Tax considerations often drive site selection and form an importance piece of the reshoring puzzle.

COVID-19 laid bare many problems inherent in offshore supply chains and spurred widespread interest in reshoring manufacturing to the United States. As companies and communities explore site selection and expansion opportunities, they should remember that manufacturing profitability often hinges on tax strategy.

Staging a comeback

For the first time in decades, industry and the public sector are working to make American manufacturing competitive in a rapidly changing global marketplace. The recent enactments of the Inflation Reduction Act, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the CHIPS and Science Act have directed billions of dollars into enhancing domestic manufacturing capacity.

The semiconductor industry presents a high-profile case study. The United States holds 12 percent of the world's semiconductor manufacturing capacity, eroded from 37 percent in 1990. The CHIPS Act's $52 billion in federal funding is intended to strengthen domestic semiconductor manufacturing, design and research and reinforce the nation's chip supply chains, fortifying the economy and national security along the way.

Simultaneously, the United States is becoming a leading producer of electric vehicles and vehicle battery plants. Since 2021, announced U.S. investments in semiconductors and electronics exceed $166 billion, and announced U.S. investments in electric vehicles and battery manufacturing exceed $150 billion.

Deciding where manufacturing occurs depends partly on proximity to suppliers, available labor, distribution hubs and customers, and operating costs. Property tax is typically a significant component of operating costs. That's why tax abatements on real property and equipment are a commonly offered incentive.

Most states offer incentives to attract industry, and one of the hotbeds for increased American manufacturing has been the southeastern United States, specifically South Carolina, Georgia and North Carolina. All are leaders in foreign direct investment.

Abatements generally provide a manufacturer with predictable property taxes, helping to overcome the uncertainty of future tax liability that can put companies at a disadvantage. An example is South Carolina's "fee in lieu of tax" agreement (FILOT) which offers manufacturers predictable and consistent taxation. Generally, FILOT agreements fix tax rates and the value of real estate and improvements for the length of the agreement, while allowing manufacturers to depreciate the value of machinery and equipment.

FILOT agreements can have up to a 50-year term. However, by fixing a manufacturer's real property value at actual cost without depreciation, the owner's taxes over time may be higher than they would be without the agreement. That's because they do not account for depreciation, valuation changes or required improvements to accommodate changes in the marketplace for the manufacturer's product.By locking in the real property value, the manufacturer receives the benefits of predictability and protection from higher taxes on appreciating real property.In exchange, however, the manufacturer loses the benefit of any depreciation and takes the risk of a locked-in property value if the property's market value diminishes.

Other states offer different incentives including more traditional property-tax abatements, where a manufacturer receives a grant as a partial rebate or discount on the new property taxes the project creates. Since tax rates and taxable value assessments change over time, these systems can provide less certainty for manufacturers than FILOT-type agreements, but potentially offer more long-term flexibility to respond to changing tax rates, depending on how the agreements are negotiated.

As a manufacturer's industry evolves and demand for its products changes, flexibility to appeal tax assessments can be a key to maintaining profitability and competitiveness.

Committed but flexible

Certainly, a manufacturer is better off in an appreciating real estate market by fixing the value of the real estate and improvements. Organizations negotiating for incentives should protect their ability to protest unfair assessments of taxable value, however, because valuing a manufacturing plant in the traditional ad valorem system is challenging and subject to controversy.

For example, most state ad valorem property tax systems define "value" as a variant of "market value," assuming an exchange between a willing buyer and a willing seller. However, will the buyer of a manufacturing facility benefit from the features of a specialized building constructed for a different manufacturer's specific needs? The answer is usually "no."

Manufacturing facilities are special-purpose properties, which The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal defines as a "property with a unique physical design, special construction materials, or a layout that particularly adapts its utility to the use for which it was built." And changes in the manufacturing process can render many buildings economically obsolete.

If the facility's use is no longer viable, it should be appraised as an alternative use. This necessarily occurred as American industry declined. Often there were no manufacturers who could effectively use single-purpose buildings vacated by other manufacturers, necessitating drastic value reductions.

An assessor's three traditional valuation methods all have limitations. A sales comparison approach is difficult when the production facility has essentially been designed to produce specific products. Put differently, finding sales of comparable facilities can be extremely challenging.

An income approach requires a market rent calculation, but manufacturers historically own their facilities, making an income approach difficult. A cost approach using actual cost ignores that the same building might not be appropriate to respond to changes in the marketplace for the product being produced. The cost approach without depreciation also limits the manufacturer's flexibility in responding to changes in the marketplace for its product.

Remember, too, that a manufacturer must be nimble, as changes in the market or technology can render an entire plant (or industry) obsolete virtually overnight. Adapting processes may require equipment upgrades or replacement, structural modifications or other changes that affect property value.

The speed at which manufacturers need to be able to adapt to a changing marketplace, the strong desire for certainty in costs and the difficulties in valuing manufacturing facilities for tax purposes all argue in favor of valuing real property and improvements on the basis of cost less depreciation.

Successful reshoring will require focused efforts by the public and private sector, together with sensitivity to industry's need to be nimble and the implications of historical incentives to ensure that reshored industry remains competitive. Flexibility offers the key to long term success, and property taxes form an important piece of the puzzle.

