Updated june 2021

Recent Case Law in Property Valuation

The court, in the recent case of Sleepy Hollow County Club against The Town of Ossining, held that the Income Capitalization Method is the appropriate method to value the subject property of Sleepy Hollow Country Club, a Westchester golf course. Sleepy Hollow argued that the assessment should be reduced using the estimated daily fee rate, rejecting the Town’s argument that the club’s exclusivity and trophy-esqe qualities should be taken into account in assessing the property.   

An important hotel valuation case won by Joel Marcus and Philip Azarian of Marcus & Pollack LLP, held that the Marriott Courtyard near LaGuardia Airport was overvalued by the city. The challenge, which is for the fiscal years 2014-2015 through 2018-2019, reduced the hotel’s tax bill by more than $11 million. According to Joel, the city overvalued the hotel because, rather than rely on the property’s actual expenses, it calculated what the hotel’s expenses would have been using a market average. The city also used comps for hotels in Washington and Boston, cities that Joel believes have little relevance to the New York market. Cross examination of the City’s appraiser revealed that his report failed to adequately detail the methodology and data used from comparable properties. (GCP Realty II, LLC, against The Tax Commission of the City of New York and the Commissioner of Finance of the City of New York.) 

Joel R. Marcus
Marcus & Pollack LLP
American Property Tax Counsel (APTC)

Updated December 2002

Hijacking the Assessment Review Process 

New York consistently ranks as one of the highest taxed states in the nation, and local property taxes are 79 percent higher than the national average. Boards of Assessment Review face high rates of complaints and increased pressure by the local governing body to control refund liability.

The evidentiary demands of many Boards have escalated sharply and many initiatives have been criticized as mere attempts by the local governing body to deliberately discourage taxpayers from exercising their right to seek a fair assessment, in conflict with the spirit of New York's Real Property Tax Law.

Perhaps the most flagrant attempt to hijack the review process as a tool to curtail the property owner's right to a fair assessment is found in a recently proposed local law by the new Nassau County Executive. The controversial proposed law requires only commercial property owners who file appeals of their property's assessments to submit a certified appraisal as a condition precedent to reducing an assessment. In the alternative, owners may submit a "bona fide" counteroffer - defined as no less then 85 percent of the County's assessment, or withdraw the appeal altogether. Owners who fail to exercise one of the above options forfeit their right to judicial review and are subject to a $5,000 fine.

Nassau County spends approximately $150 million annually to pay down a $1.1 billion debt from past tax refunds even as taxpayers file more than 100,000 protests annually. More than 80 percent of the annual refund liability goes to commercial property owners. The proposed law by the new County Executive seeks to punish commercial property owners for exercising their constitutional right to a fair assessment and equitable tax burden.

The controversial law must be codified by the Nassau County Legislature as well as the New York State Legislature, which must issue a "home rule" message to authorize the change. However, State Senator Craig Johnson (D-Port Washington) has rejected the County Executive's request to introduce the state legislation, citing concerns that the legislation would be unfair to commercial property owners and was unconstitutional on its face. Of the many concerns with the proposed law, it was rejected by Sen. Johnson because it is punitive and bullies commercial property owners to settle within a 15 percent margin that deprives the owner of the right to a fair assessment and an opportunity to be heard.

Michael Martone
Koeppel Martone & Leistman, L.L.P.
American Property Tax Counsel (APTC)

The future of New York City's 421-a tax exemption is highly uncertain, particularly in light of the election of Mayor Bill de Blasio, whose initiatives appear to call for sweeping changes to the program.

The 421-a program, which is scheduled to expire on June 14, 2015, provides substantial real estate tax exemption benefits for the developers of new multifamily buildings. Currently, the city determines the level of exemption provided to an eligible building under 421-a; that determination is based on a geographical and functional basis.

That could change under de Blasio's proposed "Five-Borough, 10-Year Plan." The proposal, relating to the creation or preservation of 200,000 units of affordable housing, frequently references the 421-a program, alluding to its future presence in the real estate market.

The city created the 421-a program in 1971 to encourage multifamily construction by granting a partial tax exemption for the property owner. In 2008, changes to the program had a prospective effect on 421-a projects. These modifications included a dramatic expansion of the Geographical Exclusion Areas (GEA), in which properties must meet additional requirements to qualify for an exemption. The amended laws eliminated as-of-right, or automatic, benefits for new multifamily construction throughout Manhattan. In addition, significant sections of the outer boroughs became part of the GEA, effective for buildings that commenced construction after June 30, 2008.

