Commercial property owners can maximize returns by minimizing property taxes, writes J. Kieran Jennings of Siegel Jennings Co. LPA.

Investing should be straightforward—and so should managing investments. Yet real estate, often labeled a "passive" investment, is anything but. Real estate investment done right may not be thrilling, but it requires active management, particularly in controlling one of the largest ongoing expenses, property taxes.

In recent years, the real estate industry has faced numerous challenges that harbored opportunities for savvy investors. From the COVID-19 pandemic and interest rate spikes to the work-from-home trend and increased vacancies, these disruptions were not just problems to solve—they were openings to reassess strategies, particularly regarding property taxes. Investors who seized these moments to reduce their tax burdens likely reaped significant benefits.

Consider the advice of the late judicial philosopher, writer and judge Learned Hand, who famously said: "Anyone may so arrange their affairs that their taxes shall be as low as possible; they are not bound to choose that pattern which will best pay the Treasury. There is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes."

For real estate investors, this principle underscores the importance of addressing their largest tax expense: annual property taxes. These taxes not only erode returns year after year but can also negatively affect refinancing terms and eventual sales prices.

The best time to act? Now

Opportunities to reduce property taxes arise from shifting markets, new tax laws, court decisions, and even turnover among local assessors and prosecutors. Staying proactive means regularly reviewing these factors to determine whether each new assessment warrants a challenge.

To illustrate how market conditions and legal frameworks create opportunities, consider the following scenarios. Although these are hypothetical, they derive from true situations and case histories.

Tax is for tangibles: Soon after an investor purchased a hotel in Florida four years ago, the local assessor valued the property at 80 percent of its purchase price—a reasonable valuation for tax purposes at the time. Recent case law casts that value in a different light, however. Assessors must now exclude intangible business value, which can constitute up to 50 percent of a hotel's total value, from property tax liability. Ensuring the assessor valued their property correctly under the new directive enabled the subject property's owner to achieve a substantial reduction in the hotel's taxable valuation, saving tens of thousands of dollars annually.

Interest rates reconsidered: A multifamily complex acquired in 2021 was assessed at 90 percent of its purchase price. Although the owners had secured favorable interest rates at the time of acquisition, the taxpayer was still able to obtain a 30 percent assessment reduction in 2023. How? By citing the impact of rising interest rates on market conditions, which had suppressed property values due to buyers' increasing cost for debt financing. This assessment reduction helped improve the owners' cash flow and property valuation during refinancing negotiations.

Advanced to obsolescence. A newly constructed industrial facility in Ohio built to serve a rapidly developing industry faced obsolescence challenges as the needs of its intended tenant base changed in the evolving subsector. Under Ohio law, such properties are classified as special-use and must be assessed based on value to the user. The owners demonstrated significant economic obsolescence, effectively reducing the property's valuation. Additionally, the owners showed that many fixtures the assessor had initially included in the valuation were personal property. With strict adherence to legal definitions in revisiting the assessment, the assessor excluded the personal property from taxation. Understanding the legal definitions of assessable property and providing evidence of obsolescence enabled the owners to achieve meaningful tax savings.

These three examples highlight how market shifts and legal precedents create opportunities to lower tax burdens, even when the immediate need for action isn't obvious.

How to recognize a fair assessment

The methods for determining whether a property is fairly assessed depend on local and state laws, which vary widely and change frequently. Staying informed requires continuous monitoring of tax laws and local tax authority practices.

A taxpayer or tax advisor determined to stay current on local tax conditions should be sure to follow three key steps as part of their inquiries:

1. Understand local laws and definitions. Assessors calculate fair market value based on jurisdiction-specific guidelines.
2. Identify potential exemptions. Elements such as business fixtures might be reclassified as personal property and excluded from taxation.
3. Evaluate risks. Be aware that challenging an assessment involves risks, which can range from minimal to significant, depending on local laws and circumstances.

Combining a thorough understanding of jurisdictional laws with an analysis of property-specific facts is critical. This approach ensures taxpayers know what evidence to produce and will know when they're being fairly assessed.

The bottom line is that commercial property owners must exercise vigilance, expertise and a proactive mindset to manage their property taxes effectively. By viewing challenges as opportunities, property owners can minimize expenses, maximize returns, and protect the long-term value of their assets. Regardless of whether an assessment appeal requires an attorney, thinking like a lawyer will yield dividends.

J. Kieran Jennings was quoted in the December 14 digital issue of the Wall Street Journal's Property Report, Page B6, titled, "Falling Building Values Spur Tax Appeals." 