Legal covenants often cause excessive property taxation for mall owners that are looking to redevelop.

Repurposing malls and anchor stores is a popular topic in community development circles, but legal restrictions make redevelopment extremely difficult. Often locked into their original use by covenants, malls and anchor stores are often grossly over-valued for property tax purposes. In pursuing a redevelopment, taxpayers should ensure the properties are fairly assessed and taxed.

Debilitating obsolescence

It is difficult to overstate the plight of malls and anchors. Gone are the halcyon days when the mall was everyone's shopping destination. There is even a website, deadmalls.com, devoted to failed malls. Credit ratings of most anchor store operators have fallen below investment grade. Commentators usually blame the retail apocalypse on ecommerce and shifting consumer spending habits.

COVID-19 exacerbated these trends and mall foot traffic has been slow to recover. Some chains, including Neiman Marcus and JCPenney, filed bankruptcy. Ecommerce volume surged in 2020 and 2021 before tapering in 2022. Ecommerce and brick-and-mortar sales have not yet reached an equilibrium.

One in five American malls have fully closed and remain "zombies" without a redevelopment plan, estimates Green Street Advisors, a commercial real estate analytics firm. A December 2022 Wall Street Journal article describing the "long death" of the White Plains Mall noted there is no shortage of dying malls. The article observed that converting enclosed shopping centers to other uses remains a "difficult feat." Repurposing, while much discussed, has not really happened.

The question is why. The answer relates, at least in part, to legal challenges inherent in changing the property's use.

Tied hands

Any property valuation begins with a highest and best use analysis. A basic assumption about real estate directs that the price a buyer will pay reflects that buyer's conclusions about the property's most profitable use. Competitive forces within the local market shape a property's highest and best use, but that use must reflect practical and legal restrictions.

Many people incorrectly assume that governmental requirements pose the only legal restrictions on use. Zoning ordinances may impose barriers, owners of neighboring properties may object to redevelopment proposals, or there may be other hinderances to changing the property's use.

Zoning limitations pale in comparison to restrictions in recorded easements and unrecorded operating agreements between mall owners and anchor department stores. While zoning may permit non-retail uses, private agreements generally do not.

Malls would be economically unfeasible without department stores and inline stores that symbiotically drive traffic to each other. Generally, anchors own their pads and inline tenants lease space from the mall owner. A typical mall is subject to two levels of private restrictions designed in an earlier day to promote the efficient functioning of the mall for retail stores.

Recorded operating restrictions or restrictive easement agreements (REAs) impact the entire mall and its anchors and are generally binding for 40 years or longer. Typically, substantive amendments to the REA require the consent of all parties, and their economic interests are not always aligned.

Unrecorded operating agreements govern the relationship between individual anchors and the mall owner. Terms typically address tenancy, hours of operation, required years of operation under a specified tradename and the size of each anchor and the mall. Operating agreements also generally restrict the size and construction of improvements on the anchor pad and regulate usage.

A simple example involves anchors using stores as a delivery point for ecommerce, a concept known as buy online, pick up in store (BOPIS). Many REAs and operating agreements severely limit implementation of this concept.

But what if the mall's highest and best use is no longer retail? Ecommerce and changed consumer practices undermine the REAs' and operating agreements' ability to ensure the property's success, but those private agreements are understandably focused on preserving retail usage.

The common party to these agreements is the mall owner, making the mall owner the logical purchaser when an anchor looks to sell. The potential economic return on any proposed redevelopment must be sufficient to encourage an entrepreneur to take the redevelopment risk for the mall and/or anchors.

Legal risk escalates the economic risk. For example, owners of some anchor properties seek conversions to multifamily or industrial use as salvation from the retail apocalypse. Even if they overcome zoning objections, attempts to change REAs and unrecorded operating agreement restrictions may require unanimous consent among owners with competing economic interests.

The anchor pad may not even be worth its unimproved land value since its use is restricted under the REAs and operating agreements to retail.

Property tax implications

While mall owners and anchors struggle to remain viable in the changed retail environment, ad valorem property taxes pose an immediate challenge. Most states value property as what a willing buyer would pay to a willing seller, but the pre-ecommerce glory of malls and anchors generally encourage high property tax valuations.

Assessors performing an income-based assessment seldom recognize how anchor chains' plunging credit ratings affect value. The sales-comparison approach is equally challenging, as anchor property transaction volume has plummeted since 2006.

Most sales involve a change to non-retail use and thereby require unanimous consent. Consent is easier to obtain when the new use increases foot traffic to the remaining inline tenants and anchors, but it is easy to envision anchors holding the process hostage in an attempt to force the purchase of their failing stores.

REAs and unrecorded operating covenants make calculation of an anchor's value extremely difficult. They also call into question the comparability of previous transactions to repurpose anchors in the same mall, since those anchors may have agreed to one specific new use but may object to another.

REAs and operating agreements often hamstring mall and anchor redevelopment. Most were signed before ecommerce and did not envision retail losing its vitality. The parties to these covenants often have divergent economic interests and perspectives, and the natural party to lead redevelopment – the mall owner – must overcome these hurdles. In the short term, however, owners should address highest and best use with assessors to reduce property tax burdens until the zombie can be brought back to life.