The law created exceptions for projects within the GEA to obtain a tax exemption. To qualify, at least 20 percent of the units must be affordable to families whose income at initial occupancy does not exceed 6o percent of the area median income adjusted for family size. In addition, projects located in a GEA could qualify for benefits via the purchase of negotiable certificates. Under the negotiable certificates program, affordable housing developers can sell negotiable certificates to market-rate developers, who use the certificates to access tax abatements.

Hints of Change

Based on Mayor de Blasio's proposal, the percentage of affordable housing required per project may increase to provide for more affordable units.

The proposal highlights the establishment of a new, mandatory Inclusionary Housing Program, which will serve a broader range of New Yorkers with varying income levels. The Inclusionary Housing Program offers an optional floor area bonus to developers of new residential buildings, in exchange for the creation or preservation of affordable housing.

The new residential housing can be onsite or offsite, so long as it is within the same community board jurisdiction or within a half-mile radius of the site receiving the floor area compensation. The program seeks to promote economic integration in areas of the city undergoing significant new residential development. In order to qualify under the current Inclusionary Housing Program, the affordable units must be affordable to households at or below 80 percent of the area median income.

In contrast to the current Inclusionary Housing Program, some observers speculate that the mayor's proposed program would require all developers to put aside at least 20 percent of their units for low-income families. These units would then remain permanently affordable.

Currently, developers are able to layer 421-a benefits on top of inclusionary housing benefits, therefore allowing developers to take advantage of both programs. By allowing this double-dipping of benefits, the city creates a greater incentive for developers to provide onsite affordable housing.

However, de Blasio's plan may change the way developers use multiple subsidy programs together. The proposal states that in situations where a developer pursues multiple subsidies, the city will increase the percentage of affordable units required for eligibility and/or require that the developer provide deeper affordability.

No automatic exemptions?

Some observers have speculated that the mayor's plan may expand the GEAs of the city and reduce, if not completely eliminate, any as-of-right areas for 421-a construction. As Manhattan is already a GEA, this proposal would affect those areas in the outer boroughs that were not classified as GEAs in 2008. Moreover, developers in the expanded GEAs would be required to provide a higher percentage of affordable units (some proposals call for as much as 50 percent affordability) and offer apartments to families at 40 percent to 50 percent of area median income.

Proposed changes to the program also include eliminating some of the strict requirements that developers must meet in order to receive a 421-a Certificate of Eligibility. For example, under the current program, a qualifying property must meet one of the following three conditions:

• All affordable units must have a comparable number of bedrooms to the market rate units, and a unit mix proportional to the market rate units. Or
• At least go percent of the affordable units must have two or more bedrooms, and no more than go percent of the remaining units can be smaller than one bedroom. Or
• The floor area of affordable units is no less than 20 percent of the total floor area of all dwelling units.

Mayor de Blasio's proposal seeks to modify or eliminate what the administration terms inefficient regulations," since existing requirements may force developers to build larger units than the market dictates.

Overall, the filing process to receive a Certificate of Eligibility is time consuming, due to regulations such as the unit distribution requirement. Mayor de Blasio's proposal states that it seeks to "streamline the 421-a program, improving its usefulness to developers and its ability to promote affordability, by eliminating outdated and unnecessary programmatic, eligibility, and oversight requirements."

Joel R. Marcus is a partner in the New York City law firm of Marcus & Pollack LLP, the New York City member of American Property Tax Counsel (APTC), the national affiliation of property tax attorneys. He can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

In order to fund proposed transit improvements in the vicinity of Grand Central Terminal, New York City is considering an air-rights zoning change to allow construction of perhaps a dozen buildings, primarily office towers, that would stand taller than is currently permitted. Developers would be asked to pay the city about $250 per square foot to acquire these new air rights, and the city would use the monies to carry out its proposed public improvements.

The pricing of new air rights under the proposal stands to pit the city against some New York property owners, who could see the value of their own air rights slashed as a result. A question with implications for commercial property owners is, how did the city determine the square-foot charge of $250? An article by Laura Kusisto in the Aug. 13 edition of the Wall Street Journal explores the brewing controversy.

The Landauer Valuation & Advisory organization calculated an estimate of value for the city. Landauer is a division of Newmark Grubb Knight Frank, a well-known real estate advisory firm.

Landauer first determined the value of office land in the Grand Central area, then applied a 35 percent discount. According to Robert Von Ancken, its chairman, residential or hotel uses were not considered in valuing the proposed air rights. Landauer relied on current market data and a methodology used in the past by market participants.

