Property Tax Resources


Utah Property Tax Updates

Updated June 2018

Tax Commission Holds that Debt Rate Must Match Capital Structure

The concluding step in deriving a weighted average cost of capital cost is to determine the proper capital structure.  In Appeal No. 15-958 (May 2018), the Tax Commission stated that the capital structure is related to a company’s credit rating and held that “[c]ombining a debt rate from “A” rated companies with a capital structure from mostly “B” rated guidelines companies . . . [was] a mismatch.”  The Commission corrected this error by utilizing an “A” credit rating and a capital structure of “A” rated debt.  Thus, it is important to understand the relationship between a company’s debt rating and its capital structure when determining a weighted average cost of capital.

David J. Crapo, John T. Deeds
Crapo Deeds PLLC
American Property Tax Counsel (APTC)

Continue reading

Virginia Property Tax Updates

UPDATED september 2019

Virginia Year-End Deadlines Approaching

In Virginia, taxpayers typically have three years from the last day of the tax year for which an assessment is made to appeal the assessment to the appropriate Circuit Court.  In most of the large jurisdictions in Virginia, the tax year corresponds with the calendar year.  As a result, most taxpayers have until December 31, 2019 to appeal their 2016 assessments to Circuit Court.  The majority of Virginia locales do not require an administrative appeal before filing to court (the City of Alexandria being a notable exception); however, if you believe your 2016 assessments overstated the value of your properties or otherwise did not fully account for the impact of market conditions, please contact us to review the case and determine whether an appeal can or should be filed before the end of the year.

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.  202-457-7804
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.  202-457-7806
Wilkes Artis, Chtd.
American Property Tax Counsel (APTC)


Continue reading

Washington Property Tax Updates

Updated september 2019

Is Seattle Gaining Ground in Its Quest for an Income Tax?

Washington has multiple longstanding case law precedents holding that income taxes violate the property tax uniformity clause of the state constitution. The state’s voters have repeatedly refused to amend the uniformity clause so as to allow an income tax. Despite these formidable legal and political barriers, the City of Seattle recently adopted a local income tax. This move was challenged by several groups of would-be taxpayers and eventually struck down by a King County trial court judge. The city appealed, hoping for immediate review by the state supreme court, but the high court required review by the intermediate appellate court as the next step. That review recently resulted in another loss for the city, but the court’s surprising rationale raises new concerns. Among other things, the court said the city’s existing property tax could be – perhaps must be -- imposed on income. The case is expected to move on to the state supreme court.

Norm Bruns and Michelle DeLappe
Foster Garvey
American Property Tax Counsel (APTC)


Continue reading

Washington DC. Property Tax Updates

Updated september 2019

New Real Estate Tax Billing System

The District of Columbia’s Office of Tax & Revenue is in the process of developing a new real estate tax billing system. The District has stated that the new billing system will lead to greater efficiency and accuracy in its billing for real estate taxes. This should lead to a decrease in the number of billing related errors (e.g., improper penalty and interest charges) taxpayers face each year. The District plans to roll out the new system by 2021, in time for the Tax Year 2021 bills.

Jonathan L. Cloar
Wilkes Artis,Chartered
American Property Tax Counsel (APTC)

Continue reading

Wisconsin Property Tax Updates

Updated March 2018

Wisconsin Court Of Appeals Holds That Agricultural Land Classification Does Not Require That Crops Be Grown For A Business Purpose

In a decision issued on March 7, 2018, State of Wisconsin ex rel. The Peter Ogden Family Trust v. Board of Review, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals rejected the assessor’s position that crops must be grown for a business purpose for land to qualify for agricultural classification, which requires assessment at significantly below market value.

Beginning in 2012, the land at issue was classified as agricultural and agricultural forest based upon pine trees, apple trees, and hay the landowners planted on the property. In 2016, the assessor concluded that the property failed to meet the agricultural and agricultural forest classifications and reclassified the property as residential.  This resulted in an increase in the assessed property value from $17,100 as agricultural land to $886,000 as residential land.