Legal covenants often cause excessive property taxation for mall owners that are looking to redevelop.

The repurposing of malls and anchor stores is a popular topic in community development circles, but legal restrictions make redevelopment extremely difficult. Often locked into their original use by covenants, malls and anchor stores are often grossly overvalued for property tax purposes.

In pursuing a redevelopment, taxpayers should ensure the properties are fairly assessed and taxed.

Debilitating obsolescence

It is difficult to overstate the plight of malls and department store anchors. Gone are the halcyon days when the mall was everyone's shopping destination. There is even a website, www.deadmalls.com, devoted to failed malls. Credit ratings of most anchor store operators have fallen below investment grade. Commentators usually blame the retail apocalypse on e-commerce and shifting consumer spending habits.

COVID-19 exacerbated these trends and mall foot traffic has been slow to recover. Some chains, including Neiman Marcus and JCPenney, have filed bankruptcy. E-commerce volume surged in 2020 and 2021 before tapering in 2022. To date, e-commerce and brick-and-mortar sales have not yet reached an equilibrium.

One in five American malls have fully closed and remain "zombies" without a redevelopment plan, estimates Green Street Advisors, a commercial real estate analytics firm. A December 2022 article from The Wall Street Journal that detailed the "long death" of the White Plains Mall noted there is no shortage of dying malls. The article observed that converting enclosed shopping centers to other uses remains a "difficult feat." Repurposing, while much-discussed, has not really happened.

The question is why. The answer relates, at least in part, to legal challenges inherent in changing the property's use.

Tied hands

Any property valuation begins with a "highest and best use" analysis. A basic assumption about real estate directs that the price a buyer will pay reflects that buyer's conclusions about the property's most profitable use. Competitive forces within the local market shape a property's highest and best use, but that use must reflect practical and legal restrictions.

Many people incorrectly assume that governmental requirements pose the only legal restrictions on use. Zoning ordinances may impose barriers, owners of neighboring properties may object to redevelopment proposals, or there may be other hinderances to changing the property's use.

Zoning limitations pale in comparison to restrictions in recorded easements and unrecorded operating agreements between mall owners and anchor department stores. While zoning may permit non-retail uses, private agreements generally do not.

Malls would be economically unfeasible without department stores and inline stores that symbiotically drive traffic to each other. Generally, anchors own their pads and inline tenants lease space from the mall owner. A typical mall is subject to two levels of private restrictions designed in an earlier time period to promote the efficient functioning of the mall for retail stores.

Recorded operating restrictions or restrictive easement agreements (REAs) impact the entire mall and its anchors and are generally binding for 40 years or longer. Typically, substantive amendments to the REA require the consent of all parties, and their economic interests are not always aligned.

Unrecorded operating agreements govern the relationship between individual anchors and the mall owner. Terms typically address tenancy, hours of operation, required years of operation under a specified tradename and the size of each anchor and the mall. Operating agreements also generally restrict the size and construction of improvements on the anchor pad and regulate usage.

A simple example involves anchors using stores as a delivery point for e-commerce, a concept known as buy online, pick up in store (BOPIS). Many REAs and operating agreements severely limit implementation of this concept.

But what if the mall's highest and best use is no longer retail? E-commerce and changed consumer practices undermine the REAs' and operating agreements' ability to ensure the property's success, but those private agreements are understandably focused on preserving retail usage.

The common party to these agreements is the mall owner, making it the logical purchaser when an anchor looks to sell. The potential economic return on any proposed redevelopment must be sufficient to encourage an entrepreneur to take the redevelopment risk for the mall and/or anchors.

Legal risk escalates the economic risk. For example, owners of some anchor properties seek conversions to multifamily or industrial use as salvation from the "retail apocalypse." Even if they overcome zoning objections, attempts to change REAs and unrecorded operating agreement restrictions may require unanimous consent among owners with competing economic interests.

The anchor pad may not even be worth its unimproved land value since its use is restricted to retail under the REAs and operating agreements.

Property tax implications

While mall owners and anchors struggle to remain viable in the changed retail environment, ad valorem property taxes pose an immediate challenge. Most states value property as what a willing buyer would pay to a willing seller, but the glory of malls and anchors before e-commerce generally encourage high property tax valuations.

Assessors performing an income-based assessment seldom recognize how anchor chains' plunging credit ratings affect value. The sales-comparison approach is equally challenging, as anchor property transaction volume has plummeted since 2006.

Most sales involve a change to non-retail use and thereby require unanimous consent. Consent is easier to obtain when the new use increases foot traffic to the remaining inline tenants and anchors, but it is easy to envision anchors holding the process hostage in an attempt to force the purchase of their failing stores.

REAs and unrecorded operating covenants make calculation of an anchor's value extremely difficult. They also call into question the comparability of previous transactions to repurpose anchors in the same mall, since those anchors may have agreed to one specific new use but may object to another.

REAs and operating agreements often hamstring mall and anchor redevelopment. Most were signed before e-commerce and did not envision retail losing its vitality. The parties to these covenants often have divergent economic interests and perspectives, and the natural party to lead redevelopment — the mall owner — must overcome these hurdles.

In the short term, however, owners should address highest and best use with assessors to reduce property tax burdens until their zombies can be brought back to life.