Argent Ventures, which already has a dog in this argument because it owns the air rights above Grand Central, has termed $400 a more accurate unit value. Argent's president has asserted that air rights should not be discounted off underlying land values and might even be worth more than land with the same development potential.

Argent bases this on work performed for it by Jerome Haims Realty Inc. and backed by another appraisal firm. However, as Kusisto notes in her Wall Street Journal article, "Argent has an interest in putting a higher price tag on the air rights because it will have to compete with the city to sell air rights to developers if the rezoning passes."

This controversy obviously sets an existing stakeholder against a municipality that needs to encourage growth in a particular submarket. The value of Argent's Grand Central air rights will be sharply influenced by the city's offerings. The city probably cares as much about creating tax flows from the buildings that would float on the newly created air rights as it does about the selling price, although the Wall Street Journal article does not mention this point.

From a valuation perspective, it would be interesting to review the Landauer and Haims studies, if only to learn in detail how these firms valued the right to create what apparently will be millions of square feet of new office product. Issues such as absorption, the impact of the transportation improvements proposed by the city on market values and the data relied upon to upport the appraisers' conclusions could offer a textbook tudy of a very complicated topic.

Ultimately, the New York City Council must vote on the creation and price of the new air rights.

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

"New York City has launched an all-out effort to deprive taxpayers of hard fought tax exemptions and find new ways to impose high penalties for late and defective filing. The measures are all calculated to bring in additional revenue..."

By Joel R. Marcus, Esq., as published by National Real Estate Investor - online, May 10th, 2013

The New York City Department of Finance has generated millions of dollars in additional revenue for the city coffers by directing new and greater efforts to serve penalties and remove tax exemptions from property owners who fail to make complete and timely filings of routine information statements. In the process, however, the city has deprived many property owners of valuable tax exemptions that they were entitled to, or charged stiff penalties for what amount to minor infractions and late or incomplete returns.

Late last year, property owners received notices to file a certificate of continuing use for commercial tax exemptions like the Industrial and Commercial Incentive Program and the Industrial and Commercial Abatement Program. The notices warned that even though a property owner may qualify for continued benefits on these multi-year, legislative as-of-right incentive programs, failure to timely file the renewal form would result in the exemption's cancellation.

This form only asked a few routine questions, requiring the property owner to list the square footage of commercial or industrial space, the number of permanent employees at the building, and report the number of employees who were New York City residents. In fact, the city had discontinued the form for the past 10 years.

Many owners were either unfamiliar with the form or failed to receive notices that were mailed to the wrong address, in many cases because the city failed to note a change in ownership that occurred during the past decade. To complicate matters, only a form specifically generated by the Department of Finance for each property could be used, requiring those who did not receive it to request a duplicate. So where a property owner had multiple parcels and lacked the correct form for one or more of its properties, the city refused to accept a standard form that did not carry its barcode.

The city allowed no margins for error. If the property owner left even one question blank, as in the number of permanent city residents that worked in a shopping center or office building, this was grounds to declare the form incomplete and invalid.

Not-for-profits received a similar request to renew Educational, Charitable and Religious exemptions by returning a different renewal form on a timely basis. Many houses of worship and schools that failed to receive the notice or were negligent in completely filling out and returning the form on time saw their exemptions removed.

Many not-for-profit organizations had enjoyed an exemption for decades, if not longer, and considered the exemptions to be granted by the State Constitution and state legislation. Some of those organizations were unfamiliar with this new policy and ill-equipped to delineate details of tax exempt uses and purposes. After all, this information previously was only required on the initial exemption application, filed long ago by people long since departed.

In the process, a great many of these venerable institutions lost an exemption for which they were absolutely qualified. In many instances they were forced to engage counsel and file appeals at the tax commission, which found that the removals were unjustified.

The most severe of the form-failure penalties fell on Real Property Income and Expense (RPIE) filers. The RPIE is a mandatory report of income and expenses, but some properties fall into one of several filing exemptions, such as those with new owners. Although exempt from filling out the entire form, new owners had to check a box on the form affirming that they were exempt from filing. Therefore a failure to report back to the city that they weren't required to file the form became a reason to charge a penalty for failing to file a form on time. Here the penalties, rarely if ever experienced before, became commonplace.

