Commercial property owners may still reduce taxes based on COVID-era interest rate cuts, but that window may be closing.

The Federal Reserve finally delivered a much-needed reprieve for investors by lowering the federal funds rate by 0.5% on Sept. 5. This reduction is especially welcome after an extended period of rapid interest rate hikes. For commercial property owners, however, a window may be closing on the opportunity to reduce property tax assessments based on the low interest rates that reigned during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Mortgage rates have eased slightly this year from a peak in October 2023. The average 30-year mortgage rate reached a 23-year high of 7.79% the week ending Oct. 26, 2023, marking the end of its climb from a staggering historical low of 2.66% in December 2020, according to the Freddie Mac Primary Mortgage Market Survey.

This striking contrast is crucial for commercial property owners, particularly those who bought their properties between early 2020 and the summer of 2022. That's when historically low interest rates had the 30-year mortgage rate bouncing along as low as 2.10%.

An investor who purchased commercial real estate in this timeframe may still be enjoying a favorable mortgage rate locked with their acquisition. By the same token, the property tax assessment on that transaction might still reflect an inflated purchase price from those years, owing to the effect that ultra-low-cost debt was having on market pricing at the time.

Today, taxpayers in this position may be able to argue that current market conditions no longer support that valuation, providing an opportunity for an assessment reduction and tax savings.

Learn the law on assessments

A taxpayer deciding whether to appeal their assessment should begin with an understanding of the objectives and legalities governing the assessor's actions. Most jurisdictions assess property based on a percentage of its fair market value at a specific date, often Jan. 1 of the tax year.

Assessors frequently rely on market sales data to estimate value, giving significant weight to recent sales involving the subject property. But the sharp change in interest rates, coupled with stricter lending standards, recently has led to a significant slowdown in commercial real estate transactions.

Because the assessor relies on sales data, this lag in transaction activity means they may not fully capture the impact of today's financial environment on current pricing and property values. For taxpayers, this presents an exciting opportunity to argue for reduced assessments.

To successfully claim a reduction, it is critical for the taxpayer to understand how the assessor valued their property and how current market conditions differ from those at the time of acquisition. For instance, if the property is being taxed based on transaction values from 2020-2022, the taxpayer could reasonably argue that its worth has since decreased due to inflation, the rise in interest rates, and tightened lending standards.

In preparing arguments for a reduced assessment, the property owner should be ready to show how conditions and trends that drive commercial real estate value support their call for a lower valuation. Several key factors are weighing down real estate values today, including rising interest rates, inflation, elevated operational costs, and anemic rent growth.

Vacancy rates remain high across many commercial sectors and rent growth has slowed. Lenders are adhering to strict terms on allowable loan-to-value ratios, reserves and other requirements, even after the Federal Reserve's recent rate cut. The Federal Reserve's July 2024 Senior Loan Officer Opinion Survey reflects that tighter lending standards and limited demand for commercial real estate loans are still in effect.

Commercial property prices fell by 7% over the past year and are down 21% since March 2022, according to Green Street's Commercial Property Price Index. Taxpayers can leverage this valuation decline when seeking a property tax assessment reduction.

Show effects of change

When meeting with the assessor or tax review panel, demonstrate the property's decreased value by comparing the lending environment and market conditions from the time of purchase with those at the most recent assessment date. Additionally, present any other salient factors, like the inflationary pressure on insurance, maintenance, and operational costs. While rents may have risen, assess whether that increase is sustainable or inflated considering today's higher tenant improvement costs.

Taxpayers should decide whether they need third-party experts to support their case. An experienced appraiser can provide an objective valuation and serve as an expert witness if necessary.

Even taxpayers who believe they have a good grasp of their property's worth can benefit from the advice of a recognized third-party expert, who can strengthen their case by explaining and substantiating the data to the assessor. An appraiser who is educated about the local submarket and who can convey that knowledge in a format this is easily digestible will likely raise the chances of success.

The window is closing

This opportunity will not last long. The further removed the assessment year is from the low-interest-rate period associated with the property's inflated assessment, the less relevant those conditions will be in seeking and supporting a property tax reduction. Moreover, the longer a property's assessed value remains unchanged, the harder it becomes to argue for a reduction.