How to use these factors to reduce a senior living property's tax assessment.

The longstanding debate over intangible value in commercial real estate taxation rages unabated, and nowhere is the squabbling fiercer than in valuing seniors living facilities. Because these properties generally transact based on income from a going concern rather than from real estate, taxpayers planning to acquire a seniors facility should consider how to separate intangible value prior to acquisition. Simply waiting for the annual tax bill is a recipe for incurring inflated cost and an inferior investment return.

Skilled nursing facilities, assisted living and other seniors housing subtypes often require state-issued licenses personal to the operator. Critically, seniors housing sales typically involve the transfer of a going concern including a valid operating license, assembled workforce and other business assets required for the operation. In other words, sales involve more than just the real estate, and the intangible personal property component involves more than just goodwill.

Acquisition pitfalls

A seniors housing owner's overall return may hinge on tax consequences. Common considerations include real estate transfer taxes, allocation of basis for income tax purposes, real and personal property tax assessments, and segregation of readily depreciable or amortizable assets from non-depreciable or non-amortizable assets.

A common mistake is to use the transaction price as the consideration in the deed. That consideration is the basis for transfer taxes and should exclude tangible and intangible personal property value. Many assessors will revalue the property based on deed consideration, which is easily identifiable and theoretically reflects both parties' valuation of the land and improvements. Thus, citing overall transaction value on the deed can lead to inappropriate excessive taxation.

Instead, define consideration in an allocation agreement at or before closing, which is when the property's federal income tax basis is determined. This generally identifies four components: land (non-depreciable); buildings or improvements (generally depreciable); tangible personal property (generally depreciable); and goodwill or ongoing business value, represented by intangible personal property or business enterprise value. A cost segregation study is helpful but not required.

Loans secured by senior living facilities often pose valuation challenges. Lenders underwriting on a going concern basis need to address whether the state-issued licenses can be secured. The Small Business Administration requires SBA lenders to obtain a going-concern appraisal for real estate involving an ongoing business. Those appraisals must value the separate components and be completed by an appraiser trained in valuing going concerns.

The federal Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, which regulates commercial banks, requires lenders to use a competent appraiser but does not specify appraiser course requirements.

Property tax issues

State law generally requires tax assessors to value only real estate, based on a hypothetical transaction involving the real estate only. Therein lies the rub, because the property's income reflects a combination of real property and tangible and intangible personal property. There is now general agreement that hotels and most seniors living facilities involve intangible value.

The problem is isolating the intangible value. For example, in a 2020 decision involving Disney's Yacht & Beach Club Resort, the Florida Court of Appeals noted that though the nearly 1,200-room hotel's business and real estate values are linked, the assessor is required to value only the real estate, not the going concern.

Some older literature suggests that real estate value contributes only 73 percent to the value of independent living properties, 53 percent to assisted living values, and only 36 percent to the value of a skilled nursing facility. The remaining, non-taxable value, is from the going concern.

The Appraisal of Real Estate provides that going-concern value "includes the incremental value associated with the business concern, which is distinct from the value of the tangible real property and personal property." The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, 6th Edition, defines intangible property as "nonphysical assets, including but not limited to franchises, trademarks, patents, copyrights, goodwill, equities, securities, and contracts as distinguished from physical assets such as facilities and equipment."

State-issued seniors housing licenses fall squarely in the definition of intangible personal property but can be difficult to value, demanding business valuation skills in addition to real estate appraisal skills.

Appropriate approaches

Appraisers typically try to value real estate using the cost, sales comparison, and income approaches, none of which fit seniors housing well. Moreover, charged with valuing many properties, assessors often employ mass appraisal techniques ill-suited for valuing complex going concerns.

Sales comparison drawbacks include the skewing effects of portfolio sales. Common in seniors housing, portfolio prices can obscure the consideration for individual properties or may include significant price premiums over individual sale prices, for reasons completely separate from real estate value.

Some appraisers will use the nearest multifamily sale as a comparable transaction. Yet most types of seniors housing offer abbreviated individual kitchens, if any, and smaller individual living spaces designed to encourage seniors to use the common facilities. If an appraiser is going to use a traditional multifamily property as a comparable, it must be adjusted to retrofit the property as conventional apartments.

To use an income approach, the appraiser must recognize that a huge portion of the seniors housing rent is not attributable to shelter but to services. As noted, seniors apartments are typically designed to get people out of individual units and into common areas. Common spaces usually generate higher expenses and are built to encourage the use of services such as shared dining rooms.

Similarly, compared with standard apartments, expenses for seniors living facilities involve higher maintenance, utility, management and administrative fees generally associated with the property's intangible value. Further, continuing care retirement communities exercise significant synergies between service levels as residents age. Proper analysis of these income and expense figures requires expertise generally removed from an assessor relying on mass appraisals.

Recognizing that many seniors living facilities include substantial intangible value, a 2017 white paper by the International Association of Assessing Officers (IAAO) suggests the cost approach is the proper method for extracting intangible value. Replacement cost certainly offers an easily understandable way for extracting that value.

While correct in valuing new construction, however, the cost approach has questionable utility for older facilities. Replacement cost will often not reflect value, since one can question whether a seniors facility would be rebuilt in the absence of a license. That raises a problem best analyzed as whether the facility represents the property's highest and best use.

