Ancillary services have become a crucial revenue generator in student housing and can help owners improve occupancy, justify higher rents and increase tenant satisfaction. In an industry that often correlates income with market value, however, it is critical to distinguish ancillary service revenue from real estate value and property tax liability.

Failure to properly distinguish between real estate and intangible business assets can lead to unfair valuations and excessive property tax bills. Simply put, real estate is land and improvements to that land, such as buildings. Intangible assets, as the term suggests, cannot be held or touched. Examples include business service operations and partnership contracts with third parties.

To help taxpayers recognize the intangible components of their private, off-campus student housing operations, we will review some of the most popular services that owners are using to boost revenue today. Then we will explore strategies for managing valuation and tax implications of these non-real-estate income streams.

Selling premium amenities and convenience

Owners and operators working to improve the financial performance of their off-campus properties know that increased rents and occupancy are not the only ways to drive revenue. By adapting to student renters' changing wants and needs, providers are turning ancillary services into significant revenue producers.

Here are a few of the key services at many properties today:

High-speed internet. Working with a provider to offer broadband internet connectivity as a premium feature can generate hundreds of dollars per unit annually for a student housing operator.

Fitness centers. Property managers know that offering tenants access to an on-site or nearby fitness center can justify increased rental rates. Some properties partner with a local fitness center to ensure access for their residents or to provide on-site programming such as yoga classes.

On-site laundry services. This revenue generator is a no-brainer, which is why landlords for decades have offered access to coin-operated washers and dryers. On-site laundry facilities at a 100-unit apartment building can easily generate $10,000 annually. With student housing's higher density, operators have the potential for more substantial revenue. Owners without laundry facilities may be able to partner with a nearby laundry or dry cleaner to offer these services.

Movers. When a new tenant signs a lease agreement, some student housing managers provide the new resident with an email link or advertising material from a local moving company offering moving kits, boxes, packaging tape or services. The referral agreement behind this relationship is yet another potential income producer for the landlord.

Advertising. Student housing managers often sell advertising to local businesses. Restaurants, retailers and service providers may buy ad space in tenant emails or plaster vinyl ads on the outside of the property's elevator doors. Partnerships with area restaurants or other businesses may also bring in referral fees or commissions.

Housekeeping: Many student housing owners have taken a page from assisted living operators' book by offering cleaning service options to their residents.

Separate ancillary revenue from real estate value

It is crucial for off-campus housing providers to differentiate ancillary services revenue from the real estate value of the property and to ensure the local tax assessor recognizes this distinction when valuing their property for taxation. This is important because ancillary service revenues represent money derived from intangible business assets rather than from the real estate.

The owner of a student housing property with ancillary revenue streams should track this income specifically and separately in record keeping. Resist the temptation to throw specific ancillary income into a catchall "other income" line item on the property's income and expense spreadsheet.

When student housing properties trade hands based, in part, on revenue attributable to ancillary services, their improved economic performance generates higher sale prices than do properties under less creative management. Over and above the total sale prices reported to the public, were an assessor or appraiser to include revenue from ancillary services in property valuations, it would lead to inflated assessments.

Accurate assessments should reflect only the real estate value excluding business income. And properties with extensive ancillary services might appear more valuable compared to those without, even if the actual real estate is comparable.

Owners and managers of private, off-campus student housing can help to ensure fair property valuations and tax liability by conducting annual reviews.

Regular and careful reviews of assessments can identify and help correct any discrepancies, saving the property owner money in reduced tax bills. If a property is over-assessed, consider challenging that assessment. Each jurisdiction presents unique rules, laws and challenges requiring careful and informed decision making, Taxpayers often find it helpful to consult an experienced, local property tax professional before deciding whether to begin a valuation challenge.

Appraisals designed for lenders often inflate assessments of seniors living real estate for property taxation.

Appraisal methodologies for financing seniors housing properties factor in more than real estate to produce amounts that exceed property-only value. That means seniors housing owners may be paying real estate taxes on non-real-estate assets.

Everyone can agree that a seniors living operation—whether independent living, assisted living, memory care, skilled nursing or some combination—consists of a variety of assets. There are real estate assets (the land and building), personal property assets like furniture and kitchen equipment, and intangible business assets such as the work force, tenants, and operating licenses. These multiple assets and asset types present a challenge when developing an appropriate ad valorem tax valuation.