Last year the city collected fines of $100,000 or more for minor infractions of the filing deadlines. To make matters worse, the city imposed many penalties a year or more after the alleged infractions, with the unfortunate result of saddling new owners with penalties because the previous owners failed to file two years earlier. Filing errors not being of record, title companies are unable to insure against such losses.

Notwithstanding that for more than 20 years RPIE compliance has been greater than 99 percent and only three examples of fraud are on record, the Department of Finance now is proposing legislation to tighten the screws again. The department refuses to trust taxpayers to file these returns themselves, and has asked the City Council to move the annual due date up from Sept. 1 to June 1, with a new requirement that the form be completed and certified by a certified public accountant (CPA).

Property owners who submitted RPIE statements digitally on the Department of Finance website each September previously will now have to file using a CPA ertificate by June 1 each year. That means owners will incur certification fees for all commercial properties with an assessed valuation of $1 million or more (a CPA fee is usually $10,000 or more depending on the property). This burden never existed before.

Since the Department of Finance online entry system doesn't adhere to generally accepted accounting principles, and because it excludes large categories of income and expense, it may prove impossible for many CPA's to comply. Also, by excluding these categories, the report doesn't mirror the owner's actual operating information, making it impossible for anyone to sign or attest to it.

These policies elevate "form over substance" to an entirely new — and sinister — level.

Joel R. Marcus is a partner in the New York City law firm Marcus & Pollack, LLP, the New York City member of American Property Tax Counsel(APTC), the national affiliation of property tax attorneys. He may be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

"The New York City Charter grants property owners the right to protest their tentative assessments from Jan. 15 (or the first day following weekends and/or holidays) until March 1..."

By Joel R. Marcus, Esq., as published by National Real Estate Investor - Online, March 2012

In its 2012-2013 tax roll assessment, New York City has once again reported major increases in property values. Bucking the national trend toward flat or downward value changes, the city in January found that overall market value had grown to more than $876 billion, up by more than $31 billion from last year's record $845.4 billion.

Remarkably, the taxable assessment (approximately 45 percent of market value) is only the latest step in a relentless series of increases in the taxpayers' burden, dished out each and every year since 1995. Bar graphs of total assessed values for each year by property class reveal the linear, uninterrupted nature of the changes, with nary a hint of the variations that would be expected during the two most recent economic recessions. (See chart.)

Last year's assessment increase provoked an angry backlash from both residential and commercial property owners. As a result of these widespread protests, the New York City Department of Finance agreed to voluntarily roll back assessments of cooperatives and condominiums (owned by voting taxpayers) that experienced assessment increases of 50 percent or more, choosing to instead limit increases on those properties to no more than 10 percent over the prior year. Properties that had received an assessment increase of 49 percent or less, however, went unchanged onto the 2011-2012 roll.

The Department of Finance had to correct 30,457 property assessments, and the Tax Commission handled 50,022 appeals covering 183,811 separately assessed tax lots. The Tax Commission's remedial actions yielded $560 million in tax relief to aggrieved taxpayers.

Repeat performance?

With the tentative assessment for the tax period running from July 1, 2012, through June 30, 2013, and showing dramatic value increases yet again for certain residential properties, there is a flurry of legislative activity promoting a new class of property for cooperatives and condominiums. As proposed, this class would have its tax increases capped at no more than 6 percent each year, the same treatment now accorded to one-, two- and three-family homes.

This legislation, if passed, still won't eliminate the precipitous disparity in taxes between apartments and homes. The cap on homes has been in effect since 1982, and now most homes are assessed at a very small fraction of their current market value.

Citywide, the taxable assessed values of one-, two- and three-family homes (Class 1) increased 3.11percent from last year's assessment. Rental apartments, co-ops and condos (Class 2) are up 5.15 percent, and office, hotel, retail and other commercial properties (Class 4) are experiencing an increase of 7.26 percent.

A red flag

A red flag

Before publication, the Department of Finance detected massive errors in the assessment roll and delayed its release. Officially, the Department of Finance cited the need "to correct an error in one of the computer systems it uses to calculate values." But insiders report that quality control issues were also a factor in the delay. On Jan. 19, 2012—two days late—the Department of Finance published the city's tentative assessment roll, covering more than 1 million separately assessed parcels of real estate.

The New York City Charter grants property owners the right to protest their tentative assessments from Jan. 15 (or the first day following weekends and/or holidays) until March 1. The law authorizes owners of one- to three-family houses the right to contest their tentative assessments until March 15. The protests must be filed during these time periods with the New York City Tax Commission, an independent city agency authorized to review and correct the Department of Finance's property tax assessments.