The real valuation answer is anything but simple.

At its heart, the debate over how to value seniors care facilities rests on assessors engaged in a hypothetical exercise which is not reflective of the market. Without agreement on how to value the real property when a transaction involves a going concern, the debate will continue.

Closely examine your 2021 tax assessment to ensure your property's valuation isn't excessive.

   E-commerce was here to stay even before the pandemic devastated small businesses and placed an even greater premium on technology. In the changed landscape, lowering occupancy costs by reducing property taxes is one of the most important steps businesses can take to remain competitive.

  Stay-at-home orders still prevent many shoppers from visiting their favorite brick-and-mortar stores, while fear of contagion exacerbates consumers' reluctance to shop in person. Regardless of customer traffic, however, retailers still incur fixed costs including insurance, enterprise software, property taxes and, arguably, rent.

  Online-only retailers' occupancy costs are much lower, making it difficult for small brick-and-mortar businesses to compete. Put differently, sales taxes decline with reduced sales but property taxes do not. Landlords and tenants in triple net leases often fail to examine property taxes, but the survival of both may depend on reducing this cost.

  Other costs such as insurance and the enterprise software needed to run the business generally lie beyond a small business' control and do not diminish with reduced business volume. The active 2020 hurricane season certainly has not reduced insurance costs. During the pandemic, some landlords have deferred or forgiven rent, but this forbearance provides no long-term solution to the challenges e-commerce poses.

Mounting pressures

  The threat that high ad valorem taxes pose to pandemic battered small businesses is compounded by, and interrelated with, the e-commerce threat. Small businesses face enormous challenges in competing online with major brands such as Amazon and Wal-Mart, which command a far greater web presence than small mom-and-pop retailers.

  E-commerce's challenge to traditional retail will not end with the pandemic. The bulk of retail sales still occur in stores, with online purchases peaking in the second quarter of 2019 at just 16% of total U.S. retail sales, according to the Commerce Department. That percentage slowed to 14% in the third quarter.

  COVID-19 has accelerated the trend to "Buy Online, Pick Up In Store" (BOPIS). Pre-pandemic, BOPIS offerings were already growing as shoppers used it to avoid instore browsing time and shipping charges. A 2018 study reported 90% of surveyed online shoppers stated high shipping fees and home delivery longer than two days would likely deter them from completing an online purchase. Even before the pandemic, Amazon's rapid delivery model was pressuring conventional retailers to compete by accelerating shipping times.

  BOPIS allows retailers to blend online and in-store customer engagement while offering a more convenient way to shop. COVID-19 accelerated this trend as shoppers sought to minimize interpersonal contact during store visits. Retailers, however, need to be certain that applicable restrictive covenants permit BOPIS, since shopping centers often limit tenants' right to use common space. Further, traditional methods of valuing properties for tax purposes struggle to recognize and separate the intangible and untaxable value of web presence from the value of a physical location that serves as a pick-up point.

  Black Friday and Cyber Monday 2020 illustrate the evolving relationship between brick-and-mortar stores and e-commerce. RetailNext reported foot traffic to physical stores on Thanksgiving through the following Sunday decreased by 48% from 2019, while spending per customer increased more than 36%.

  Mall traffic tracker, Sensormatic Solutions, concluded that online ordering and social-distancing restrictions made shoppers more "purposeful" on their Black Friday trips. Adobe Analytics reported that Black Friday saw $9 billion in U.S. online sales, a nearly 22% increase year over year that made it the second-largest online spending day. Cyber Monday 2020 brought the largest shopping day in American history with $10.8 billion in volume, a 15.2% increase over 2019, Adobe reported. Adobe also noted that Black Friday curbside pickup increased 52% year over year.

Shared interests

  Landlords and tenants must recognize the mutual harm of high occupancy costs and guard against unwarranted property taxes as local governments seek to shore up their finances. Every nickel counts when retailers are under economic pressure just to keep their doors open. Years of remaining lease term is of cold comfort to a landlord whose tenant is forced to close by reduced revenue and high occupancy costs.

  Some short-sighted landlords ignore the property tax burden placed on their triple net tenants until a renewal is imminent since the landlord's costs are not directly impacted.  Where possible, a good lease on multitenant properties will address tax challenges and discourage taxes from being viewed as a mere pass-through expense. Further, prudent landlords should help reduce tax costs and avoid being forced to negotiate reduced rent to keep small businesses operating. Most leases do not include a provision permitting tenants to challenge ad valorem property taxes. Similarly, many state statutes only permit property owners, not tenants, to challenge taxes.

  Most assessors have not yet recognized COVID-19's impact on retail stores, primarily because the valuation date for most properties preceded the pandemic's full impact on retail. That will change in 2021 in many jurisdictions. Similarly, the trend toward BOPIS will increase the intangible value of online presence, generally not subject to ad valorem taxation, and decrease the importance of physical locations.

  COVID-19 is pressuring local governments to increase the property tax burden on small businesses. A recent survey found that municipal revenues are down 21% while expenses have increased 17% amid the pandemic. The survey reported 45% of mayors expect to see dramatic budget cuts for education, while at least one-third expect to see drastic cuts in parks and recreation, mass transit and roads. Only 36% of mayors expect to see a replacement of the businesses shuttered due to COVID-19.

