Correcting basic errors in the assessor's records remains the simplest path to lower a tax assessment

"A multifamily owner should definitely appeal an assessment if the assessor's value exceeds the owner's estimate of the property's market value."

By Gilbert D. Davila, Esq., as published by Apartment Finance Today, February 2008

Simple Errors Can Cost Big Money

An assessor's records indicate that a particular project has a net leasable area of 175,000 square feet and has been valued at $45 per square feet, which equates to an assessment of $7.875 million. In reality, however, the project only contains 160,000 square feet and should be valued at $7.2 million. This one error alone results in a significant $675,000 over-assessment. Were the owner to find a second mistake in the records, such as the valuation of a $150,000 swimming pool that did not exist at the property, the excessive valuation based on errors in basic data would be even more egregious.

The two recording errors in the scenario would amount to $825,000 in excessive valuation, or more than 10 percent of the initial valuation. A review of the assessor's records in this example would have netted the owner almost $25,000 in tax savings in a jurisdiction with a $3 mill rate for every $100 of value.

Property tax expenses can have a huge impact on a project's bottom line. Multifamily developers and owners must constantly monitor their property tax valuations to make a decision about whether to appeal the assessment. Once the valuation is appealed, the owner must decide how to combat the excessive valuation. An overview of the common mistakes made by assessors can help owners develop arguments for lower tax assessments. In most jurisdictions, assessors have a statutory responsibility to value a property at its market value as of a particular valuation date. A multifamily owner should definitely appeal an assessment if the assessor's value exceeds the owner's estimate of the property's market value.

Three factors should be considered before making a decision to appeal. First, procedural and valuation laws vary from state to state. Owners should discuss the procedures for appeal and the possibility of success with a tax specialist in the state where the property is located.

Second, the costs associated with an appeal and the potential tax savings from such an appeal should be evaluated to ensure that the protest makes economic sense. Third, the practical aspects of the appeal must be considered, such as the time and resources required for the appeal and the documents needed to make an effective case.

After working through these issues, most multifamily owners find it worth while to proceed with an assessment appeal. Once the appeal decision has been made, the next step is organizing the valuation arguments and gathering the documents that support the property owner's opinion of value.

Most often, a successful assessment appeal is based on outlining and attacking errors made by the assessor in the valuation process. Answering the following five questions will help you mount your argument.

1. Is my property data correct?

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.

2. How did the assessor arrive at my valuation?

Assessors will commonly derive a market value using one or more of the three classic approaches to value: cost, income, or sales comparison. The cost approach is arguably the least reliable approach to value if the property is more than several years old, especially given the difficulties of estimating depreciation and obsolescence factors for older properties. An assessor will most likely rely on an income and/or sales comparison approach when determining an apartment's valuation. Value reductions can be gained by disputing how the assessor has applied a valuation methodology to a specific property.

3. How did the assessor apply the income approach?

In an income approach, assessors typically use market-driven rent, vacancy, and expense factors to arrive at a net operating income (NOI) figure that is then capitalized using a market capitalization rate. Conversely, multifamily owners typically estimate market value based on the actual cash flow generated by the property. The differences between actual cash flows and market factors can often support a value reduction. Owners should challenge the market factors used by the assessor and support the challenge with data taken directly from the property's current and previous year's operating statements, if such data is in the owner's favor.

Often, the market factors used in the assessor's income approach rely on data taken from properties that are not truly comparable to the property being assessed. A property's operating statement can help distinguish the owner's property from "comparable" properties that lead to higher assessments. Pointing out specific income and expense items can show trends in rental rates, occupancy, and expenses that differ from the market trends alleged by the assessor.

Many times in an income approach the assessor will understate the allowance for vacancy and for concessions provided to tenants. Owners can present assessing authorities with rent rolls and monthly occupancy reports to portray the property's occupancy trends, compare the property's occupancy levels with market comparables, and outline concessions and allowances given to maintain occupancy.

Finally, assessors often apply artificially low capitalization rates to NOI to support a higher valuation. The capitalization rates are usually derived from sales of comparable properties that are either not truly comparable or have unique characteristics that do not qualify the sales as true market transactions. Owners should push the assessor to provide data that supports the capitalization rates being used and, thus, distinguishes the comparable sales as not truly comparable.

4. How did the assessor apply the sales comparison approach?

Aggressive assessments often result from the assessor's reliance on the recent sales prices of comparable properties. A property owner can usually discredit comparable sales by outlining the physical and economic differences between the properties sold and the assessed property. More specifically, the owner can point out to the assessor that the factors influencing a buyer's decision to purchase a property cannot be known unless the assessor was a party to the transaction.

For example, a purchaser may have obtained below-market financing or might have been motivated by time constraints or income tax consequences when acquiring the comparable property. The assessor cannot categorize a sale as comparable unless all the purchasing factors are known. Apartment owners must make sure that assessors under stand the meaning of comparability.

A common mistake made by assessors is assuming that a purchase price equals market value. An apartment owner should not avoid a tax appeal simply because the recent purchase price of their complex was higher than the taxable value of the property. Owners pay for properties based on their analysis of factors beyond real estate. As a result, a purchase price should provide no more than a touch stone for an assessor. Taxpayers arguing against a purchase price as the basis for value should outline for the assessor the factors that were considered in purchasing the property, such as special financing considerations and how the actual performance of the property differs from projections made at the time of purchase.