Mr. Jennings is a partner in the law firm Siegel Jennings Co., L.P.A, the Ohio, Illinois and Western Pennsylvania member of American Property Tax Counsel (APTC), the national affiliation of property tax attorneys. 

Follow these steps to stop excessive property tax assessments.

In a nation that has faced a host of new challenges since the pandemic began, the seniors housing sector has carried one of the heaviest burdens. COVID-19-related mortality risk for those 85 years old or older is 330 times higher than for those 18 to 29 years old, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Notwithstanding those odds, 51% of all seniors housing properties including independent care, assisted living and skilled nursing reported zero deaths from COVID-19. Yet the industry continues to grapple with increased costs, worker burnout, hiring challenges and occupancy issues that have ravaged their operations.

Like a vaccine that stimulates a stronger immune response, hard times can spur organizations to boost efficiency and fortify themselves against other threats, such as inflation. In this vein, seniors housing owners must identify ways to turn their troubles into positive influences.

As the industry seeks to allocate money from areas that don't compromise care, property tax strategy should be near the top of their lists for potential savings. Moreover, reduced taxes tend to have a long-term impact. When assessments are low, they tend to stay low, which may serve to insulate the industry from the impacts of inflation.

How to reduce property tax liability

Obtaining those property tax savings is not easy, however. Although it seems apparent that the industry has suffered, taxpayers that want a reduction in taxes must prove their property has lost value; they cannot rely on the good will of assessors to adjust the assessment.

Taxpayers must look at their tax challenges in a way that reflects the impact to the business. That said, assessors will want to concentrate on real estate value irrespective of the business. Many will reference sales of properties that were priced on the value of contractual leases to the operator, or assessors may look at the income to the owner based on contract rents. Taxpayers need well-documented arguments to counter these positions.

While separating the real property value from the business value, real estate assessments must also consider the negative effect that a struggling business exerts on the real estate.

Taxpayers can follow a three-step financial feasibility study to help prove the need for an assessment reduction.

1. Determine the net operating income (NOI) under COVID-19 and its legacy. It is important to document the new costs necessary to safeguard and serve residents in this new environment.

2. Separate income associated with services from real estate income. Be sure to remove from income any governmental stimulus that will not be ongoing.

3. Finally, use the resulting real estate NOI to show the effects of that income stream on real estate value.

Step 2 is critical, and it must start with the business. Conduct a forward-looking income analysis that includes all increased costs, from the added costs of employing and motivating a weary workforce to inflation and expenses associated with new health standards.

After documenting the new NOI from the independent living, assisted living, or skilled nursing operation, determine whether that income is sufficient to justify the business. Taxpayers can do this by applying a return to the cost of services. The expenses that are separate from normal real estate operations are associated with the service side of the business, and those outlays are expected to generate sufficient income to create a return on that investment. Remove the return from the overall net operating income, thus separating the income from business and real estate. The result is NOI that reflects more closely that of the real estate.

Perform a similar analysis to determine whether the net income attributable to real estate is sufficient to justify the real estate cost. It is important to remind the assessor that the operating business can only pay rent if there is money available, even if that rent is just a figure used in a formula to determine real estate value. At this point, the taxpayer can apply a capitalization rate to the net real estate income to arrive at the real estate value.

Apply to other valuation approaches

The financial feasibility study described above will also help taxpayers and assessors determine how to adjust the cost approach to valuing real estate. Likewise, the analysis can inform adjustments to comparable sales data. Indeed, that initial financial feasibility will help in all aspects of the tax challenge and should be well documented.

Assessors are not all-knowing, so unless the taxpayer shows them a good reason to change approaches, they will work with their normal procedures. Often, assessors look to the property's construction cost (less physical depreciation based on age), sales of similar properties and/or the income generated from contract rents to determine an assessed value.

Without an initial feasibility analysis, an assessor may focus on construction costs without regard to whether the property's use will justify those costs. Or they may use contract rents for the subject property or competing properties, either of which were likely established with pre-pandemic metrics.

Simplistic shortcuts, such as assuming a percentage of the total net income that should be attributable to business and the other to real estate, are not ideal and may lead to inflated values of taxpayers' properties.

In theory, there should be a greater impact on the value of those properties that require more service. But because of the variations between properties and nuances of seniors housing types, a fresh look is needed for all of them.