The landowners objected to the 2016 assessment, and the board of review upheld the residential classification. The landowners filed an action for certiorari review, arguing that the change was erroneous because it was based upon the mistaken belief that for land to qualify as agricultural land, crops grown on the property must be grown for a business purpose. The circuit court upheld the assessment, and the landowners appealed.

The Court of Appeals examined Wisconsin statutes defining “agricultural land” and “agricultural use,” as well as the relevant Department of Revenue rule, and concluded that the plain language of the statutes and rule refers to “growing” the relevant crops, not marketing, selling, or profiting from them. The Court found that the board of review’s position that the land could not be “devoted primarily to agricultural use” without “minimal sales,” “valid economic activity,” and crops being “marketed for sale” was unsupported and contrary to law. The Court further rejected the board’s argument that the assessor did not impose a “business standard” when evaluating the use of the property, concluding that a review of the transcript of the board hearing demonstrated that the assessor and the board clearly—and erroneously—equated “agricultural use” with growing crops for a business purpose.

The Court thus held that to qualify for agricultural classification, it is sufficient that the land be devoted primarily to growing qualifying crops, whether or not those crops are grown for a business purpose.

Marie Bahoora
Michael Best & Friedrich LLP
American Property Tax Counsel (APTC)

Continue reading

Recent Cases Affirm Tax-Exempt Status of Intangible Value

Whether a business is a seniors housing facility, a racetrack or other service-oriented operation - or even a manufacturing plant - part of the business’ value may be intangible and exempt from property tax. Recent court cases underscore this critical premise and provide valuable reference points for taxpayers struggling against unfair tax practices.

Local governments in all states have authority to impose property tax on the value of real estate. Local governments in all but seven states also impose property tax on the value of at least some tangible personal property, or property that can be moved, such as equipment.

But in most states, local authorities are prohibited from taxing any additional value of a business as a going concern, meaning value attributable to a brand, reputation for product quality, intensive management, licenses, contractual rights, proprietary technology, and other intangible assets.

For example, if a manufacturing plant receives additional revenue because it packages items with a well-known brand’s label instead of a generic one, that brand is an intangible asset. In numerous cases it has been seen that the value of intangible assets equal or exceed the value of the taxable property. Whatever the business, removing intangible assets from the property tax bill is key.

California tests intangibles

Some states provide clearer guidance than others on identifying and quantifying intangible assets. California, in particular, has been a hotbed of controversy over the treatment of intangibles in valuation for tax purposes lately.

Stephen Davis, a partner in the Los Angeles law firm of Cahill, Davis & O’Neall, summed up the latest developments during a presentation at the Seattle Chapter of the Appraisal Institute Fall Real Estate Conference in October by saying that major cases in the last two years capped two decades of controversy. He should know, since his firm was counsel of record in the SHC Half Moon Bay vs. County of San Mateo case, decided in May 2014. Davis commented that the result of this new case law has been “a few new controversies instead of a clean resolution,” but much was resolved favourably for taxpayers and provided helpful lessons that should apply anywhere in the nation.

The main takeaway from California’s recent cases is the importance of an appraisal of each intangible asset in order to deduct that value from the overall business value.

In SHC Half Moon Bay vs. County of San Mateo, the four-star Ritz Carlton Half Moon Bay Hotel proved that the assessor inappropriately included in the hotel’s taxable value approximately $2.8 million of exempt value attributable to its workforce and to contractual rights involving a parking lot and golf course. Granting a significant victory to taxpayers, the appeals court made clear that merely subtracting franchise fees from the value indicated by the income approach to value did not account for the value of the hotel’s franchise rights and other goodwill.

What does that mean for taxpayers? Under this case, an appraisal that provides evidence of the value of each intangible asset should result in removing those intangible values from property tax assessments. The reasoning espoused in this decision from California should apply in any state where intangible property is exempt from property tax.

For example, just last year the Montana Supreme Court declared invalid a Montana Department of Revenue regulation that attempted to narrow that state’s broad exemption for intangibles, such as by requiring valuation of goodwill only by the accounting method.

A growing volume of cases argues for valuing the intangible assets of a wide range of businesses by using generally accepted appraisal practices, bolstering the position of taxpayers defending themselves against unfair taxation of those assets.