Taxpayers can increase their chances of success by working with knowledgeable local appraisers and advisers familiar with property tax law in the subject property's jurisdiction. Preparing for a possible trial will often lead to a favorable settlement before reaching that stage.

Taxpayers should seize this chance now to secure the tax savings they deserve, before the opportunity is gone.

A guide to effectively challenge and reduce bloated tax valuations.

Nobody enjoys paying property taxes, especially when a property is over-valued. Single-tenant, net-leased properties seem especially prone to inconsistent and unfair assessments.

But challenging those valuations can be exhausting in a time when assessors are fearful and obsessed with the dreaded "Dark Store Theory." They vehemently oppose using sales of vacant properties to value their jurisdiction's store, the one with the full parking lot.

How can the taxpayer shut down the hype and bring the assessor back to the table for a reasonable negotiation? Well, that depends. Here are essential points to consider in forming a protest strategy.

Know Your State's Value Standard

Common sense tells us an appraiser must know what they are valuing before they value it. Yet, the failure to identify the property rights being valued often causes disagreement and confusion in tax appeals. These misunderstandings commonly hinge on the difference between fee-simple and leased-fee value.

The fee-simple estate of an income-producing property is essentially the value of the net income stream based on market-level rents, expenses and other variables. If the property benefits from a long-term, above-market lease, that revenue is irrelevant to the fee-simple value.

Before I finished that last paragraph, my phone rang. The caller was outraged because an assessor revalued his property at its recent purchase price. The property was clearly not worth what the taxpayer paid for it, he said, because the price was based on a net lease.

Maybe. Maybe not.

Before the caller purchased his property, it was exposed to the open market for willing buyers to make offers to the willing seller. The competitive process culminated in an arm's-length sale reflecting market value. How is that not what the property is worth?

That brings us to the second value standard, the leased-fee estate, which is essentially the value of the income stream from the actual lease in place. The caller's purchase price was exactly what the property's leased fee was worth.

So, before getting angry with assessors for relying on leased-fee sales, taxpayers should learn which property rights their state is valuing for taxation. If the state values the leased-fee rather than fee-simple estate, the taxpayer may not have a basis to complain.

Sales Won't Sell It

The "Dark Store Theory" is the term assessors apply to the use of vacant property sales in valuing occupied properties. From an appraisal theory standpoint, only vacant sales are appropriate for valuing the fee-simple interest in a leased property, because sales of leased properties exclude the right of occupancy, an essential right within the fee-simple estate.

This appraisal standard should be a boon to taxpayers challenging inflated assessments on leased properties. It's great to be right, but there's a problem. Using vacant buildings to value occupied buildings is a very tough sell to a tax panel, appeals court or other arbiter. The decision-maker's gut will turn.

Huge tax reductions have been achieved using vacant sales, so it can be done. It is spectacular in the moment, but legislatures and higher judicial bodies are likely to respond negatively. Legal victories that inflame assessors and politicians are not stable long-term solutions.

What About The Cost Approach?

Cost doesn't equal value, but sometimes estimating a newer property's replacement cost less depreciation is a good test of whether an assessment is reasonable. A cost calculation may support a value reduction, so it is worth considering in a protest strategy.

A common problem with the cost approach in net-lease tax appeals is the conspicuous difference between cost-based value conclusions and those based on income or comparable sales. If the property can't be leased or sold at a rate of return that supports its depreciated cost to build, the numbers will not line up, because there is obsolescence to account for. The decision-makers that hear tax cases dislike big obsolescence deductions, especially if the taxpayer quantifies those deductions using vacant property sales.

Many assessors use cost systems for mass appraisal, so understanding how the local system was developed is helpful. Sometimes assessors use base cost data purchased from third-party services and then tweak that information before entering it in their own systems. Tweaks can involve stretching out the useful life of properties in the source data to unreasonable lengths, or bumping default grades used for certain building types from, say, "average" to "good." Little modifications add up and may be solely to increase tax revenue.

Market Rent Is King

In a fee-simple system, a good way to approach a net-lease tax appeal is with the income approach. All net-lease properties are leased, meaning they produce income. It isn't hard for an assessor to convince a decision-maker in a tax case that the property should be valued by capitalizing its income.