In announcing the delayed assessment release, Finance Commissioner David M. Frankel stated that "we will keep the roll open for an additional two days this year." The Tax Commission's legal authority to review protests filed after March 1 and March 15 is questionable, however. In the absence of remedial legislation expressly authorizing the Tax Commission to review protest applications filed after March 1 and March 15, applicants are better off assuming that the current statutory filing dates will continue to govern.

Commercial consternation

During the period after the publication of the tentative assessment and prior to the publication of the final assessment roll on May 25, the Department of Finance is permitted to increase assessed values of nonresidential properties. This authority may only be exercised until May 10, however, and only where the department has mailed written notice to the owner at least 10 days prior to May 10. The mailing of such notices after Feb. 1 extends the protest period for affected owners, who have 20 days after the notice was mailed to apply for a correction of their assessment.

In Frankel's announcement, he also mentioned that the Department of Finance is reviewing whether thousands of properties which have historically enjoyed not-for-profit exemptions remain eligible for such benefits. Previous exemptions for many properties which did not file timely renewal applications prior to Nov. 1, 2011, were removed on the tentative assessment roll, but Frankel advised that these properties can still regain their exemptions for the 2012-2013 tax year if they provide the required documentation by Feb. 13.

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. is a partner in the law firm of Marcus & Pollack LLP, the New York City member of American Property Tax Counsel.

"The real estate tax is based on the tax rate and a property's assessed value. In the face of all the troubles and distress seen in real estate over the last three years, the City of New York has made some outsized increases in its estimates of market values, which it uses to assess properties for taxation..."

By Joel R. Marcus, Esq., as published by National Real Estate Investor, April 2011

The New York City real estate community has been through the wringer since 2007. It has endured a dearth of major property transactions, suffered through the meltdown of the financial services industry and watched available debt financing evaporate. Lenders and special servicers are more in control of the real estate market than ever before.

In the real world of property ownership and development, many taxpayers are experiencing a drop in occupancy for office, hotels and rental apartment buildings. Condo sales have slowed to a trickle and construction of new office, hotels and apartment buildings has come to a virtual standstill.

In this environment of dropping office rents, condominium fire sales and increasing costs of operations, real estate taxes — the largest component of a building's expenses — have skyrocketed. Why is this happening?

New York City satisfies its budget needs through a variety of taxes, and of all of them, the real estate tax is the most important and durable. The city now finds itself facing a cutback in state and federal aid and has big budget deficits. This is happening at a time when corporate and personal income taxes and sales taxes have declined, and other taxes such as transfer and mortgage-recording taxes have all but disappeared.

The city's revenue options are few. People and businesses can move to New Jersey or other areas to escape New York City's income taxes or sales taxes, and this puts a practical limit on what New York City can extract. Real estate, however, is stuck in New York City and can't escape the city's tax grip.

Excessive taxes erode equity.

The real estate tax is based on the tax rate and a property's assessed value. In the face of all the troubles and distress seen in real estate over the last three years, the City of New York has made some outsized increases in its estimates of market values, which it uses to assess properties for taxation.

A snapshot provided by the City of New York Department of Finance highlights some of these amazing hikes in estimated market value. In Queens, for instance, assessors raised the market values for cooperatives 32.37% (on average12.05% citywide) from last year and Queens luxury hotels experienced a 27.97% increase as well. Manhattan luxury hotels underwent a 14.82% raise in values, while values climbed 9.65% for cooperatives and 15.91% for condominiums.

Many in the commercial real estate industry believe that the jump in assessed real estate market values is related to the city's budget woes, rather than to actual changes in the market place. The city vociferously denies this notion, but as Shakespeare's Hamlet said, "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

How much tax is too much?

An analysis of the city's system for assessing properties shows that in office and other commercial properties the property tax bite consumes almost 34% of a property's pre-tax net income. Let's examine with this hypothetical example the formulas used by assessors.

An office building charges $45 rent per sq. ft. Its operating expenses are $12 per sq. ft., and its amortized leasing and tenant expenses are another $4.50 per sq. ft. Therefore the pre-tax net income is $28.50 per sq. ft.

The city divides that income by 13.64%, which is derived by adding a 9% capitalization rate to 4.64%, or 45% of the 10.312% tax rate. That yields a fair market value of $209 per sq. ft.