Source URL:

MDeLappe Bruns Norman J. Bruns and Michelle DeLappe are attorneys in the Seattle office of Garvey Schubert Barer, where they specialize in state and local tax. Bruns is the Idaho and Washington representative of American Property Tax Counsel, the national affiliation of property tax attorneys. Bruns can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. DeLappe can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..
Continue reading

Beware the Income Approach to Property Tax Assessments

A hotel business relies on much more than the combination of daily room rentals to generate income. Understanding this fact is critical to achieving a fair and accurate property tax assessment, because only the tangible portion of the hotel operation is taxable.

A fundamental issue in virtually every hotel property tax case is the question of how to allocate value among the taxable tangible assets and non-taxable intangible assets. Tangible assets include the land, building, furniture, fixtures and equipment. The intangible assets generally include the hotel brand or franchise, the management team, the assembled work force, contracts with vendors and customers, and any goodwill stemming from the hotel’s operations. The appraisal community has debated how to allocate among these assets for the last 30 years, yet significant divisions remain.

When valuing a hotel for property tax purposes, most assessors will attempt to utilize the income approach: They simply deduct the expenses from the hotel’s revenue and divide the resulting net operating income by a capitalization rate, just as they would if appraising an office building or an apartment complex. The resulting value is meant to mirror what the property would sell for under prevailing market conditions.

The problem with this analysis, of course, is that it fails to recognize the significant portion of hotel income that flows from non-taxable intangible assets. These non­taxable assets are present in nearly every hotel transaction, but should not be incorporated into a property tax assessment.

To understand this misapplication of the income approach, it is helpful to view the relationship between a business’ income and the real estate the business happens to occupy. On one end of the spectrum are office buildings and apartment complexes. These commercial enterprises derive almost 100 percent of revenue from the direct rental of real estate.

On the other end of the range are service oriented businesses like law firms. A law firm’s revenue derives purely from services rendered, and bears almost no relationship to the rent paid to occupy office space. As a result, an appraiser would never determine the value of a law firm’s office space by capitalizing the firm’s net operating income. Yet this is exactly how many assessors value hotels.

This is not to suggest that hotels are pure service businesses like a law firm. Hotels are hybrid businesses that fall somewhere in the middle of the range between these two extremes. While a hotel’s revenue is not limited to rent, there are certainly portions of the income which are directly attributable to the hotel’s real estate and taxable personal property. The key is to differentiate, if possible, how the income is derived from the different classes of assets.

Parsing out the income streams attributable to the taxable and non-taxable assets is an absolute requirement when an assessor applies the income approach to a hotel’s property tax assessment. Tax assessors routinely ignore this task, however. If they recognize the concept of intangibles at all, many simply deduct a standard percentage – say 20 percent – to reflect the hotel’s non-taxable assets.

The taxpayer must demand more. If the assessor is using the same methodology to value your hotel as he or she uses to value an office building, there is a problem. Engage an expert who understands the allocation of intangible assets, and ensure that your hotel’s property tax value is limited to the value of your taxable assets.

Mark_Hutcheson90Mark Hutcheson is a partner with the Austin, Texas law firm of Popp Hutcheson PLLC. The firm devotes its practice to the representation of taxpayers in property tax disputes and is the Texas member of the American Property Tax Counsel (APTC), the national affiliation of property tax attorneys. Mr. Hutcheson can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..


Continue reading

Property Taxes Are Not A Fixed Expense

If you have taken an accounting class, your professor likely explained that property taxes are one of the fixed expenses on real estate financial statements. While your professor was technically correct that property taxes are considered a fixed expense in accounting, many property owners, asset managers and investors are finding out that "fixed" certainly doesn't mean always consistent or predictable.

In a recent third quarter earnings call of a large, publicly traded hotel REIT, the discussion contained all the typical metrics on financial performance and forward-looking guidance. The call was overall very positive; however, one particular comment from the chief financial officer raised a critical issue. The REIT had significantly missed its pro forma expenses on property taxes, which had negatively impacted actual earnings. The REIT's miscue on projecting property taxes and the sizable impact on its financial results indicated that planning for this expense item can be particularly difficult, especially during an upswing in the current real estate cycle.

