Menu

Property Tax Resources

Oct
10

Beware of RevPAR in Property Tax Valuations

When comparing hotels for valuation purposes, a common method of making adjustments for the difference between properties is to examine revenue per available room (RevPAR), a measurement of hotel performance.  If executed poorly, these calculations can distort property value and lead to unfairly heavy tax burdens on hospitality owners.

There are two different ways to calculate RevPAR.  The first is to multiply the average rental income per room by the number of rooms occupied, then divide by the number of days in the period.  The other method is to divide total guestroom revenue by the number of available rooms and divide that figure by the number of days in the period.

In an article titled “Using RevPAR as a Basis for Adjusting Comparable Sales,” published in February 2002 by HospitalityNet.org, appraiser Erich Baum voiced a common argument shared by appraisers who advocate for RevPAR adjustments.  Baum contends that the adjustments are appropriate because the revenue a hotel generates is tied to its location and the quality of its product.

The question in valuation for property taxation is whether or not RevPAR incorporates additional, non-real estate values such as quality of brand, management, goodwill, etc., and whether or not the RevPAR adjustment reflects those non-real estate items.

If the appraiser’s purpose is to compare values of hotels as a going concern, including all tangible and intangible items, this adjustment may make sense.  If, however, the purpose is only to value the tangible real estate and exclude intangible business value, as in an ad valorem tax valuation, a RevPAR adjustment may be inappropriate.

Appraisers generally accept that there is intangible value associated with the going concern value of a hotel.  The Appraisal Institute discusses this concept further in the 14th edition of The Appraisal of Real Estate (2013) Chapter 35, “Valuation of Real Property with Related Personal Property or Intangible Property.”  This is important in the world of ad valorem tax valuations because intangibles are not taxable.

Determining Values

To understand whether RevPAR adjustments are appropriate in a property tax setting, consider a nationally branded hotel that loses its brand.  Compare the hotel to its closest competitors using a RevPAR adjustment both with and without its flag.  Conversely, look at a non-branded hotel that becomes a nationally branded hotel and adjust its competitors’ RevPAR -using the same metrics.

Source Strategies produced a study to determine brand values by tracking the subsequent difference in revenue realized by hotels in Texas that gained or lost a nationally branded flag.  A detailed examination of the study appeared in the summer 2012 edition of The Appraisal Journal.

Researchers compared hotels on the basis of their RevPAR index, which measures a hotel’s performance relative to its competitive set.  An index of 100 indicates that a subject hotel is get-ting its fair share of revenue in comparison to its competitors.  An index higher than 100 indicates the subject is realizing more than its fair share of revenue and an index below 100 indicates the subject is realizing less.

Gaining or Losing a Brand

The study tracked five different brands of hotels in Texas between 1990 and 2010 and found that properties which gained or lost a national brand saw a respective drop or increase in their RevPAR index by as much as 40 percent.  Two hotels from the brand study provide an opportunity to test the utility and appropriateness of RevPAR adjustments.

One of the hotels studied was a Hampton Inn in San Antonio.  In 2004, its second-to-last year as a Hampton, the hotel was outperforming its competitive set.  This is indicated by a RevPAR index of 109.  The hotel’s average daily rate (ADR) was $55.60, or 9.4 percent higher than its competitors’ average of $50.82.

The year after the hotel lost its Hampton Inn brand, it operated as a non-branded hotel.  That year the same competitive set outperformed the now non-branded hotel.  The subject saw its RevPAR Index drop to 64, and its average daily rate fall to $39.89, or 35.7 percent lower than the $62.12 average in its competitive set.

Using a RevPAR adjustment would require a positive adjustment of 9.4 percent in one year and a 35.7 negative adjustment just two years later for the same real estate.