To appropriately value this asset type for property taxation, an owner must show the assessor the real estate's stand-alone value. Most states acknowledge that business assets are not subject to property tax, so the intangible business assets and their respective values must be identified and excluded.

The International Association of Assessing Officers, in its guide, "Understanding Intangible Assets and Real Estate: A Guide for Real Property Valuation Professionals," has developed a four-part test to help determine whether something intangible rises to the level of an asset. The IAAO test is as follows:

1. An intangible asset should be identifiable.

2. An intangible asset should have evidence of legal ownership, that is, documents that substantiate rights.

3. An intangible asset should be capable of being separate and divisible from the real estate.

4. An intangible asset should be legally transferrable.

The Appraisal Institute's current, 15th edition of "The Appraisal of Real Estate" recognizes the valuation methodology of separating the components of assets in a business or real estate transaction. Potential intangible business assets identified in the text include contracts for healthcare service, contracts for meals, and contracts for laundry assistance, all of which represent income streams or businesses. An assembled workforce is an intangible business asset with a quantifiable value. How long would it take an operator to staff-up a property prior to opening? What are the carrying costs during that time?

Many seniors housing owners and investors feel that the entire value associated with seniors living real estate is attributable to the business. While this may be a firm belief, the real estate must have some value. For fair taxation, the taxpayer must differentiate and value both the tangible and intangible components of the asset.

Multifamily comparisons

For 30 years, Ohio law has permitted appraisers to reference data obtained from traditional multifamily properties to value just the real estate in seniors housing. The theory has been that traditional apartments are primarily real estate and lack much of the associated business value that comes with seniors living assets. Therefore, an appraiser who takes the gross building area of a seniors living property can select, analyze, adjust, and apply multifamily data to determine fair market value.

This approach presents at least two issues. One, seniors living designs differ from traditional apartments. For instance, seniors living units are typically smaller, lack full kitchens, and require wider hallways to accommodate wheelchairs. Two, the multifamily market has generally prospered in recent years while seniors living properties have struggled to recover from pandemic-related losses.

This means Ohio appraisers are comparing seniors living properties to multifamily assets selling at higher and higher dollars per unit. Multifamily properties generally experience lower vacancy, credit loss, expenses and capitalization rates than do seniors housing assets. In short, these two product types often move in opposite market directions.

Difficulties with financing data

More and more, county assessors and school board attorneys throughout Ohio rely on appraisers who value seniors living properties as if done for lending purposes. While these going-concern valuations may satisfy lenders' needs, these same techniques are not reliable or accurate enough to support a state's constitutionally protected valuation and assessment process.

Going concern appraisal reports back into a real estate value. After first developing a total value for all assets present, the appraiser attempts to extract the business value.

There are several techniques routinely used in appraisals for financing that are inappropriate for determining taxable value. These include the lease fee coverage ratio approach, a management fee capitalization approach, and the cost residual approach. These appraisal techniques have been approved by banks, but they are largely untested in courts.

These approaches are tainted from the start because they look first to the total going concern value. That inherently requires an evaluation of business income, which should not be considered when determining a fee simple value of the real property.

Of the going concern methodologies, the cost residual method appears best suited to assess taxable property value. However, challenges and subjectivity abound when identifying and determining all aspects of depreciation that may impact market acceptance of the real estate asset, especially for an older property.

Starting with the business is problematic given the dollars involved in seniors housing resident services. Median asking rent for a conventional apartment was $1,000 per month in the Federal Reserve's 2022 Survey of Household Economics and Decision Making. By comparison, the median monthly rate for assisted living is $4,000, according to the American Health Care Association/National Center for Assisted Living. Importantly, that $4,000 excludes fees for additional services like medication management and bathing assistance.

Service fees constitute significant revenue in most seniors housing operations. A 2019 CBRE Senior Housing Market Insight report found that 65% of the revenue in assisted living properties comes from services provided above and beyond pure rent. The 2023 JLL Valuation Index Survey found that the average "Majority Assisted Living" asset class saw an expense ratio of 71%.

Owners and appraisers must closely examine operating statements to develop and support their opinions of value. Appraisers should consider looking at properties as having multiple income streams to verify whether their opinion of value for the real estate is reasonable and supportable. Operators and investors should be open and honest about return expectations.