  High property taxes will only exacerbate the municipal revenue problem. A short-term remedy to municipal finances, higher property taxes, risks the permanent closure of many small businesses and increase the burden on remaining brick-and-mortar retailers. Failing to address the problem will only accelerate the decline of physical stores and eliminate their local jobs and taxes.

Commercial property owners are a tempting target for cash-strapped governments dealing with fallout from COVID-19, writes Morris A. Ellison, a veteran commercial real estate attorney.

Macro impacts of the microscopic COVID-19 virus will subject the property tax system to unprecedented strains, raising the threat that local governments will turn to property tax increases as a panacea for their fiscal woes.

Local governments face formidable financial challenges. One article by Smart Cities Dive suggests that the crisis will blow "massive holes" in municipal budgets, with 96 percent of cities seeing shortfalls due to unanticipated revenue declines. The Washington Post reported that more than 2,100 U.S. cities expect budget shortfalls in 2020, with associated program cuts and staff reductions. The National League of Cities recently estimated that the public sector has lost over 1.5 million jobs since March. Governmental temptation to increase the tax burden on commercial properties will be difficult to resist.

Commercial property owners face similarly unprecedented challenges. Many owners of properties that traditionally served long-term uses for hospitality, retail, office and restaurant activities are now questioning whether those uses will continue. Many properties will need to be repurposed, but to what? Some owners are reportedly considering converting hotels to apartments, for example.

Property taxes are a major component of the costs landlords must examine in determining when and how to reopen. High property taxes, which are generally passed along to commercial tenants, will exacerbate those business' economic problems. While owners can influence some occupancy costs, others, such as taxes and insurance, are largely beyond their control.

RATES, DATES AND VALUES

Real estate taxes reflect both taxation rates and assessed values, but property tax appeals must focus on a property's value. Values hinge on key concepts such as valuation dates, capitalization rates, and highest and best use. The property tax system assumes that values change only gradually, often assessing a property's value by creating a fictitious sale between a willing buyer and seller on a statutorily defined valuation date.

With valuation dates set in the past, assessors tend to value through the rearview mirror. Looking to make a deal, investors, by contrast, look prospectively in deciding whether to buy or sell a property. These viewpoints can clash, particularly when events affecting value occur after the valuation date.

That is why the commercial property owners clamoring for immediate property tax reductions will likely be disappointed, at least until a tax year when their statutorily mandated valuation date postdates COVID-19's onset.

For example, if a taxpayer's bill is based on a fictional sale occurring on Dec. 31, 2019, before the black swan of COVID-19, the assessor is statutorily bound to value the property at its pre-pandemic value.

Some jurisdictions maintain a valuation date for years. That value may change substantially once the valuation date postdates early March 2020, but few state statutes will authorize revaluations based on COVID-19 as a "changed circumstance." A pre-COVID-19 valuation could therefore burden a property for years.

Like the systemic market downturn of 2008, the COVID-19 pandemic will create great uncertainty in capitalization rates, which reflect risk associated with a property's income. This will provide good fodder for argument in tax appeals. The difference this time may be the added uncertainty surrounding the highest and best uses of various commercial properties.

In negotiating a transaction involving income-producing properties, prudent parties analyze future trends. Looking forward, they would interpret weakening tenancy with heightened risk associated with occupancy, rent collections and overall tenant credit-worthiness. They would know that tenants' missed rent payments can lead owners to miss mortgage payments, which can lead to foreclosure.

Contrary to this real-world tendency to look ahead in a transaction, assessors have often assumed a property's highest and best use is its traditional or current use. Trends of working remotely, social distancing, and the rapid, dramatic shift to online retailing turn this assumption on its head.

OBSOLESCENCE ISSUES

Some businesses that closed during the pandemic, including many retailers, may never reopen. Anecdotal evidence of the market shift is manifold. Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, analysts were describing the shift to online retail as "apocalyptic" for many brick-and-mortar stores. Seasoned retailers including Neiman Marcus, Pier 1 Imports and J. C. Penney have declared bankruptcy. Many hotels have only been able to meet debt service obligations by tapping heretofore sacrosanct capital reserves, and airline travel has fallen off a cliff. In April, CNBC estimated that 7.5 million small businesses may not reopen. UBS projects that 20 percent of American restaurants might close permanently.

Social distancing rules that reduce restaurants' serving capacity may remain in place indefinitely. Combined with the loss of clientele, such as office workers that no longer work nearby, these conditions could mean closures for low-margin restaurants. Increasing occupancy costs and revenue declines accompanied by increased taxes could tip the balance.

Office values have historically been less volatile than retail property values, but this may change with the move to remote work. Change will be less apparent where many tenants remain subject to long lease terms, but some form of remote working is likely here to stay, and this suggests office tenants may well need less or different space.

Will an office tenant renew its lease? If so, at what rate? And will the tenant downsize? A key indicator of a weakening market is when tenants with long terms remaining on leases sublet space. In a declining market, tax assessors seldom look behind historic income statements to consider these weaknesses, which should be a risk reflected in the capitalization rate.