Now consider the effects of a RevPAR adjustment to a hotel that starts out as an independent hotel and then becomes nationally branded.  The study showed that one such hotel in Houston went from unbranded to being a Holiday Inn Express.  In 2004, its last year as an independent, this hotel generated less revenue than its competitors, as evidenced by the subject’s RevPAR index of 51.  The competitors’ average daily rate was $29.52, or twice that of the subject’s $14.72 ADR.

The year after the subject became a Holiday Inn Express it outperformed the same competitive set, as evidenced by the increase in its RevPAR index to 129.  As a nationally branded hotel, the subject’s ADR was $40.76, or 29.7 percent higher than the competing set’s $31.43 ADR.

In both cases the RevPAR index changed significantly for the subject properties, while the real estate remained unchanged.  The comps and methods of comparison remained the same.  The only change was the removal or addition of the brand and its resultant change in revenue.

These results indicate that the revenue shift reflects the change in brand and possibly management or goodwill, none of which are a part of the real estate.  Rather, they are separate and intangible components of the going concern.  Because these items are tied to RevPAR, a RevPAR adjustment will entail adjustments to the differences in both the tangible real estate and intangible items such as brand, management and goodwill.  RevPAR adjustments are therefore inappropriate when calculating only the tangible real estate value of a hotel. 

greg hart active

kevin sullivan active

Greg Hart is an attorney and tax consultant at the Austin, Texas law firm of Popp Hutcheson, PLLC, and Kevin Sullivan is an appraiser and tax consultant with the firm.  Popp Hutcheson PLLC represents taxpayers in property tax disputes and is the Texas member of American Property Tax Counsel (APTC), the national affiliation of property tax attorneys. Hart can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. and Sullivan at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

 

Continue reading
Dec
31

Case Study: If The Build-To-Suit Fits.....

"Once vacated by the original user, build-to-suit properties require a different valuation process."

Build-to-suit properties, like custom suits, are wonderful for the original purchaser. A made-to-order suit matches the specific user's size and build and looks just right on him. But try giving that suit to a friend, and the suit that looked great on you may not look as good or fit as well on him.

Similarly, build-to-suit properties may offer limited or no functionality to the next user. The following case study of a freestanding restaurant illustrates the challenges of determining the taxable value of a build-to-suit property.

The property was built in Austin in 2006 for a dine-in hamburger chain with restaurants in the U.S. and Canada. Located at a high-traffic intersection in front of a large shopping center, the restaurant measured 6,780 square feet, according to Travis Central Appraisal District records.

When the restaurant closed its doors in 2011, the restaurant appeared to the casual viewer to be in excellent condition, but the property owner demolished the building. From there, one might have assumed that a different property type would replace it.

As such, it was surprising to see another restaurant replace the demolished property in 2012. When completed, the new structure measured 6,350 square feet, tax records showed — nearly the same size as the previous building's 6,780 square feet. And the new building, like the old, was home to a national chain, in this case a steakhouse.

In this example, the value to the original user was an investment value and most likely equated to the original cost less physical depreciation. The investment value to the new owner was land value less the cost of demolition.

So how did a relatively new building suffer 100 percent depreciation after only a few years of physical depreciation? In this case, the custom suit was given to a friend, and it just didn't fit. The exterior of the first building matched the branded design of a specific chain restaurant, and on the inside, the builder had tailored the kitchen and dining areas to this particular chain. But the new user also wanted a specific exterior design, kitchen and dining area layout to match a different restaurant chain.

So, how then can an appraiser or assessor value a build-to-suit property without putting a nominal or "zero" value on the improvements?

In Texas, the property tax code requires assessors to value properties at market value, not the investment value to any one specific user. "The Appraisal of Real Estate, 14th Edition" states that, "it is generally agreed that market value results from the collective value judgments of market participants...In contrast to market value, investment value is value to an individual, not necessarily value in the marketplace."

In the case of a build-to-suit restaurant, it can be assumed that the pool of potential second-generation users who find functional utility in the property is limited to local restaurateurs or small local chains that do not require a specific look or layout for brand recognition. The market value to these users is likely somewhere in between the physically depreciated cost and the
land-less-demolition cost.