A good starting position for the taxpayer is to ask, "what would we pay to acquire the property, knowing what we know today?" Comparisons to sales of other properties are more complicated than in the past and should be adjusted with an eye toward the feasibility analysis. Properties that cannot achieve sufficient occupancy and income to justify operation are not directly comparable to optimally occupied properties.

There are states where a reduction in the assessment may carry forward indefinitely. Approaching assessed value with a strong team will pay dividends for years. Conversely, an approach that is not well thought out will make future attempts to reduce taxes more difficult. But by taking the proper steps, a taxpayer can position themselves to drive the best result and be able to provide the service and living standards that our most vulnerable residents deserve.

Self-storage has become a hot investment and values are up, but many owners find themselves with excessive property-tax bills that eat into their cash flow. Here's an overview of how tax assessments are made and some ways to potentially lower your bill.

Self-storage facilities continue to command great cash flow, but many owners find themselves funneling more of their income toward exorbitant property-tax bills. Those who take the time to review their assessments and liabilities with a local expert often discover they're being taxed unfairly. This is why you should identify and question your assessor's methods, assumptions, data and calculations. By exercising your right to contest your assessment and presenting a convincing argument, you might be rewarded with a lower tax bill.

Self-storage is especially vulnerable to errant valuations by assessors who fail to differentiate taxable from non-taxable value. Key questions include whether the sale of a self-storage facility is completely subject to transfer tax and if the price directly equates to taxable value for real property tax. It can be argued that much of the value associated with self-storage is business value and personal property, which is typically exempt from transfer or property taxes.

Let's examine how self-storage tax assessments are made and arguments you can use to contest one assigned to your own property. A successful appeal can save significant money, so it's worth pursuing.

The Trouble With Assessment

Arguing that the value of your self-storage facility is largely derived from non-real-estate sources can be problematic. Much of the difficulty comes into play when the assessor obtains a copy of the finance appraisal, or when a purchase and sale agreement includes an allocation separating the real estate from non-realty items.

Assessors want to believe that all the value in a sale or from financing is derived from real estate. In the Ohio case St. Bernard Self-Storage LLC vs. Hamilton County Board of Revision, the state supreme court stated that although the purchase and sales agreement carved out goodwill in the acquisition price, it was unconvinced that the sale of a self-storage facility had any goodwill. Conversely, lenders are often unable to lend on value that isn't attributable to real estate.

For property owners, the first step toward minimizing taxes and maximizing their financing is watching definitions; the definition of the interest being appraised is paramount. Appraisers can properly find for two different values on the same property, depending on whether they're valuing for the purpose of financing or tax assessment, so it's important to establish the interest being appraised.

When it comes to financing, lenders can and do lend on the stabilized value of a property performing as a going concern. In other words, they're appraising the property's leased fee value. So, for financing, appraisers can rightfully take into consideration the income from the operation at stabilization, but that isn't necessarily true for tax assessors.

Many states require assessors to value the fee simple interest in the real property only. The fee-simple appraisal is based on the real estate value alone and excludes value from the return of and on personal property. When it comes to self-storage, the assessor's calculation of taxable value must ignore value associated with units, computer systems, national marketing and so on, based on circumstances. Individual units are capable of being assembled and disassembled, which means they are at best a business fixture and not real estate.

Many assessors and appraisers recognize the removal of the depreciated value of personal property, which means they must also remove the personal property—and any income attributable to it—from the going-concern value. The comingling of values from multiple sources is especially evident when there's a sale.

Arguments in Your Favor

When the assessor cites a tax assessment based on the sale of your self-storage property, you can make several arguments. First, look at the building's construction and acquisition costs without factoring in things like security, computer systems, marketing and individual units.

If your facility was recently converted from a different type of building, that too can give you an advantage. Properties like those transformed from big-box retail space often trade at much lower price before lease-up and stabilization, and the conversion costs are typically associated with the personal property and eventual occupancy. So, as the owner, you can present sales of comparable pre-conversion properties to support an argument for a reduced assessment. It's better than using the sales of operating self-storage facilities as comps because there's no need to remove the personal property from the equation.

In cases when there are few comparable sales of big-box properties to reference or your self-storage facility truly isn't comparable to others that have been sold, it's appropriate to assess the property based on the replacement costs associated with building new. However, the appraiser should stop short of including costs specific to individual units, otherwise they'd need to apply depreciation from all sources, including age and any economic or functional depreciation.

The last line of counterargument is based on the income approach to valuation. Income-based assessment is the most complex when it comes to removing non-realty income. The easiest and cleanest way to respond is to look at examples of same-generation retail or light-industrial rents.