The most crucial element of a fee-simple income approach is the market rent. To win a net-lease tax appeal based on income, the taxpayer must prove this one thing.

"But there is no market rent for my property type," the taxpayer says. "What am I supposed to use for rent?"

That's a real issue, because net leases almost always seem to be the product of a build-to-suit or sale-leaseback transaction, with no regard for the local market. So, how can the taxpayer prove market rent?

Go for Broker

Consider this: Commercial real estate brokers are opinionated about their markets. They know rent because it's how they feed their families. They can speak with credibility about the rent a building would command on the open market. Nobody knows market rent better, and they make powerful rebuttal witnesses who keep any off-base testimony by the assessor in check.

A broker can also be a helpful resource for the taxpayer's appraiser. They can point to meaningful, sometimes hidden information.

The combination of an appraiser's formal analysis with a broker's testimony about realistic market rent is potent and convincing evidence in a tax appeal.

Let's Be Reasonable

As the taxpayer's protest strategy takes shape, subject it to the old "reasonable man" standard.

Would a reasonable decision-maker look at the taxpayer's long list of vacant properties, compare it with the subject property that is open and thriving, and feel good about reducing the value?

Would a reasonable decision-maker look at an income approach based on a reasonable expectation of market rent for the subject building and feel good about reducing the value?

Pushing for the former may be zealous advocacy, but appearing unreasonable to both assessor and decision-maker is unhelpful. And even a victory, if it smells like overreaching, risks a legislative response. Resolving a net-lease tax appeal using a reasonable income approach is a superior long-term strategy.

Consider each of these proven strategies to minimize ad valorem tax bills.

Record-breaking commercial real estate trading activity during 2021 is having a marked impact on property values in 2022. Transactions in 2021 were up 88% from 2020 and were 35% above 2019 levels, according to Ernst & Young. The large number of sales in 2021 extended to all categories of real estate, and many commercial property types experienced significant price increases.

Market values are the basis for property tax assessments in most taxing jurisdictions. As post-pandemic market values fluctuate due to higher prices, property owners need to adopt strategies to keep their assessed property values down. As we emerge from COVID-19 here are seven key considerations to minimize property tax assessments even as prices increase.

1. Report Property Operating Metrics. A commercial property's market value is based on its financial performance. A weak property will have poor performance indicators, such as excessive vacancy or below-market rental rates. Poor performance is usually the basis for a reduced assessment and a lower property tax bill. Where possible, property owners should report these types of performance indicators to taxing authorities each year before assessed values are set and tax bills go out.

2. Allocated Prices in Real Estate Portfolios Are Not Market Values. A buyer purchasing a real estate portfolio will typically allocate the total price paid over all the acquired real properties as well as other, non-real-estate assets. Investors create these portfolio purchase allocations for income tax, accounting, financing or other purposes, and they may commission an "allocation" appraisal for bookkeeping or underwriting purposes. Allocations of total portfolio price or value to individual properties in a portfolio are rarely a good indication of a property's market value, however. Likewise, allocation appraisals are unhelpful or even detrimental in determining taxable market values because they may not account for the unique aspects of an individual property.

3. Transaction Type May Affect Value. Market values can also be impacted by the nature of the transaction and its participants. For example, REITs set purchase prices for real estate portfolios based, in part, on income tax considerations. Similarly, when a transaction involves the acquisition of an entity that holds various types of assets, the price paid will include payment for assets other than real estate alone. Non-real-estate motivations for purchasing properties and non-realty components of a transaction must be removed in order to determine the market value of the real estate alone. Otherwise, the values for the real estate will be above market.

4. Only Real Estate Is Subject to Property Taxation. As previously mentioned, property portfolios will sometimes convey with other assets. These can include personal property, such as fixtures and equipment, or intangible assets and rights like contracts, licenses and goodwill. Market values for these non-real-estate items are evaluated differently from real property and some, such as intangible assets and rights, are not subject to property taxation at all. In addition, any "synergy" or "accretive" value from a portfolio sale is intangible and should be excluded when assessing a specific property's value for property tax purposes.