This implies that functional obsolescence is inherently built into a build-to-suit property. While measuring the amount of obsolescence is beyond the scope of this article, one strategy is to inventory the number of comparably sized restaurants in the subject's market area and determine the percent of those restaurants that are regional or national chains.

A larger percentage of such chains in the market area indicates a greater degree of functional obsolescence. Using the income approach to value, a larger percentage of regional or national chains implies fewer potential users of the property and, therefore, a greater risk, which can be reflected in the cap rate.

An assessor must consider these factors when determining the market value of a build-to-suit property for property tax purposes. Significant value swings can occur when looking at the investment value for one specific user rather than the market value for a collective of market participants.

Once the market participants who find utility with the property have been determined and weighed against the market participants for which the" suit just doesn't fit," the assessor can determine a proper market value.

Kevin Sullivan is an Appraiser and Tax Consultant with the Austin, Texas, law firm 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. Mr. Sullivan can be reached atThis email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Continue reading
Oct
27

A Highest and Best Use Analysis Can Reduce Property Tax Liability

"The assessor's mistake was failing to apply a consistent use to the property's land and improvements. While the land value suggested a high-density use, the existing improvements could not support that value..."

By Kevin Sullivan, as published by Commercial Property Executive Blog, October 2011

Property owners often assume that an assessor has valued their asset under the correct use, but performing a highest-and-best-use analysis can prepare the owner with data to recognize and dispute an over assessment.

"The Appraisal of Real Estate, 13th Edition" describes four tests which must be performed sequentially: Is the use legally permissible, physically possible, financially feasible, and maximally productive?

In a recent case in Texas, an assessor valuing a historic home operating as a bed and breakfast treated the property as a single-family residence. Tax counsel discovered that the property was zoned for commercial use and legally could not be a single family residence.

Having failed to meet the first test for highest and best use, the assessor incorrectly appraised the property at double its market value. Using the income approach and valuing the property under the correct highest and best use, as a bed and breakfast, lowered the assessment.

In another example, an assessor applied an appropriate land value to a high-rise condo development, but then applied the same per-square-foot value to the land under a nearby, free-standing retail building, inflating the latter property's value. The principle of consistent use states that the land and improvements on one property must be valued based on the same use.

The assessor's mistake was failing to apply a consistent use to the property's land and improvements. While the land value suggested a high-density use, the existing improvements could not support that value. The property was not under an interim use, therefore the highest and best use was a free-standing retail building, requiring a lower land value.

A highest-and-best-use analysis can clearly demonstrate where deficiencies may exist in an assessor's valuation. Performing this analysis can give you the tools you need to reduce your property tax liability.

Kevin Sullivan is an Appraiser and Tax Consultant with the Austin, Texas, law firm 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. Mr. Sullivan can be reached atThis email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Continue reading

American Property Tax Counsel

Recent Published Property Tax Articles

Environmental Contamination Reduces Market Value

Protest any tax assessment that doesn't reflect the cost to remediate any existing environmental contamination.

Owners of properties with environmental contamination already carry the financial burden of removal or remediation costs, whether they cure the problem themselves or sell to a buyer who is...

Read more

Big Property Tax Savings Are Available

Millions of property tax dollars can be saved by understanding seven issues before buying real estate.

We asked property tax lawyers around the country for tax advice they wish their clients would request before an acquisition to avoid excessive taxation. Their responses, like tax laws, vary by state:

Ask Early. Transaction...

Read more

Use Restrictions Can Actually Lower A Tax Bill

​Savvy commercial owners are employing use restrictions as a means to reduce taxable property values.

Most property managers and owners can easily speak about their property's most productive use, in addition to speculating on a list of potential uses. Not all of them, however, are as keenly aware of their property's...

Read more

Member Spotlight

Members

Forgot your password? / Forgot your username?