Because the income generated by intangible business assets at seniors living properties are taxed in other ways, assessors must continue to carefully review seniors living real estate to ensure fair taxation. 

Fighting for laws that produce equal, uniform taxation best serves taxpayers and state governments.

It has been said that the people who complain about taxes can be divided into two classes: men and women. While we all complain, taxes ensure various levels of government have funds to perform essential functions—to keep society civil and in, more or less, working order.

A tax must be fair to be supported, however. In countless instances, a taxpayer's first complaint about an assessor's valuation is that the amount exceeds their neighbors' valuations. In essence, the property owner claims that the property valuation and resulting tax liability is unfair or non-uniform.

Too many jurisdictions lack an efficient mechanism to address non-uniform taxation. Fortunately, several states specifically require tax uniformity, and two offer legal remedies to help taxpayers combat unfair assessments.

A constitutional concept

Most taxing jurisdictions seek to assess real property at market value, which is the amount the property might sell for as of a certain date. Many states even address the legal requirements of taxation in their governing documents.

Ohio's constitution, for example, requires that "Land and improvements thereon shall be taxed by uniform rule according to value." Virginia's constitution states: "All taxes shall be levied and collected under general laws and shall be uniform upon the same class of subjects within the territorial limits of the authority levying the tax."

• Washington's constitution necessitates that all taxes shall be uniform upon the same class of property within the limits of the assessor's authority, while Missouri's constitution requires that assessments must be based upon market value and be uniform.

• That all four of these sampled constitutions mention the importance of taxation uniformity underscores the importance of the concept. Taxpayers seeking an effective model for opposing an assessment on the basis of unequal treatment can look to two other states: Texas and Georgia.

Ready remedies

Texas and Georgia have taken great strides in establishing the methods to ensure property assessments meet their constitutional goals of equal and uniform taxation. Both states empower taxpayers by setting out specific steps to show an overvaluation. Taxpayers in these jurisdictions are assured the right to have their property assessed for taxation in a uniform and equal manner when compared to nearby comparable properties.

In Georgia, a property owner can challenge an assessor's valuation of their real property based on uniformity.The state's standard appeal forms have a box to check as to whether the appeal is being filed based on value, taxability or uniformity.

Under a 1991 Georgia case, Gwinnett County Board of Tax Assessors vs. Ackerman/Indian Trail Association Ltd., a property owner who can show that numerous similar properties in the same area and county have lower assessed values can use that information as grounds to advocate for a lower assessed value.

Texas property owners can challenge an assessor's valuation by arguing there has been an unequal appraisal.Texas property owners in this position can file a protest if they believe the property is taxed at a higher value than comparable properties.

To prevail in seeking a lower valuation, the property owner can submit sale or appraisal evidence. Alternatively, the taxpayer can prevail by showing their assessed valuation exceeds the median appraised value of a reasonable number of appropriately adjusted comparable properties.

In a 2001 case, Harris County Appraisal District vs. United Investors Realty Trust, a Texas appeals court found that when there is a conflict between taxation at market value and equal and uniform taxation, equality and uniformity prevail. This means it is more important that taxes be equally and uniformly imposed and collected than it is to arrive at the property's market value when the "corrected" value makes the property a taxation outlier in its competitive set.

A pervasive need

For sure, a tax assessor's job of valuing all land and improvements is daunting, and they must use many data points and much subjectivity to assess values. Given the scope of their job, mistakes in valuation will occur—especially if the valuation incorporates inaccurate data regarding gross building area, square footage, age, condition or other variables.

Because mistakes are inevitable, property tax systems must provide taxpayers with efficient and effective methods of challenging overvaluations. All jurisdictions provide taxpayers the right and some mechanism to contest the assessor's valuation through an administrative and/or judicial process. This procedural right gives taxpayers a means to correct apparent overvaluations and to seek fairness—or at least it provides the opportunity to argue for fairness.

Taxpayers' pursuit of that procedural right most often revolves around valuation and ignores the constitutional requirement of uniformity. Or worse, the available procedure conflates uniformity with valuation by stating that if the assessed value reflects market value, that equates to uniformity. This thinking is only accurate in theory, as achieving market value assessments for all is aspirational but elusive.

If taxpayers in every jurisdiction could argue a solution along the lines of Texas' defense, it would ensure uniform and equal taxation for all.