5. Properties May Not Stabilize at Pre-Pandemic Levels. Properties that were hardest hit by changes related to COVID-19 may take years to return to pre-pandemic performance levels, and some may never fully recover. Awareness of a particular industry's recovery will be key to understanding whether market values and property tax assessments for that property type will return to pre-2020 levels. Uncertainties about time to stabilization reduce real estate values. The knowledge that some properties may never achieve pre-pandemic performance levels puts long-term investment value into question, which decreases the current value of those properties and lowers their taxable value.

6. Leasehold Interest Values May Not Match the Market. Investors buy and sell commercial properties based on the net income they produce. However, if the leases generating that income are above or below market, the value derived from rents will not be at market. In addition, lease rates from synthetic or operating leases used to finance the purchase of a portfolio of properties will not produce market value for individual properties unless those lease rates happen to be set at market levels.

7. If All Else Fails, File a Property Tax Appeal. Taxpayers who work proactively with their local tax assessor are often able to achieve reduced assessed values and lower property tax bills. Property owners should address each of the previous six points with the local assessor. Nevertheless, there will be times when attempts to reduce assessed values are unsuccessful. In those cases, property owners should be prepared to file an appeal by the deadline and pursue it, preferably with the assistance of a knowledgeable property tax advisor.

Numbers of lawsuits remind taxpayers and assessors to exclude intangible assets from taxable real estate value.

A recent case involving a Disney Yacht and Beach Club Resort in Orange County, Florida demonstrates how significantly tax liability can differ when an assessor fails to exclude intangible assets. For Disney's property, the tax assessor's and Disney's valuation of the property differed by a whopping $127.8 billion.

Real estate taxes are ad valorem, or based on the value of the real property. And only on real property.

The precise definition of real property varies by jurisdiction but generally is "the physical land and appurtenances affixed to the land," which is to say the land and any site and building improvements, according The Appraisal of Real Estate, 14^th Edition.

Your real property tax assessment, then, should exclude the value of any non-real-estate assets. That includes tangible personal property like equipment, or intangible personal property like goodwill.

When real estate is closely linked to a business operation, such as a hotel, it can be difficult to separate business value from real estate value. If the business activity is subject to sales, payroll, franchise, or other commercial activity taxes, then the assessor's inclusion of business value in the property assessment results in impermissible double taxation.

In Singh vs. Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US Inc., the county assessor appraised the Disney resort using the Rushmore method, which accounts for intangible business value by excluding franchise and management expenses from the calculation of the net income before capitalizing to indicate a property value.

Disney argued the Rushmore method did not adequately separate income from food, beverage, merchandise and services sold on the real estate, not generated by leasing the real estate itself. Disney also argued that the assessor included the value of other intangible assets like goodwill, an assembled workforce, and the Disney brand in the valuation.

The trial court did not rule on the propriety of the Rushmore method but found its application in this case violated Florida law. Referencing an earlier case involving a horse racing track (Metropolitan Dade County vs. Tropical Park Inc.), the court agreed with Disney that "[w]hile a property appraiser can assess value using rental income or income that an owner generates from allowing others to use the real property, the property appraiser cannot assess value using income from the taxpayer's operation of business on the real property."

The trial court decision was appealed to the district court (appeals court). The appeals court found the Rushmore method, not just its application, violated Florida law by failing to remove all intangible business value from the tax assessment. When the case returned to the trial court on another issue, the appeals court instructed that the Rushmore method should not be used to assess the property.

In deciding Disney, both courts found SHC Halfmoon Bay vs. County of San Mateo instructive. That case involved the Ritz Carlton Half Moon Bay Hotel in California. The California court had rejected the Rushmore method because it "failed to identify and exclude intangible assets" including an assembled workforce, leasehold interest in a parking lot, and contract rights with a golf course operator from the property tax assessment.

The Disney trial court also looked to the Tropical Park horse track case, where the tax assessment improperly included income generated from the business betting operation not the land use.

Similarly, in an Ohio case involving a horse racing facility, the state Supreme Court rejected a tax valuation that included the value of intangible personal property in the form of a video-lottery terminal license (VLT) valued at $50 million by the taxpayer's expert (Harrah's Ohio Acquisition Co. LLC vs. Cuyahoga County Board of Revision). The property had a casino and 128-acre horse racing facility including a racing track, barns, and grandstand.