Hotel performance has bounced back from a cyclical low in late 2008, and many U.S. markets are approaching the peak performance levels last reached in 2006. Additionally, investment capital in-flows into the hotel sector are at record highs for public and private REITs, private equity funds and other investors. All these factors have led to record investment volume and investors chasing after a limited number of deals (especially in top-tier markets) and subsequently are driving up hotel asset pricing.

While all this is good news for existing hotel owners and investors, it often creates a budgeting challenge for changes in property taxes. With strong market fundamentals, improving performance metrics and sales volume on the rise, assessors have been quick to increase tax valuations on hotels. Many assessors are recouping much of the value lost during the downturn and have typically been more aggressive than in past cycles.

For example, in late 2013, a mid-sized hotel investor had just acquired its first Texas hotel. The investor had done its own due diligence and projected property taxes to increase by 3 percent ever year of ownership — sound familiar? In early 2014, after closing on the acquisition, the investor reached out for help when the hotel's tax valuation notice had increased 100 percent, almost whiping out projected cash flow. Had the investor called for help prior to closing he could have been warned about the possibility of an increase and properly budgeted for the future tax years.

So, what can owners and investors do to help identify pitfalls in underwriting for property taxes? Here are a few budgeting points that will help to avoid surprises:

Understand the assessment laws and practices in the jurisdiction. All states and many assessors within the same state operate differently, so get the facts straight on local practices. For example, some assessors reappraise at the time of transaction and others only revalue on a set cycle that could vary dramatically from every year to multiple years between a revaluation.

Is there a disclosure requirement? And to what degree will it be used to establish future tax valuations? In Texas, sales disclosure is not required by law. Therefore, a deal with non-disclosure agreements between the parties can be an important aid to budgeting.

Get to know the local political landscape and legislative undercurrents. Any proposed law changes or political pressures on a specific property classes can be a major influence on a prudent budget. Recently, there has been a push in a few areas around the country to increase taxes on commercial properties to try to reduce the escalating tax burden on residential properties.

Find out what is taxable. Hotels are a truly unique asset class and present a major appraisal challenge that could significantly impact property tax projection. Hotels contain real estate, business personal property and intangible value. Some states don't tax personal property (furniture, fixtures and equipment) and others don't tax business intangibles, value associated with a business operation and related to the brand affiliation, contracts, trained workforce, loyalty programs, etc.

Make reasonable assumptions. Using a standard 3 percent growth rate or some other unsupported assumption "just to push the deal through" almost always comes back to haunt budgets later.

Enlist help from a local and knowledgeable expert. If you are budgeting for an acquisition then make sure to consult the experts prior to going under contract on a deal. Make sure the expert understands hotel taxation and valuation. Ask about the specific valuation models and techniques employed by local assessors. If your expert doesn't know those answers, then find an expert who does. Taxpayers managing an existing hotel should seek expert tax advice every budget season.

While no list is exhaustive for every situation, these points will make sure you are on the right path to proper and more accurate budgeting for property taxes.

michael-shalley-activeMichael Shalley is a principal in the Austin, Texas law firm of Popp Hutcheson PLLC, which focuses representation of taxpayers in property tax disputes and is the Texas Member of American Property Tax Counsel (APTC), the national affiliation of property tax attorneys. Mr. Shalley can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

Continue reading

How Government Machinations Can Slash Property Tax Liability

Taxpayers and tax professionals researching market conditions to determine fair market value should consider any impending government actions. Even a rumor of a government project that would require acquisition of a property through eminent domain, or would impose restrictions on future use, can reduce the property's market value and taxable value.

Property values begin to suffer even before community leaders approve the final plans or begin work on such a project. That's because the belief that the project will occur places a cloud on the property owner's ability to sell and on the price attainable in a sale.

A potential buyer would be reluctant to acquire a property that will be involved in future condemnation litigation, with its inherent costs and delays, nor would a buyer welcome the uncertainty that those plans place on the property's future use.

