Jurisdictions Vary in Approach to Taxing Sustainable Measures

"Governments are trying to strike a balance between encouraging (sustainability) and finding taxable value."

By Philip J. Giannuario, Esq. & Brian A. Fowler, Esq., Commercial Property Executive, July 2012

As energy prices soar, the search for economical alternative energy has become a pressing issue for all consumers, including businesses. Solar power represents a burgeoning alternative to fossil fuels. "Green" is all the rage in society today. But it can take a toll in the tax department.

With plentiful open rooftops on big-box retail and warehouse buildings across the country, installation of solar arrays makes sense, on its face, for both the building owner and the solar provider. The building owner can obtain low-cost electricity for its business, while the solar provider benefits from federal tax credits. Solar panels make use of available real estate with zero negative impact on the environment.

But there are assessment issues surrounding structures erected to deliver the new energy.Property tax treatment of this evolving building attribute varies by jurisdiction. Governments are trying to strike a balance between encouraging greater use of sustainable energy systems and finding taxable value in the equipment that generates and transmits the new energy. It stands to be a new source of revenue for taxing authorities if the state is silent as to its taxability.

California has exempted systems built between 1999 and 2016. For the property owner in New Jersey, a renewable energy system that provides all or a portion of the building's energy needs can be deemed to have no effect on the building's assessed value. (While unstated, it is anticipated that a third party would be obligated to pay taxes on the equipment's value.) In Texas, onsite systems are exempt. In states like New Hampshire and Virginia, the effect on property taxation is left to local rule. Some states, such as Utah, have not specifically passed legislation on the matter.

Most jurisdictions have dealt with property tax issues by writing legislation that embraces many forms of sustainable energy. Pennsylvania, by contrast, has focused more on wind turbines, designating the turbine, tower—and even the foundation—as tax exempt.

In states that have remained silent on the issue, the question of taxability is often reduced to an argument over the definition of business personal property versus real property. This frequently centers on the issue of whether the property can be removed.

For the owner-user, solar panels are easily moved from one location to another and could be considered business personal property, but the structure that connects them to the building and its electrical system—or to the electrical grid—is not. The municipality could choose to assess those components of the system as it does electrical systems. Most states have legislation in place to provide the assessor with guidance on addressing business personal property if it is to be taxed as real property.

New Jersey, which exempts business personal property as real property, is also representative of a more disconcerting circumstance: the extension of an exemption only to the owner-user of the power. While the owner-user is entitled to special protection from ad valorem taxation, it is withheld from for-profit entities such as an investor or utility company.

Furthermore, often the owner-occupier that opts to lease its rooftop for the installation of a solar array where the power supplies the building and the excess power is sold to the market could receive an added assessment notice. There are many situations in which a solar firm owns the panels and obtains federal tax credits that can be sold to utilities, all while selling the energy to the building occupants or to the local utility company.

Is the income approach available to the assessor based on the lease rates on the rooftops? Or should the cost approach be implemented to reflect the cost to install the system? Will assessors attribute more value to the roofs of buildings without solar arrays because there is unrecognized potential there? It will be interesting to see how the assessing community reacts to these evolving trends in energy production. Will they go green or go for the green?

Philip J. Giannuario is a partner and Brian A. Fowler an associate at the Montclair, N.J., law firm Garippa, Lotz & Giannuario, the New Jersey member of the American Property Tax Counsel, the national affiliation of property tax attorneys. Giannuario can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. and Fowler at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

"It is not unusual to find situations where appraisers are brought in to assist tax assessors in setting assessments. This is certainly understandable when complicated properties are being appraised..."

By John E. Garippa, Esq., as published by National Real Estate Investor - Online, July 2012

Property owners throughout New Jersey have observed that more tax appeals are headed to trial. More than ever, cases that would have been settled had they occurred a few years ago are now routinely in the litigation track.

What's behind this trend? The most significant reason is that government is under increasing pressure to preserve the municipal treasury. And as the drive for tax revenue brings more taxpayers to court, many of those property owners find an uneven playing field during litigation. The assessment is presumed to be correct until it is overcome by the preponderance of the evidence. The level of proof the taxpayer must provide to reach this standard has become increasingly more difficult to attain.

One useful aid in arguing a property owner's appeal is often overlooked because it comes right out of the appraiser's tool box. The Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) can help to level the playing field for the property owner. Taxpayers need to understand this set of regulations because it affords opportunities to attack the credibility of the taxing jurisdiction's presentation.

Any licensed appraiser in the state of New Jersey is subject to USPAP, which mandates that an "appraiser shall ensure that all appraisals shall, at a minimum, conform to the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice." An appraiser's failure to comply with the provisions of USPAP may be construed to be professional misconduct in violation of New Jersey tax law.

For example, USPAP sets minimal standards for the retention of records, referred to as the "recordkeeping rule." An appraiser must prepare a work file for each appraisal, appraisal review or appraisal consulting assignment. A work file must exist prior to the issuance of any report, and a written summary of any oral report must be added to the work file within a reasonable time after the issuance of the oral report. Such a work file must include the report as well as the information used in creating the report.

The standards set time requirements as well. The work file must be retained for at least five years after preparation or at least two years after final disposition of any judicial proceeding in which the appraiser provided testimony related to the assignment, whichever period expires last. Any appraiser who willfully or knowingly fails to comply with the obligations of this recordkeeping rule is in violation of the state's ethics rule.

In further clarifying the recordkeeping rule, USPAP states that it applies to "appraisals and mass appraisal, performed for ad valorem taxation assignments."

USPAP is adopted by statute, so a violation of its standards may leave a violating appraiser susceptible to sanctions imposed by the governing professional association. In addition, New Jersey's tax statute provides explicitly that for engaging in an act of professional misconduct, the professional licensing board may penalize the offender by suspending or revoking any certificate, registration or license.