Assessed at 45% of fair market value, the result is a tax assessment of $94 per sq. ft. and a tax bill of $9.70 per sq. ft., based on the 10.312% tax rate. Therefore the city is a partner in 34% of the net operating income without any equity investment at all! This is before debt service, depreciation and capital improvements are accounted for — expenses that only the owner has to pay but for which the owner gets no credit from the city. Not bad if you can get away with it.

For apartment buildings, the pattern is even more egregious. If rents are $45 per sq. ft. and expenses are $12 per sq. ft. as in the office example, the assessor takes 45% of the 13.353% Class-2 tax rate (which is 6.009%) and adds a 7.5% cap rate to get a loaded cap rate of 13.509%. Divide the cap rate into the net operating income of $33, and the fair market value is $244.28 per sq. ft.

The assessment, therefore, is $110 per sq. ft., and this applies to the tax rate results in annual taxes of $14.69 per sq. ft. That's 44.5% of the property's pre-tax net income. Boy, what a deal the city has! If major capital repairs are needed for such expenses as the facade or elevator modernization, a roof or an apartment makeover, they are borne solely by the owner. None of these expenses are factored into the city's formula.

Property owners can always appeal their assessments, but many believe that it's the city's policy on taxes instead, that needs a reassessment.

Joel R. Marcus is a partner in the law firm of Marcus & Pollack LLP, the New York City member of American Property Tax Counsel, the national affiliation of property tax attorneys. He can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

Why Hotels and Nursing Homes Prove Especially Vulnerable to Inaccurate Taxation

"The most valuable asset the team would acquire through that contract would be a continued association with the Derek Jeter name, a brand in which the team has invested a great deal. The Yankees' challenge in reaching a new contract with Jeter, recently accomplished, indeed echoes the difficulty faced by many municipal assessors in valuing properties that are as much business as they are parcels of real estate."

By Elliott B. Pollack, Esq., as published by Commercial Property Executive, April 2011

Tax laws across the United States typically prohibit assessors from including intangible assets such as good will, franchise value or business value in a property tax assessment. Only tangible real and personal property may be placed on assessment rolls. But taxpayers and assessors alike sometimes have difficulty differentiating between tangibles and intangibles.

That's understandable on the part of taxpayers who may need to include intangibles in their calculations when buying or selling a hotel, nursing home or assisted-care property. For purposes other than property taxes, intangibles often are part of a property's overall value. Indeed, rivers of ink in appraisal and valuation literature—not to mention judicial rulings— have been devoted to the issue of intangibles.

Unfortunately, many assessors don't fully understand how to exclude these non-taxable elements from their calculations, either. For the unwary property owner, the resulting overassessment can result in an equally overstated tax bill. One way to gain a clearer perspective on the degree to which intangible assets can affect value is to turn our lenses on another field entirely—a baseball field, in fact. On Nov. 10, 2010, sports columnist Richard Sandomir presented an illuminating look at the talents of the New York Yankees' redoubtable shortstop, Derek Jeter, in an article for the New York Times. "The Yankees would not quite be the Yankees if (Derek Jeter) suited up with another team," Sandomir noted. The writer contended that Jeter adds substantially to the Yankees' overall value, much in the same way, it can be argued, that a respected brand boosts the worth of a hotel. Without Jeter's headline-grabbing performances, the team would be less valuable, just as an unflagged hotel is likely to be less valuable than its branded competitor. Sandomir quoted a business consultant who observed that Jeter's playing, were he less celebrated, might be worth $10 million a year. But as an iconic draw for ticket sales, Jeter's value to the team is closer to $20 million each year. The Yankee captain's "value as a brand builder," the expert noted, not merely as a hitter or infielder, is what drives his intangible worth differential, again, very much like the business value inherent in a well-managed hotel or convalescent facility.

With Jeter's lengthy contract concluded, it would be foolish for the Yankees not to sign him up again as he enters free agency, even though his baseball skills have eroded, the expert opined. The most valuable asset the team would acquire through that contract would be a continued association with the Derek Jeter name, a brand in which the team has invested a great deal. The Yankees' challenge in reaching a new contract with Jeter, recently accomplished, indeed echoes the difficulty faced by many municipal assessors in valuing properties that are as much business as they are parcels of real estate.

After years of resistance from taxpayers and their attorneys, it seems taxing authorities in the United States are getting the message about intangible assets. It now appears that the majority of assessors recognize that the net operating income generated by a hotel, as an example, does not result exclusively from its real estate value. In fact, the management expertise—which drives revenues from non-occupancy hospitality services such as food service, special events and recreation revenues—is an asset independent of and severable from the real estate itself.