The government taking may not involve acquisition of the property as a whole. Rather, it may remove some rights of use through restricting zoning, creation of conservation corridors or the diversion or rerouting of traffic, for example.

The property value declines because the wheels are turning to take away some of the rights of ownership, perhaps as much as 100 percent of those rights. The property owner carries the burden of convincing the taxing authority of diminished value resulting from rumored or pending acts of government.

Fair market value determinations must match reality. A title search would not reveal the threat of a government taking, but the valuation process cannot assume clear title in the face of the cloud imposed by the contemplated taking of some of the owner's bundle of rights.

An array of public improvements has the potential to affect property values, with an equally wide range of implications for taxable value. "They sky is falling because a highway is coming through here someday" is at the extreme, but other property owners may learn of the future imposition of a conservation easement on coastal properties, or a restriction on land use, allowable sign dimensions, or other rights. Any of these limitations would have a direct and immediate effect on value.

Calculate the damage

When the reality of a government action hits, it may take up to 100 percent of the property's fair market value. The taxpayer should weigh the seriousness of the threat and the probability and timing of it actually occurring. Then the taxpayer should measure the weighted estimate against the value of the property without the threat.

If the property is in "the path of progress," questions to consider in determining its value are: Who will buy it? What is its anticipated economic life? And what purpose will it serve?

First, determine the seriousness of the threat. What is the likelihood of it occurring? Next, calculate the remaining life of the present use of the property in the face of the impending government action. If it is going to happen, when will that be?

In the case of projected highway takings, the probability is high. Once announced, the highway's completion is almost assured. The present use has a limited and uncertain life.

Market observations show that buyers avoid properties in the path of progress. The development of a highway project is a time-consuming process that can hang over a property for years, suppressing value.

Another diminishing value aspect of an impending road taking is that the property/s neighbors may defer, or altogether cease, to maintain their properties, a condition sometimes called "condemnation blight." Broken windows won't be replaced, leaking roofs won't get patched and buyers won't buy. Buyers will purchase, however, a competing property unthreatened by condemnation.

Regulatory threats

Anticipated or threatened taking for regulatory reasons likewise diminishes market value. Suppressed industrial expansion is one example, such as when a local authority announces it doesn't want noise or the use of industrial-use pollutants in proximity to a new residential development.

The force of regulation frequently drives industrial uses away from new residential development or expanding metropolitan uses. Community leaders may deem junkyards or outdoor storage undesirable and force those uses away. Forcing such uses away from the metropolitan area threatens future use of local properties, and therefore limits property value.

Taxpayers need to help taxing authorities understand that the portion of the government that weakens property values by taking away property rights should suffer the resulting loss of property taxes.

Wallach90Jerome Wallach is the senior partner in The Wallach Law Firm based in St. Louis, Missouri. The firm is the Missouri member of American Property Tax Counsel, the national affiliation of property tax attorneys. Jerry Wallach can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

Continue reading

New York Tax Uncertainty

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."

JoelMarcusJoel 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..

Continue reading

American Property Tax Counsel

Recent Published Property Tax Articles

Achieving Fair Taxation Of Big Box Retrofits

Issues to address to ensure a big box retrofit doesn't sustain an excessive tax assessment.

As more and more large retail spaces return to the market for sale or lease, creative investors are looking for ways to breathe new life into the big box. These retrofits saddle local tax appraisal districts...

Read more

Beware of New Property Tax Legislation

​Many states are attempting to change established law, causing commercial property taxes to skyrocket.

No one wants to be blindsided with additional tax liability. This is why many businesses belong to industry groups that closely monitor liability for income taxes. Unfortunately, these same companies rarely stay on top of legislation that...

Read more

How to Reduce Multifamily Property Taxes

Take advantage of the following opportunities for tax savings in the booming multifamily market.

With healthy multifamily market fundamentals and increasing demand from investors, apartment property values are on the rise. For owners concerned about property tax liability, however, there are still opportunities to mitigate assessments and ensure multifamily assets are...

Read more

Member Spotlight


Forgot your password? / Forgot your username?