5. Did the assessor consider equality and uniformity?

Most taxing jurisdictions require that assessments among comparable properties be equal and uniform. The fact that assessors often value apartment projects without considering the assessment of like properties presents an additional opportunity for owners to argue for a reduced assessment.

A taxpayer's assessment should fall within a uniform range of values when compared to other comparable properties. Apartment owners should compare their property's assessment to other comparable properties on a square footage and per-unit basis, with the owner's market survey usually being a good place to begin. If an owner's property is assessed disproportionately higher than the comparable properties, an argument can be made for a value reduction based on equality and uniformity, regardless of the assessor's market value claims.

Glibert D. Davila is a partner with the Austin, Texas law firm of Popp, Gray & Hutcheson. The firm devotes its practice to the representation of taxpayers in property tax disputes and is the Texas member of the American Property Tax Counsel (APTC), the national affiliation of property tax attorneys. He can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

Challenging the sales approach can save you big bucks

By Elliott B. Pollack, Esq., as published by Apartment Finance Today, April 2007

In many parts of the country, multifamily properties are very hot and command extremely high sale prices. These transactions often make very little sense in terms of the underlying cash flow they can generate. Indeed, there seems to be a speculative fever abroad in the land, probably resulting from investors chasing this property category due, at least in part, to asset diversification needs and other financial asset motivations.

For example, an apartment property owner is not even thinking about selling her property. Then, she receives a telephone call from the assessor advising that her property assessment will increase because of recent sales of comparable properties at relatively stratospheric levels. Can this problem be managed? A recently published case illustrates that the answer to this question is yes. In that case, the approach employed by New York property valuation attorney William D. Siegel was to attack the assessor's sales comparison approach head on. In a tax appeal filed for a 276-unit garden apartment complex in Middletown, N.Y., the property owner challenged the $15 million value estimate offered by the assessor's appraiser, using the appraisal and trial testimony of this expert. The owner's appraiser placed the property's market value at $10 million.

The assessor's expert might have thought he was sitting in the catbird seat with a number of sales at high unit values. However, the property owner's appraiser, William R. Beckmann, located a number of different sales, which resulted in a far lower range of values per apartment unit. Beckmann went even further, though, rejecting the sales approach and resting his value estimate on the income capitalization methodology.

He maintained to the court that a detailed understanding of the income and expenses of the comparable sales used in the assessor's appraisal was absolutely necessary. Otherwise, there was no factual basis for concluding that the sales in the comparable~presented were, in fact, comparable to the owner's property. This litigation suggests that when assessors use the sales approach, owners may be able to challenge increased values by arguing lack of reliability in this approach.

When owners face high valuations based on the sales approach, they should rigorously explore the following questions:

Are the comparable sales relied upon by the assessor relatively recently constructed or older properties? If the sales relied upon by the assessor were relatively newly constructed, they will likely generate higher prices per unit than would a 30-plus-year-old property due to lower repair and replacement expectations.

Just because your local assessor relied on comparable sales to give your property a higher valuation and a bigger tax bill doesn't mean you should pony up without a fight. Take a look at the comps and see how comparable they really are: You may be able to successfully argue that properties built recently, featuring larger unit sizes, or selling with Effective local tax assumable financing were able to fetch much higher sales prices than your property rates are a critical could reasonably command.

What was the average square footage of the various units in these comparables? Average unit square footage is critical because, to a certain degree, larger apartments command higher rents and are easier to lease.

Were the buyers in these sales real estate investment trusts (REITS) or private investors? If many of the buyers in the assessor's sales were REITs, this is important to note because it is well known that investment trusts generally pay significantly more for property than do private investors. They can do this because of their lower cost of funds and financial market pressure to invest.

Was below-market-rate financing in place and assumable? Assumable below-market-rate financing would undoubtedly tend to increase the sales price because, in effect, the buyer's cost of funds is being subsidized by the assumable financing. (The same issue would arise in the event of significant seller financing in the sale.)

Are the capitalization rates apparently revealed by the assessor's sales fairly comparable to the rate which could be commanded by the property? The capitalization rates paid for more attractive, larger, more newly constructed properties tend to eclipse the rates associated with older property sales for many of the reasons discussed in this article. This is true even though cash-on- cash returns will not differ significantly.

Was there significant deferred maintenance? The existence of marked deferred maintenance will almost always affect the purchase price due to the investor's expectations that significant funds will have to be devoted to the property after purchase to bring it up to snuff.

What were the effective real estate tax rates in the communities in which the sale properties were located? Effective local tax rates are a critical element in determining sales prices because properties in low-tax towns tend to sell at higher unit values and at lower cap rates than do properties in more heavily taxed communities. Put differently, investors are frequently willing to pay more to be taxed less. While a number of these issues are beyond the knowledge base of the average property owner, expert appraisal, legal, and other market-oriented consultants' efforts may be helpful in distinguishing an owner's property from those sky-high sale properties relied upon by the assessor.

Of course, if an apartment complex stacks up favorably on most counts to the sales used by the assessor, there will be less running room within which to dialogue with the assessor.

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