Similarly, the intensive services furnished to the patients of long-term-care convalescent facilities are distinct from the property in which those services operate. Indeed, nursing and medical care, meals and rehabilitation produce revenues that have little to do with the real property and should not be capitalized when the health-care facility is valued using an income methodology.

There is case law to provide examples of the correct way to value commercial real estate without inflating taxable value by rolling intangible assets into the equation. Taxpayers interested in doing a little research will find one court's approach toward the separation of intangibles and the valuation of health-care real property in the case of Avon Realty L.L.C. v. Town of Avon, decided in 2006 by the Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of New Britain. In that case, the owner of the Avon Convalescent Home, a 120-bed skilled nursing facility, appealed an assessed value in excess of $5 million on the grounds that the assessor hadn't deducted sufficient value attributable to intangible assets from the business's overall value. Upon review, the court deemed the value to be a little more than $4 million, supporting the taxpayer's appeal.

A thorough understanding of the issues and methodologies involved in properly differentiating and valuing tangibles and intangibles marks the difference between fair and excessive property tax assessments for hotels, nursing homes and assisted-care facilities.

Elliott B. Pollack is chair of the property valuation department of the Connecticut law firm Pullman & Comley L.L.C. He cautions that he is an avid Boston Red Sox fan. The firm is the Connecticut member of the American Property Tax Counsel, the national affiliation of property tax attorneys. He can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

How Property Tax Caps Increase Your Tax Burden

"Attacks on the property tax continue. Yet as the table indicates, during the past five years, property taxes have risen no more rapidly than the average of the three tax areas.."

By Mark S. Hutcheson, Esq., as published by Commercial Property Executive, October 2010

Complaints about the burden of ever increasing property taxes are a common refrain. Many property tax reform efforts miss the mark, however, and set the stage for greater inequity from misguided attempts to cap valuations.

In New York state, which has seen strong debate over capping property tax growth, the Senate passed a provision to cap property taxes at 4 percent, while several gubernatorial candidates are touting a 2 percent limit. New Jersey recently passed a 2 percent cap on property tax increases. Voters in Colorado, Louisiana and Indiana will consider tax caps or rollbacks this November.

Attacks on the property tax continue. Yet as the table indicates, during the past five years, property taxes have risen no more rapidly than the average of the three tax areas. (Property tax represents 30 percent of all taxes, sales tax 33 percent and personal income tax 22 percent).

While one of the most popular efforts is to limit or cap increases in taxable property values, this argument diverts attention from more meaningful budget and spending discussions. Texas, for example, has experienced several unsuccessful attempts to restrain value increases as a means of limiting property tax growth.

A report published by the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy in 2008, titled "Property Tax Assessment Limits: Lessons from Thirty Years of Experience," concluded that, "assessment limits are often put forward as a means of combating two problems popularly associated with rapidly appreciating property values: increasing tax bills and the redistribution of tax burdens.

In fact, 30 years of experience suggests that these limits are among the least effective, least equitable and least efficient strategies available for providing tax relief."

Equality of taxation is one of the foundations of a tax system, and sound public policy recognizes that valuation caps are an ineffective limitation on property taxes. The reasons for this are numerous.

Like all artificial limits, a cap creates grossly unequal values within and among different classes of properties. An appraisal cap creates disparities between a property valued at market and another valued with a cap, so that two identical properties are treated unequally. A cap placed on residential shifts the tax burden from residential to commercial property. If both residential and commercial are capped, there will be a long-term shift from commercial to residential, because homes change hands more frequently.

Caps create unfair competitive advantages as well. Properties that lose a value cap—including newly built, purchased or remodeled assets—will be at an economic disadvantage. On the commercial front, where retail and office leasing is highly competitive, new owners that do not benefit from a cap will likely be forced to reduce their profit rather than quote a higher rental rate than competitors. And an investor may decide not to develop in a market where competing properties receive a cap, rather than compete directly with landlords that can charge less rent to make the same profit.

Moreover, caps increase taxes for owners of personal property, and here is why: Caps seldom apply to personal property at manufacturing plants, refineries, chemical plants or utilities, so a cap shifts the tax burden to these types of properties. Typically, local governments raise tax rates to balance the budget shortfall created by the cap on real property. That means personal property taxpayers will pay based on full market value, and at higher tax rates.

There is also a direct effect on land use that can work against personal property taxpayers in a different way. Communities that limit property value increases compete for retail properties that can generate sales tax income. New housing and non-retail properties become undesirable because they provide less tax growth and increase infrastructure demands.