That said, when trying to defeat a sales price, it may be necessary to look at the actual income and then determine the appropriate amount for the non-realty value. Appropriate income will be based on the initial investment to install personal property as well as the return from that personal property. The income derived from that non-realty component is then removed from the actual net income. This is an activity easier said than done, but appraisers can establish the return. After removing the non-realty income, they should apply an appropriate capitalization (cap) rate to arrive at the property value.

Preferably, the cap rate used by the appraiser or assessor should be created from a mortgage constant and equity returns rather than from sales of comparable self-storage facilities because cap rates from this industry have comingled interests.

As you can see, it's appropriate for self-storage owners to use different values for their property, including one for financing and another for taxable or assessed value. These will differ because the appraisals that produce them are truly measuring different property interests.

Kieran Jennings of Siegel Jennings Co. explains how taxpayers and assessors ensure a fair system, with tremendous swings in assessment and taxes.

A fundamental problem plaguing the property tax system is its reliance on the government's opinion of a property's taxable value. Taxes on income or retail sales reflect hard numbers; real estate assessment produces the only tax in which the government guesses at a fair amount for the taxpayer to pay.

Assessors' estimates of taxable property value create ambiguity and public scrutiny not found in other taxes, and incorrect assessments can lead to fiscal shortfalls that viciously pit taxing authorities against taxpayers seeking to correct those valuations. Worse yet, the longer a tax appeal takes to reach its conclusion, the worse the outcome for both the taxpayer and government. Paradoxically, swift correction of assessment roll protects the tax authority as well as the taxpayer.

As an example, Utah daily newspaper Desert News reported in December 2019 that, due to a clerical error, Wasatch County tax rolls recorded a market-rate value of $987 million for a 1,570-square-foot home built in 1978. The value should have been $302,000. The Wasatch County assessor said the error caused a countywide overvaluation of more than $6 million and created a deficit in five various county taxing jurisdictions, according to the county assessor. The Wasatch County School District had already budgeted nearly $4.4 million, which it was unable to collect.

How does an overvaluation error cause taxing districts to lose money? In many, if not most jurisdictions, the tax rate is determined in part by the overall assessment in the district as well as the budget and levies passed. Typically, there is a somewhat complex formula that turns on the various taxing districts, safeguards and anti-windfall provisions.

Simply stated, tax rates are a result of the budget divided by the overall assessment in the district. A $1 million budget based on a $100 million assessment would require a 1 percent tax rate to collect the budgeted revenue. If the assessment is corrected after the tax rate is set, however, then not all the revenue will be collected and the district will incur a fiscal shortfall.

The sooner a commercial property assessment is corrected the healthier it is for all involved. In the Utah example, had the error been corrected prior to the tax rate being set there would have been no impact on the taxpayer, the school or any of the taxing authorities.

FAIRNESS FOR THE COMMON GOOD

Most state tax systems are flawed and provide inadequate safeguards for taxpayers—if the tax systems were designed better, there would be less need for tax counsel. By understanding the workings of the property tax system, however, taxpayers can help maintain their own fiscal health as well as help to maintain the community's fiscal well being.

As with all negotiations, it is important to understand the opponent's motivations. Although residential tax assessment typically is the largest pool of overall assessment, taxing authorities know that commercial properties individually can have the greatest impact on a system when they are improperly assessed, to the detriment of schools and taxpayers. That makes it important to act as quickly as possible in the event of an improper assessment. And, importantly, resolutions that minimize impacts to the government can maximize the benefit to the taxpayer.

A lack of clear statutory definitions, political tax shifting or a simple error can cause a breakdown in the tax system. In Johnson County, Kan., the assessor raised the assessments on all big box retail stores, in some cases by over 100 percent. Recently, the Kansas State Board of Tax Appeals found those assessments to be excessive. The board reduced taxable values in several of the lead cases back to original levels, and the excessive assessment caused a shortfall.

The Cook County, Ill., assessor has been in the news for raising assessments on commercial real estate in many cases by more than 100 percent. If those assessments are found to be excessive, it could be detrimental for the tax authorities and taxpayers alike. In Cook County, the assessor has stated that the increase is in response to prior underassessment.

SEEK UNIFORMITY, CLARITY

With tremendous swings in assessment and taxes, how can taxpayers and assessors ensure a fair system? Uniform standards and measurements are the answer.

Like the income tax code, the property tax code is criticized for being confusing and overly wordy. To achieve greater equity and predictability, clarity is key. Defined measures of assessed value and standards to ensure uniform assessment results will help create transparency and ensure fundamental fairness between neighbors and competitors, so that no one has an advantage nor a disadvantage.