Many times, an appeal board hearing a valuation complaint will require either evidence of a recent sale of the subject property or an appraisal report before it will adjust an assessor's valuation. However, sales are often unavailable and appraisal reports can be expensive. Given the cost of appraisals, owners of lower value real estate must often weigh cost versus potential tax savings before deciding whether to hire an appraiser and contest an unfair assessment.

Fairness across the assessor's jurisdiction must be the paramount goal. The defenses or means of redress provided by Georgia and Texas are vital to ensure that taxpayers have access to a constitutionally mandated equal and uniform valuation. These statutory provisions provide a cost-effective method for taxpayers to challenge an overvaluation.

Constitutions that provide an equal and uniform defense give taxpayers fair and equitable access to assessors' valuation systems and promote equal and uniform taxation. Expanded taxpayer access and improved assessor responsiveness promotes trust in government.

Every jurisdiction should follow these examples to provide taxpayers an equal and uniform defense.

A recent order from the Ohio Board of Tax Appeals highlights a troubling aspect of real property tax valuation in the Buckeye State, where school districts wield extraordinary authority to influence assessments. In this instance, courts allowed a district to demand a taxpayer's confidential business data, which it can now use to support its own case for an assessment increase.

Ohio is one of the few states that permit school districts to participate in the tax valuation process, allowing a district to file its own complaint to increase the value of a parcel of real estate, and permitting a school district to argue against a property owner that seeks to lower the taxable valuation of a parcel of real estate.

Steve Nowak, Siegel Jennings Co.

Generally, school districts looking to increase tax revenue will review recent property sales for opportunities to seek assessment increases. Likely candidates for an increase complaint include real estate that changed hands at a purchase price or transfer value that exceeds the county assessor's valuation. That is not always the case, however.

In the case that gave rise to this article, there was no recent sale of the subject property, which is a multi-story apartment building. The apartment building owner had done nothing to draw any assessor's attention to their property in recent years — it had not been listed for sale, for example, nor had the owner recently refinanced the property.

Blind assertions

In the apartment building case, the school district filed a complaint to increase the county's valuation from $3.85 million to $4.63 million. At the local county board of revision hearing on the school district's complaint, the school district failed to present any competent and probative evidence that the apartment complex was undervalued as currently assessed.

The school district could not present evidence of a recent sale because there had been no sale. The school district also failed to present an independent appraisal witness to testify that the apartment complex was undervalued. Not surprisingly, the county board denied the school district's request to increase the valuation of the subject property.

This is where things got tough for the property owner, and where other Ohio taxpayers may face similar dilemmas. Having received the county board's denial of its complaint, the school district filed an appeal to the Ohio Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) to relitigate its argument that the apartment complex was undervalued.

Once a case is appealed to the BTA, the parties to the case obtain the right to conduct discovery. This is a process intended to help parties in a legal disagreement to "discover" or learn the case and evidence the opposing side may present against them.

Here, as part of its discovery requests, the school district asked that the property owner provide directly to the school district copies of rent rolls, income and expense information and other business records.

Not wanting to turn over such sensitive information, the property owner filed a motion for protective order and requested the BTA deny the school district's prying requests into the day-to-day operations of the apartment building's financial performance. Because discovery is granted as a matter of right on appeal and the threshold for discovery requests is fairly low, the BTA denied the property owner's request for a protective order.

Facing what it believed to be an unconstitutional infringement of its right to privacy, the property owner appealed the BTA's decision denying the request for a protective order to the next appellate level. The taxpayer laid out its arguments of why the school board's baseless complaint seeking to increase the property owner's valuation was unconstitutional.

The appellate court was unmoved, however, and issued a short order upholding the BTA's decision denying the property owner's motion for protective order.

Private data shared

Faced with the appellate court's order, the apartment building property owner was left with no choice but to turn over to the school district years of rent rolls and years of income and expense records for the property. The school district then provided the property owner's own confidential and sensitive business information to the district's appraiser.

Thus, after failing to produce sufficient supporting evidence of its original valuation assertions, the very evidence the school district will now rely upon to increase the property owner's real estate valuation (and tax bill) will have been provided by the property owner itself.

Cases like the one outlined above illustrate the unfettered discretion that school boards have in deciding on what properties to seek increased valuations. This puts Ohio real estate owners' rights at risk, and needs to be responsibly and reasonably curtailed.