If there is no limit on tax rates, the cap will simply shift the variable in the property tax equation from the property's value to the taxing unit's tax rate. At best, the property owner's tax bill will remain where it was. At worst, the bill will increase significantly if the taxpayer purchases or improves a property, because they will then lose the benefit of the cap and be required to pay at full market value and at a higher tax rate. In 2010, it is painfully clear that a cap impairs a local government's ability to pay for critical services when state and federal revenues wane and local mandates increase. This shifts governmental control from the local level to the state. Caps impair infrastructure development and result in the imposition of a wide number of local fees and charges to replace property tax revenue. Thus, artificial limits on appraised value have unintended negative consequences. Taxpayers and government alike are better served by pursuing more effective and fairer mechanisms for property tax relief.

Mark S. Hutcheson is a partner with the Austin, Texas, law firm of Popp, Gray & Hutcheson L.L.P., which focuses on property tax disputes and is the Texas member of the American Property Tax Counsel. He can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

"Taxpayers are left to rely on the courts to compel assessors to value golf courses by present use and condition only..."

By Michael Martone, Esq., and Michael P. Guerriero, Esq., National Real Estate Investor, September 2010

A battle is raging in New York and across the country between assessors and taxpayers at odds over the market value of golf courses and their associated membership clubs.

The front lines in this conflict are clearly demonstrated in Nassau County, N.Y., home to 400 overlapping tax districts and a population suffering the highest taxation burden in the state. The recession and nationwide decline in property values for golf courses have pushed many clubs into severe financial straits as thinning rosters force them to lower dues or scrap fees.

One prominent Long Island club recently sold to a developer. Another declared bankruptcy, and surviving golf courses are fighting to avoid similar fates. Closures outpace new openings as demand for golf declines and revenue growth remains flat in the face of rising costs especially property taxes.

Exacerbating the tax problem are assessors who turn a blind eye to the economic forces threatening the survival of private clubs, and who instead pay undue attention to alternative land uses. Taxpayers are left to rely on the courts to compel assessors to value golf courses by present use and condition only.

In most all cases a golf course sells for a price that includes its business operation and personal property, but only the value of the real estate may be considered in setting the property tax assessment.

Development factor

Many courses are bought and sold for their development potential, grossly inflating values. Where developable land is at a premium, reliance on comparable sales could tax private golf courses from existence. The cost approach, too, is generally reserved for specialty property.

For these reasons, courts require the assessor to value the private golf course based on its value in use when employing the income capitalization approach. With this approach, a not-for-profit private club is valued as if it were a privately operated, for-profit, daily fee operation.

The courts tend to determine a golf course's income stream by capitalizing the amount a golf operator would pay a property owner as rent for the course. They use this methodology because golf course operators typically pay a percentage of gross revenues as rent. That amount can be capitalized to arrive at a value. The capitalization of golf rent to value is a hotly litigated issue and influences the percentage rent to be used.

Conflicting formula

Rents for golf course leases are influenced by differences in tax burdens from one location to the next. Similar golf courses operating under a similar operating basis, yet in differing locations with disparate tax burdens, must be equalized to arrive at a fair and uniform tax value. In a recent case, the court sought how best to keep the influence of high tax burdens from unfairly distorting value.

In that case, the assessor preached the application of an ad-hoc, subjective adjustment to the percentage rent to reflect a greater or lesser tax burden. This approach assumes the rental amounts would be triple-net. In a triple-net lease the tenant pays the real estate taxes, and the percentage rent is adjusted to reflect local taxes on a case-by-case basis.

The taxpayer offered another, more reliable method, the "assessor's formula". This formula lets the assessor follow the law, which calls for like-kind properties to be equally and uniformly assessed. The formula takes into account the income stream, the cap rate and the tax rate.

For example, consider two identical properties a city block apart, but in separate tax districts. One district has high tax rates, and the other a low tax rate. Because the assessor's formula weighs all three elements used to arrive at market value, it produces fair tax assessments as opposed to a subjective adjustment that is not computed on a scientific basis.

The accompanying chart shows the difference in assessments when the assessor's formula is used instead of an ad hoc, subjective tax adjustment. The assessor's formula provides a superior method that both assessor and taxpayer can rely on.

Michael Martone is the managing partner of law firm Koeppel Martone & Leistman LLP in Mineola, N.Y. Michael Guerriero is an associate at the firm, the New York member of American Property Tax Counsel (APTC), the national affiliation of property tax attorneys. They can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. and This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..