DON'T DELAY TAX PLANNING

Retail, office, and hospitality property values almost certainly will decline, at least in the short run. For transactional and property-tax purposes, commercial property owners should examine carefully whether the property's "highest and best use" has changed. Local governments that ignore these market changes in an effort to generate short-term tax revenues may exacerbate their long-term revenue problems.

Smart property owners may be able to mitigate the fallout by focusing tax appeals on the concepts of valuation date and highest and best use. They should also note the uncertainty inherent in capitalization rates.

Tax appeals in 2020 may prove especially challenging for cash-strapped commercial taxpayers because statutorily mandated valuation dates likely predate COVID-19. However, the longer-term risk rests with local governments. If they ignore changes in highest and best uses, and if taxing authorities fail to account for the increased risk in capitalization rates, governments may unwittingly increase the pandemic's economic damage.

​Assessors too often value newly constructed apartments as fully occupied, producing excessive assessments.

Developers frequently ask how to estimate property taxes on newly constructed multifamily properties, and tax assessors often provide an easy answer by adding up the value of building permits or by projecting the project's value when fully rented. However, this seemingly simple question grows complex when the assessor's valuation date precedes full occupancy and the ramifications of a wrong answer can linger for years.

Consider these points to value a new multifamily project more accurately.

Valuation Methods

Charged with valuing hundreds or thousands of parcels, assessors often seek a quick way to value a new multifamily project.

The cost approach offers the quickest and easiest route for the assessor, who estimates the current expense to construct an identical structure. One way to do this on a new project is to add the value of the building permits to the land value.

While building costs are clearly a factor in the decision to build, the cost approach ignores the market preference to value income-producing projects based primarily on income.

The assessor's second-easiest option is to rely on an appraisal's stabilization value and ignore the time and cost required to achieve stabilization. In valuing a not-yet-built multifamily project using an income approach, appraisers preparing a financing appraisal should, but don't always, calculate two different values: the "at completion" value and the "stabilized" value.

"At completion" is the project's value when construction is complete but prior to being fully leased. The prospective market value, or "as stabilized," reflects the property's projected market worth when, and if, it achieves stabilized occupancy.

The Dictionary of Real Estate defines stabilized value in terms of the expected occupancy of a property in its particular market, considering current and forecast supply and demand, and assuming it is priced at market rent. To determine a property's fair market value prior to stabilization, one must account for the monetary loss the owner will incur prior to stabilization.

Development Issues

Improvements generally trigger reassessment. The assessor's statutorily mandated valuation date generally ignores the development calendar's key milestones, most importantly the construction commencement, completion and revenue stabilization dates.

The developer makes assumptions during the development process, calculating the cost of building and operating the improvements as well as the rents that can be achieved. This calculation serves as the basis for a pro forma of an income and expense analysis of the project when fully leased.

Construction loans reflect building costs and subsequent time and money needed to achieve full lease-out or stabilization. Banking regulations require the lender to obtain an appraisal. The completed, but not yet stabilized, project incurs costs in the form of income not received during initial leasing, until it reaches stabilization.

Permanent financing depends on the stabilized value, which, in turn, depends on the project's income. Appraisals for permanent loan commitments obtained prior to the project's completion use a prospective valuation date and must contain various assumptions as to the property's financial condition on that prospective date.

The FDIC's Interagency Appraisal and Evaluation Guidelines authorize using a prospective market value in valuing a property interest for a credit decision. The Uniform System of Professional Appraisal Practices requires disclosure of assumptions in an appraisal with a prospective market value, as of an effective date subsequent to the appraisal report's date.

Assumptions regarding the anticipated rent at stabilization and the time required to lease the property are key to calculating stabilized value. Also critical are incentives the owner may offer prospective tenants during lease-up, and the project's projected income once fully leased. The appraisal should clearly disclose these assumptions, but they can still prove incorrect.

Clear disclosure of assumptions is critical. Unfortunately, many appraisers fail to adequately disclose their assumptions, and shortcut to the project's stabilized value.

Valuation Dates

Most state statutes prohibit taxation of improvements while under construction. The project usually comes on line for tax purposes after completion but prior to stabilization.

Being mandated by statute, the valuation date often does not account for where the multifamily project is on the spectrum between completion and stabilization. Unsophisticated assessors charged with valuing these projects often employ mass-appraisal techniques and may value the asset similarly to the market's stabilized properties.

Statutory Caps

Some states cap potential increases in tax value, which may magnify impact of the initial tax valuation. Caps limit increases that would otherwise bring values up to the market. For example, South Carolina properties undergo countywide reassessment every five years, but property values ordinarily cannot increase by more than 15 percent from the previously determined value.

Assessors know that a project's value at completion will nearly always be lower than its stabilized value because stabilization takes time and costs money. Competition may lower the project's achievable income, too. This knowledge can spur assessors to reach for stabilized values regardless of whether the project is yet stabilized. This taxes the unrealized, additional value between completion and stabilized levels.

A Matter of Time

All of the above considerations involve a timing disconnect between the property's actual condition on the statutorily mandated valuation date and its estimated future value based on fallible projections by the lender, developer or assessor. Axiomatically, assumptions don't always hold true. Lease-up may take longer than expected and may require concessions that increase cost. In over-built markets, the stabilized income may be lower than originally anticipated.

