 percent of U.S. homes, carry a mortgage with annual interest charges that exceeded the prior standard deduction. With the new standard deduction, that group shrinks to around 14 million, or 15 percent of U.S. households, according to the National Association of Realtors (NAR).

And while the TCJA nearly doubles the standard deduction, it caps the deduction for state and local taxes -- including income, sales, and property taxes -- at $10,000 for both single and married taxpayers. This one-two punch could significantly impair some taxpayers' appetite for homeownership.

Two household examples

NAR prepared an analysis that illustrates this potential impact. In the first of two examples, a single taxpayer earns $58,000 per year, rents an apartment, and claims the standard deduction. Her tax liability for 2018 under the prior law would have been $7,491 but, under the TCJA, she pays just $6,060 and enjoys a tax cut in the amount of $1,431.

Now assume she purchases a home for $205,000, putting down 3.5 percent with a 30-year mortgage fixed at 4 percent interest. Further assume her first-year mortgage interest would total $7,856 and she would pay property taxes of $2,050.

As a first-time homeowner, her tax liability under the prior law would be $5,393. The tax benefits under the prior law save $2,098, which effectively lowers her monthly mortgage payment by $175 per month. Under the TCJA, her tax would be $5,423 (a $30 increase!) and the differential between renting and owning a home, which was $2,098 under the prior law, has shrunk to just $637 or $53 per month.

In the second NAR example, a married couple with three children and an annual household income of $120,000 leases a home and takes the standard deduction. Their tax liability for 2018 under the prior law would have been $11,370 but, under the TCJA, they pay $8,999 and enjoy a tax cut in the amount of $2,371.

Now assume they purchase a home for $425,000, putting down 10 percent with a 30-year, fixed rate mortgage at 4 percent interest. Further assume their first-year mortgage interest would total $15,189 and they would pay property taxes of $4,250.

Under the prior law, the couple would lower their tax liability for 2018 by $3,219 by purchasing a home instead of renting. This amount effectively lowers their monthly mortgage payment by over $268 per month. Under the TCJA, their tax would be $8,051 (a $100 decrease) and the differential between renting and owning a home, which was $3,219 under the prior law, has shrunk to just $948 or $79 per month. (For NAR's analysis and further discussion of Apartment Lists' examples, visit https://www.nar.realtor/tax-reform/the-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act-what-it-means-for-homeowners-and-real-estate-professionals.)

As these examples illustrate, the TCJA offers an incentive to homeownership, but it is considerably less valuable than the previous incentive. Thiseffectively levels the playing field between renting and owning a residence. In fact, after accounting for additional costs associated with homeownership such as maintenance, neighborhood association dues and local district fees, the scales may now tip in favor of renting.

Thus, taxpayers may forego the traditional path, and choose not to move up from renting to purchasing a home. Instead, they may choose to climb within the rental market. That is, they may move to bigger and better residences and may spend more on their residences , but they are likely to rent rather than buy.

At the same time, the TCJA is fueling investors' interest in the rental market so that more options will likely be available for taxpayers who forego owning a home in favor of renting. To that end, the TCJA offers more favorable treatment of pass-through income. And, income property owners are still able to deduct interest payments on mortgages, with no cap.

These factors make it more profitable for investors to own income-generating property such as multifamily apartments or single family rentals. So, while the TCJA may increase taxpayer demand for renting homes, it also encourages investors to invest in residential properties and make bigger and better rental units available to renters. Whether by accident or design, the TCJA is likely to result in significant benefits to the rental market.

Passage of a new ballot initiative will confirm exemption of partially completed property from taxation."

Any taxpayer planning to develop a new property must consider how local taxing entities will treat the project during construction, but the question is especially important in evaluating and comparing overall costs of potential development locations during an industrial site search.

States generally recognize Construction Work in Progress (CWIP) as property that is in the process of changing from one state to another, such as the conversion of machinery, construction materials and other personal property from inventory into an asset or fixture by installation, assembly or construction. There is no clear consensus among taxing jurisdictions as to whether (or how) a tax assessor should value such par­tially completed construction on the applicable assessment date.

Many states including Alabama, Missouri and North Carolina value CWIP based on the value or percentage of completion on the assessment date. Kansas values incomplete construction based on the cost incurred as of the assessment date. Florida, Maryland, Virginia and West Virginia assess CWIP when the work has progressed to a degree that it is useful for its eventual purpose. And in South Carolina, improvements are only assessed upon completion.

With the exception of a few errant assessments in the early 1930s, Louisiana has never assessed partially completed construction for property tax purposes. Rather, taxing jurisdictions assess and add the completed property to tax rolls as of January 1 of the year immediately following completion of construction. This complements Louisiana's industrial tax exemption program, which exempts certain manufacturing property from ad valorem taxation for a specified number of years.

Unfortunately, properties on which ad valorem taxes have been paid are ineligible for participation in the exemption program. Thus, if a taxpayer has paid taxes on a project as partially completed construction, the property is no longer eligible for the industrial tax exemption and remains on the taxable rolls, subject to assessment each year. Obviously, assessing projects with partially finished construction in this manner would significantly diminish the value of the exemption pro­gram to taxpayers and undermine its usefulness to economic develop­ment agencies as an incentive tool.

In 2016, a local assessor broke with established practice and initiated an audit that included construction work in progress on a major industrial taxpayer. This audit raised statewide and local uniformity concerns over the assessment of a single taxpayer's partially completed construction in a single parish, and jeopardized the taxpayer's existing industrial tax exemption.

The taxpayer immediately filed an injunction action in district court, and the Louisiana Legislature took up the situation during its regular 2017 legislative session. Recognizing the need to formalize the exemption, the Legislature referred to voters a constitutional amendment that would codify the exemption of construction work in progress from assessment. Louisiana is one of 16 states that require a two-thirds supermajority in each chamber of the Legislature to refer a constitutional amendment to the ballot, so their vote underscores the strong support among lawmakers to codify the exemption.

Act 428 would add a subsection to Article VII, Section 21 of the Louisiana Constitution, which lists property that is exempt from ad valorem tax assessment. The new provision would exempt from ad valorem tax all property delivered to a construction project site for the purpose of incorporating the property into any tract of land, building or other construction as a component part. This exemption would apply until the construction project is completed (i.e. occupied and used for its in­tended purpose).

The exemption would not apply to (1) any portion of a construction project that is complete, available for its intended use, or operational on the date that property is assessed; (2) for projects constructed in two or more distinct phases, any phase of the construction project that is complete, available for its intended use or operational on the date the property is assessed; (3) certain public service property.

If voters approve the ballot item, CWIP will be exempt from property taxes until construction is "completed." The proposed amendment defines a completed construction as occurring when the property "can be used or occupied for its intended purpose." The exemption would thus remain effective until the construction project or given construc­tion phases of the project are ready to be used or occupied.

A constitutional amendment does not require action by the Governor. This constitutional amendment will be placed on the ballot at the state­wide election to be held on Oct. 14, 2017.