All taxpayers must be subject to the same measurement. For instance, a government cannot apply an income tax as a tax on gross income for one taxpayer and on net income for another. Likewise, one taxpayer should not be taxed on the value of a property that is available for sale or lease, and another owner taxed based on the value of its property with a tenant in place. Because tax law under most state constitutions must be applied uniformly, one set of rules must be established for all, and what is being taxed should be clearly defined.

Tax laws often include phrases like "true cash value" and "fair value." To be clear, the only measure of taxable value common to all property types is the fee simple, unencumbered value. The value of a property that is measured notwithstanding the current occupant or tenant is not necessarily the price that was paid for the property; it could be higher or lower. And because this concept is difficult for many taxpayers and assessors to understand, there needs to be a second check on the system; that safeguard is taxpayers' right to challenge their assessment based on their neighbors' and competitors' assessments.

To protect themselves on complex matters, it is often helpful for taxpayers to hire counsel that is intimately familiar with the law, real estate valuation and the local individuals with whom the taxpayer will be negotiating. To reduce the need for counsel, get involved with trade groups and state chambers of commerce, which can aid in correcting the tax system.

Uniform measurements of assessment, the ability to challenge the uniformity of results, and swift resolutions combine to create fairness and stability, which in turn enhance the fiscal health of both taxpayers and tax districts.

​Investors should be wary when taxing authorities single out properties to be assessed in a method that is inconsistent with the treatment of other taxpayers in the same class, says attorney Kieran Jennings.

Recently, The New York Times published an article on property taxes imposed on retailers under the headline "As Big Retailers Seek to Cut Their Tax Bills, Towns Bear the Brunt." This and similar articles question the fairness of how retailers have reduced their tax bills by using sales of unoccupied stores as comparable transactions to establish the assessed value for an occupied store.

The local government has cried foul, and the article concentrates on the perceived end result―lost revenue for government coffers.

What is missing from the article is basic tax law, which holds that all taxpayers in a given class must be taxed uniformly. Thus, the series of bad decisions that led local government to overtax retailers made communities dependent on inflated revenue. The initial mistake many assessors made was to seize upon sales prices associated with leased retail stores without critically examining the transactions.

Investors, and taxpayers in general, should be wary when taxing authorities single out properties to be assessed in a method that is inconsistent with the treatment of other taxpayers in the same class.

Most state constitutions specify that taxes must be uniformly assessed, which requires assessors to follow the same rules for all taxpayers within a class. At the most simplistic level, the rules of the game must be consistently applied to all and not changed to affect the outcome.

To understand how equally applied rules achieve fair taxation of property, bear in mind this fundamental truth: The assessor's goal is to measure the value of real estate only. Taxing entities then use that value to determine the tax. A lack of well-thought-out rules and procedures created the problem of non-uniform assessment.

Many states don't even have a clear definition of what they are trying to measure. States use terms such as "true value" or "true market value" without any further defining language. For most people, fair value simply means what a home would sell for in an open-market transaction. But commercial real estate is not that simple and requires clear definitions applied uniformly to all taxpayers.

Commercial property values are influenced by many factors unrelated to real estate. Consider how, under various circumstances, the same property might sell for wildly different values: An owner-occupied property will sell based on what the market will pay for the building once it is vacant, either for the new owner to occupy or as an investment for the buyer to lease-out at market terms.

The same property, were it leased at an above-market rental rate or to a highly credit-worthy tenant, functions much like a bond and will sell based on a market capitalization rate and for a greater price than the owner-occupied property.

Finally, the same property leased with long-term, below-market lease terms or a less credit-worthy tenant might sell for less than the owner-occupied price or the above-market-leased example. In each scenario, the same property sells for different amounts. Without a clear set of guidelines, establishing value based on sales price would be inconsistent even for a single property, much less an entire class.

Of the three scenarios, the only method that can be replicated consistently and applied to owners of both leased and owner-occupied real estate alike is that of the owner-occupied property. Owner-occupied interest is the unencumbered, fee-simple interest, which makes it the measuring stick common to all taxpayers. All other interests are influenced by non-real-estate factors such as lease terms or business value.

Adding to the confusion is the ever-changing commercial real estate sector, where market data is full of sales that include non-real-estate influences. The single-tenant market, for example, has evolved from almost exclusively retailer occupancy to include specialty uses and even nursing homes and hospitals.