Charged with calculating true or fair market value as of a statutorily mandated valuation date, the assessor should examine how the market would value the property as of that date. If the asset has not achieved stabilization, the assessor should discount appropriately for time and financial costs required to achieve stabilization.  That is what the market would do, and is what the assessor is statutorily obligated to do.

And that should be the answer to the seemingly simple question of how to value newly constructed multifamily projects for tax purposes.

Real estate acquisitions and improvements harbor traps for the unwary taxpayer.

In some states, statutory caps limit valuation increases that would oth­erwise rise to reflect the market. For example, California's Proposition 13 limits increases in assessed value to 2 percent per year even if the property's market value is increasing at a faster rate, so long as ownership remains unchanged. Property owners should know that acquisitions and improve­ments can dramatically impact tax values that were previously limited by statutory caps.

In most states, acquisitions trigger reassessments at the next applicable valuation date. In researching existing tax values prior to purchase, prospec­tive buyers often research the taxing authority's online tax records. Online research may fail to distinguish be­tween capped or taxable value versus fair market value, however. If the ac­quisition removes the prior cap and the buyer estimates taxes based on the capped value rather than the fair market value, the new property owner could be in for a very rude awakening come tax time.  

Acquisitions can also change dead­lines for filing tax appeals in some ju­risdictions. For example, the normal filing deadline for appeals in South Carolina is January 15, but most coun­ty assessors will mail new assessment notices during the year following an acquisition. In those circumstances, the filing deadline is 90 days after the date of the reassessment notice.

Failure to take simple but essential steps in documenting a purchase can have substantial tax ramifications. For example, South Carolina law poten­tially exempts as much as 25 percent of a commercial property's purchase price from later ad valorem taxation, but only if the purchaser files for the exemption on or before January 30 fol­lowing the closing. Failure to file can cost purchasers tens of thousands of tax dollars or more. Yet many purchas­ers are unaware of this exemption un­til after they receive the new tax bill, when it is generally too late to file for the exemption.

Closing documents can increase future property tax bills. Many asses­sors calculate taxable value based on the consideration recited in a deed. Purchasers typically acquire income­ producing properties based on existing or potential cash flow.It is the com­bination of the real property, tangible personal property and intangible per­sonal property which generates that cash flow.

The deed consideration should re­flect only the value of the real property and improvements, not the total trans­action value. Similarly, title insurance should reflect the real property's value and exclude value attributable to tan­gible or intangible personal property. A well-thought-out allocation agreement potentially simplifies later record keep­ing and yields significant savings on income, property and transfer taxes, sometimes worth millions of dollars.

For example, operating hotels are generally sold as going concerns. That distinct from the underlying real es­tate. The hotel's intangible personal property, such as its brand, reserva­tion system or on-line presence, may substantially increase cash flow but is generally exempt from ad valorem tax­ation.Using the transaction's value, rather than the value of the real estate and improvements, in the deed not only increases documentary stamps but could lead to unwarranted higher ad valorem taxes.

Pre-purchase cost segregation stud­ies are often useful in documenting these separate values, but many pur­chasers and their lenders are reluctant to engage in this component analysis. For example, large hotel loans typical­ly proceed from a lender 's corporate loan department,not the real estate de­partment, and with good reason. Loan officers can be reluctant to explain to their superiors or to regulators why title insurance values might be lower than the face amount of the note, when the loan is really underwritten on the value of the cash flow and not the in­dividual components contributing to that cash flow. That reluctance could manifest itself in reduced loans being made available for borrowers.

Similarly, loans secured by retail real estate occupied by national credit ten­ants previously garnered less scrutiny from lenders and regulators in assessing loan risk. That laissez faire attitude may be changing as e-commerce erodes sales at brick-and-mortar stores, which continue to close in large numbers.

In some jurisdictions, changes in the property's condition such as a vacancy by a major retail tenant do not trigger a reassessment, and may not be factored into tax bills. The key inquiry in those situations is whether the change in condition occurred after the applicable valuation date.

Property improvements also cre­ate taxation pitfalls. In states that cap taxable property values, the caps may come off when improvements are made. In other words, the cost of im­provements could include not only construction expenses but also a substantially greater tax burden.

The effect of improvements on prop­erty taxes varies by jurisdiction. Flor­ida has adopted a bright-line test that examines whether the completed improvement increases value by at least 25 percent. California law protects properties from reassessment so long as any work is normal maintenance or repair, or the improvement does not convert the property to a state "substantially equivalent to new." Whether new construction or improvements fall into this category is "a factual deter­mination that must be made on a case­ by-case basis," the California statute states. South Carolina law contains no such guidance.

Timing also matters. Most jurisdic­tions prohibit taxing improvements until after the improvements are com­pleted, as defined by applicable stat­ute. If the applicable valuation date is Dec. 31, 2018, an owner might consider delaying completion until after Jan. 1,2019, to delay a major tax increase. Re­gardless, careful analysis and plannirig can help property owners address the hidden cost of increased taxes.With careful planning, the prudent property owner can avoid being bit­ten by the lurking snake of increased property taxes and walk the property tax trail with confidence.

­