The Buckeye State's questionable methods deliver alarmingly high values.

A recent decision from an Ohio appeals court highlights a developing and troubling pattern in the state's property tax valuation appeals. In a number of cases, an appraiser's misuse of the highest and best use concept has led to extreme overvaluations. Given its potential to grossly inflate tax liabilities, property owners and well-known tenants need to be aware of this alarming trend and how to best respond.

In the recently decided case, a property used as a McDonald's restaurant in Northeast Ohio received widely varied appraisals. The county assessor, in the ordinary course of setting values, assessed the value at $1.3 million. Then a Member of the Appraisal Institute (MAI) appraiser hired by the property owner calculated a value of $715,000. Another MAI appraiser, this one hired by the county assessor, set the value at $1.9 million. The average of the two MAI appraisals equals $1.3 million, closely mirroring the county's initial value.

Despite the property owner having met its burden of proof at the first hearing level, the county board of revision rejected the property owner's evidence without analysis or explanation. The owner then appealed to the Ohio Board of Tax Appeals (BTA).

In its decision on the appeal, the BTA focused on each appraiser's high-est and best use analysis. The county's appraiser determined the highest and best use is the existing improvements occupied by a national fast food restaurant as they contribute beyond the value of the site "as if vacant." The property owner's appraiser determined the highest and best use for the property in its current state was as a restaurant.

With the county appraiser's narrowly defined highest and best use, the county's sale and rent examples of comparable properties focused heavily on nationally branded fast food restaurants (i.e. Burger King, Arby's, KFC and Taco Bell). The BTA determined that the county's appraisal evidence was more credible because it considered the county's comparables more closely matched the subject property.

By analyzing primarily national brands, the county's appraiser concluded a $1.9 million value. Finding the use of the national fast food comparable data convincing, the BTA increased the assessment from the county's initial $1.3 million to the county appraiser's $1.9 million conclusion.

On appeal from the BTA, the Ninth District Court of Appeals deferred to the BTA's finding that the county's appraiser was more credible, noting "the determination of [the credibility of evidence and witnesses]…is primarily within the province of the taxing authorities."

Questionable comparables

Standard appraisal practices demand that an appraiser's conclusion to such a narrow highest and best use must be supported with well-researched data and careful analysis. Comparable data using leased-fee or lease-encumbered sales provides no credible evidence of the use for which similar real property is being acquired. Similarly, build-to-suit leases used as comparable rentals provide no evidence of the use for which a property available for lease on a competitive and open market will be used. However, this is exactly the type of data and research the county's appraiser relied upon.

A complete and accurate analysis of highest and best use requires "[a] n understanding of market behavior developed through market analysis," according to the Appraisal Institute's industry standard, The Appraisal of Real Estate, 14th Edition. The Appraisal Institute defines highest and best use as "the reasonably probable use of property that results in the highest value."

By contrast, the Appraisal Institute states the "most profitable use" relates to investment value, which differs from market value. The Appraisal of Real Estate defines investment value as "the value of a certain property to a particular investor given the investor's investment criteria."

In the McDonald's case, however, the county appraiser's highest and best use analysis lacks any analysis of what it would cost a national fast food chain to build a new restaurant, nor does it acknowledge that the costs of remodeling the existing improvements need to be considered.

If real estate is to be valued fairly and uniformly as Ohio law requires, then boards of revision, the BTA and appellate courts must take seriously the open market value concept clarified for Ohio in a pivotal 1964 case, State ex rel. Park Invest. Co. v. Bd. of Tax Appeals. In that case, the court held that "the value or true value in money of any property is the amount for which that property would sell on the open market by a willing seller to a willing buyer. In essence, the value of property is the amount of money for which it may be exchanged, i.e., the sales price."

Taxpayers beware

This McDonald's case is not the only instance where an overly narrow and unsupported highest and best use appraisal analysis resulted in an over-valuation. To defend against these narrow highest and best use appraisals, the property owner must employ an effective defense strategy. That strategy includes the critical step of a thorough cross examination of the opposing appraiser's report and analysis.

In addition, the property owner should anticipate this type of evidence coming from the other side. The property owner's appraiser must make the effort to provide a comprehensive market analysis and a thorough highest and best use analysis to identify the truly most probable user of the real property.