The Ohio Court recognized that the VLT had significant value that should be excluded from the real property tax assessment. It rejected the argument that the license was not an intangible asset because it could not be separately transferred or retained. Looking at its prior decisions, the Court had recognized a non-transferable license could still be valuable to the current holder of that license, and that value should be exempt from real property taxation.

Experts continue to disagree about the best method to appraise assets with a significant intangible business value component.Nonetheless, these court cases underline again how important it is for your tax assessment to exclude intangible assets. With most commercial property owners facing onerous tax burdens based on pre-COVID-19 valuation dates, it is even more critical that intangible assets are removed from valuations for property tax purposes. Work closely with assessors, knowledgeable appraisers, and tax professionals to ensure you only pay real estate taxes on the value of your real estate.

​Savvy commercial real estate professionals keep property-tax planning on their checklists for acquisitions and capital projects.​

Why? Because they know that considering property taxes early can save money and reduce hassle later, whether the project is acquiring a business that owns real estate, developing real estate, remodeling a property or adding to existing improvements. And given that businesses overall spend more on property tax than any other state and local tax, considering property tax while planning these projects is a valuable opportunity to improve the bottom line.

The first step is to identify how the acquisition or other proposed actions might affect the property's taxable value. This depends on the local jurisdiction's assessing practices and on how an assessor will relate the sale price or project cost to taxable market value.

States treat sales information in varying ways. Ohio, for example, presumes a property's sale price to be its market value for calculating property taxes. Other states include the sale price in the overall algorithm for all properties but do not use it to determine the value of the specific property that sold. Still others ignore the price altogether.

There are several ways that price may differ from value. For one, the transaction may include non-taxable elements, such as a business, in addition to real property. Or the sale price of an office building may reflect added value for a lease at an above-market rental rate.

In a common scenario, the price paid for a portfolio of senior-living facilities will include the value of each facility's real property, the value of each facility's tangible personal property, and the value of each facility's resident lists, service arrangements, goodwill and other intangible (and therefore untaxable) personal property. The allocation of the purchase price among the various components may not reflect the market value of each component, even when the overall transaction price reflects market value. And sometimes a buyer pays more for a property than it is worth generally on the market. This is often due to the buyer's own investment strategies and thus requires an assessor to distinguish between investment value and market value.

A buyer should ideally evaluate how the price relates to the property's market value in the lead-up to the transaction. This is key to projecting property taxes going forward, in light of the transaction and the way the particular jurisdiction reacts to (or ignores) different types of transactions. It is also important to ensuring that the assessor receives accurate information in states where assessors learn of and react to sales prices.

This early planning can influence the portion of the price allocated to taxable value and help limit it to market value. Part of this is specifically identifying nontaxable, intangible components in the transaction documents in a way that conforms to the jurisdiction's property tax laws.

Another key step is to make sure any documents filed for real estate transfer taxes reflect the value of the taxable component instead of an overall value, thereby managing both the real estate transfer tax and future property taxes. Opportunities may exist to avoid or minimize the transfer tax, depending on the specific laws in each jurisdiction.

Many a buyer has reported the full sale price (or allowed the seller to do so, in jurisdictions where the seller reports the transaction), realizing too late that the reported sum included components that should have been reported differently. The buyer should also consider property taxes when reviewing any press release about the transaction. The new owner may find itself bound to what was reported, whether to government or the media, in later property tax appeals.

Also, preserving certain transaction details, such as the valuation analysis and rationale, may help later as support material or to dispute errors in discussions with the assessor.

Lastly, if information about the transaction goes public in a way that may lead to a misunderstanding by the assessor, reacting promptly can be crucial. This often involves discussing the information with the assessor to provide additional context, such as explaining when a buyer paid a premium above the property's market value.

Similar considerations apply to other types of project strategies, such as plans to develop real estate, renovate or remodel a property, or add to existing improvements. In each instance, early consideration of property taxes often proves useful. Doing so not only aids in projecting future property taxes, but can also guide the owner in reducing those taxes through choices made while carrying out the project.

Norman J. Bruns and Michelle DeLappe are attorneys in the Seattle office of Garvey Schubert Barer, where they specialize in state and local tax. Norman Bruns is the Idaho and Washington representative of American Property Tax Counsel, the national affiliation of property tax attorneys. Norman Bruns can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. Michelle DeLappe can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..