The assessment goal should be to measure the real estate value alone, ensuring that all taxpayers are taxed with the same measuring stick, but confusion comes in when the sales alone don't indicate real estate value. Leased sales indicate the value of the real estate along with the tenant's credit-worthiness, the life of the lease and a host of other factors that can include enterprise zones and outside influences.

The court cases that are clarifying the methodology and the measuring stick appear to reduce assessments, when they are actually correcting the assessments and requiring assessors to value the same interests for all taxpayers. Defining terms and ensuring rule uniformity protects all taxpayers. There is no foul to be called and the losses affecting some local governments are the result of their own mistakes.

The cure is simple, but the short-term pain for community coffers is significant. States must establish clear definitions and guidelines around property rights so that assessors can value all real estate without encumbrances. Local governments cannot rely on a single taxpayer subset to carry the tax burden.

Tips from a veteran attorney on handling the assessments that can spell the difference between a successful closing and coming up short.

Almost every week, I get calls from brokers or investors who want to know how property taxes could impact a potential purchase. With property taxes forming the largest variable expense in most real estate acquisitions, investors should question the tax implications of every deal.

In some jurisdictions, the effective property tax can reach 5 percent of market value, so an unexpected increase can cause a deal to go under. With planning and an understanding of the local environment, however, investors can fully appreciate the risks and expenses, and may be able to come in with a winning bid in a tight market.

Most of the inquiries I receive relate to properties in Ohio or Pennsylvania, where school districts can, and do, file appeals to raise taxes on real estate. In those states, the aggressor is often a school board that seeks to value an asset based on its recent sale price. In other states, it may be the county assessor. Some states have deemed it unconstitutional to "chase" sales in setting taxable value.

Know your district

Knowing which states have aggressive taxing authorities can reveal potential problems, but familiarity with those agencies and their personnel is the key to deciding whether to walk away from a deal or to stay and find a creative solution, resulting in a deal that is favorable to everyone.

An examination of any real estate purchase, whether office, retail, hotel, etc., in the context of various taxing districts' behavior illustrates the importance of thoroughly knowing your taxing authority. In all the following examples, assume that the property is uniformly assessed and that the current assessment is consistent with the value of competing properties.

Also assume that the property is assessed for less than the proposed sale price, and that increasing taxable value to the amount of the purchase price would ruin the deal.The first example takes the case of a taxing district with an aggressive, unyielding district attorney. The tax district's counsel is unwilling or unable to see that the tax increase will end up lowering the property's value below the purchase price.

In this scenario, the assessment is raised to the purchase price, which becomes part of the tax budget. Since taxing entities typically establish tax rates based on the overall assessment of the community, the tax district only gets a single year's increase in tax revenue. In subsequent years, the newly increased tax burden weighs down the property's market value, ending in an eventual refund of taxes. The net effect is a loss for the district and a loss for the taxpayer, though the taxpayer eventually recovers some of those losses. It is altogether a lose-lose situation.

Big gambles

The relatively passive school district occasionally files an increase appeal and generally isn't driven to get the last penny from the taxpayer. At first this seems like a good situation. Although a passive district may be less difficult to deal with than a more aggressive counterpart, it still leaves the buyer with a great deal of uncertainty. Risking large sums of money on chance is gambling, not investing.

The advice to the investor in a passive district rests greatly upon the taxpayer's risk tolerance, and upon local counsel's experience with how cases are typically settled. In some instances, the investor could assume that the case would be settled similarly to past cases. This requires counsel that has enough experience with the district to gauge the risk as well as the possible outcome. It also requires that the buyer fully understand the nature of the risk.

Finally, there are districts with counsel that is both reasonable and creative. In that situation, attorneys have been able to resolve tax questions with the district in advance of closing. This allows for the obvious decrease in risk. As in the previous example, it takes a great deal of experience with the opposing attorney.

Of note, approaching a district early can produce a better result. Taxing authorities have become more likely to pursue appeals of assessments, and the chances that a sale will go unnoticed—and that an assessment will go unchanged—are becoming slimmer.

Due diligence means more than determining what might happen; it requires arranging the deal to whatever extent is possible to bring about the desired outcome. Paper the file with an appraisal that satisfies any allocations, and make notations in the purchase agreement that support the tax strategy.

Being able to explain the nature of the purchase later in a tax hearing is important, but having facts and documents that support those assertions is much more valuable. With the right opportunity and preparation, an investor may be able to enter into an acquisition while eliminating risk that has driven away the competition.