It is not unusual to find situations where appraisers are brought in to assist tax assessors in setting assessments. This is certainly understandable when complicated properties are being appraised. Now, however, as the appraiser advises the assessor as to value in setting an assessment, that advice and conclusion is now discoverable by the taxpayer. This presents a significant opportunity for taxpayers to discern the machinations behind the setting of an assessment.

Under USPAP, the appraiser must have a work file demonstrating all of the evidence relied upon to determine that value. It does not matter whether the advice given the assessor is written or oral; the work file must contain written evidence supporting the advice and conclusions given to the assessor. This now becomes a potential gold mine of information that can be used to damage the presumption of correctness of the assessment.

In another common scenario, taxing jurisdictions that rely on outside appraisers to assist the assessor in setting the assessment will typically retain those same appraisers to defend the assessments before the tax court. Because of the backlog of cases in the tax court, this means that an appraiser that originally assisted in setting an assessment could be testifying about value several years after the assessment was set.

This presents an opportunity for the taxpayer to probe the appraisal report prepared for trial and compare it to the work file prepared when the assessment was made. Was the value predetermined because of the early work in setting the assessment? Does the early work erode the conclusions of the later work?

These are all important considerations, and will significantly help to level the playing field against recalcitrant taxing jurisdictions. Appraisers who lend their licenses and credibility to taxing jurisdictions in setting assessments need to be aware that there could be a day of reckoning.

John E. Garippa is senior partner of the law firm of Garippa, Lotz & Giannuario with offices in Montclair, N.J. The firm is the New Jersey and Eastern Pennsylvania 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..

How Wisconsin Supreme Court decision on assessments of specialized manufacturing plants affects owners

"The critical aspect of the case for property owners is the Supreme Court's conclusion that there was a market for continued use of the property, when neither party could identify an example of such a sale..."

By Robert L. Gordon, Esq., as published by Heartland Real Estate Business, July 2012

Wisconsin tax law requires assessors to assess real estate at its fair market value. Whenever possible, that value must reflect recent sales of reasonably comparable property. Longstanding Wisconsin Supreme Court decisions have held that real estate cannot be assessed based on an imaginary or hypothetical market, or at its intrinsic value to the current owner, if that value differs from fair market value. Under those decisions, real estate can only be assessed at what market evidence indicates a third party would pay for the property in the open market.

In the recent case of a specialized plant, the Wisconsin Supreme Court rejected the property owner's argument that the plant was assessed at its intrinsic value to the owner's manufacturing business and not at its fair market value as real estate.

The Background

The plant was built to manufacture a highly specialized food product, using a process regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The manufacturer incorporated unique real estate features — at tremendous cost — to meet FDA standards. These included a spray dryer more than 100 feet tall housed in an 8-story tower, as well as concrete surfaces specially treated to eliminate any air pockets where moisture with microbial growth could reside.

At trial before the Wisconsin Tax Appeals Commission, neither the assessor with the Wisconsin Department of Revenue nor the manufacturer's appraiser could identify a single instance anywhere in the United States where a similar plant had sold for continued use to manufacture the same product. The manufacturer's appraiser concluded that there was no market to sell the property for continued use, and that the highest and best use of the plant was as an ordinary food processing plant.

The assessor, however, speculated that one of the manufacturer's few competitors could be a likely purchaser of the plant, and that there was a market for the plant for continued use. The assessor thus valued the property based on its cost to the manufacturer, including the expensive features added solely to support production of its one specialized product, but disregarding the lack of value of those improvements to a purchaser buying the plant for any other use.

The Decision

The Tax Appeals Commission upheld the Department of Revenue's conclusion that there was a market for continued use of the property to manufacture the same specialized product, thereby upholding the assessment based on the plant's cost to the manufacturer.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the Tax Appeals Commission and rejected the manufacturer's arguments that the plant was being assessed at its intrinsic value to the owner's manufacturing business and that this was inconsistent with prior Supreme Court decisions.

The critical aspect of the case for property owners is the Supreme Court's conclusion that there was a market for continued use of the property, when neither party could identify an example of such a sale. The court held that a "market can exist for a subject property, especially a special-use property, without actual sales data of similar properties being available." The court further stated that "markets are necessarily forward-looking" and that "empirical evidence of past sales activity is certainly informative, but it is not conclusive."

The Net Effect

Traditionally, owners of properties with expensive features included solely to support the business conducted on the property have pointed to a lack of comparable property sales as evidence that the features do not translate into real estate value.

Because of the Wisconsin Supreme Court's conclusions that markets are forward-looking, that lack of evidence of sales is not conclusive, and that a market can exist without actual sales data, it may now become more challenging for taxpayers to contest assessments. This may be especially true for assessments that are primarily based on the cost of features that are valuable only to the current owner.

In the Wisconsin Supreme Court case, the manufacturer argued that affirming the Tax Appeals Commission decision would place an impossible burden on property owners to prove a negative, which is the absence of a market. The court disagreed, stating that taxpayers are only required to present "sufficient contrary evidence" to demonstrate that an assessor's highest and best use conclusion is incorrect based on the existence of a particular market.

As a result, the Wisconsin Supreme Court has left the door open for property owners to claim that there is no market to sell their plant for continued use. In light of the decision, and the statutory presumption that an assessor's conclusions are correct, property owners should be prepared to make a strong case if they intend to establish the absence of a market.

That case might include an analysis of the industry in which the manufacturer operates. Such analysis could attempt to show that there is no one who would purchase the plant to manufacture the same product. Thus, no one would pay what the plant is worth to the current owner to buy the plant as real estate.

Robert L. Gordon is a partner at the Milwaukee law firm of Michael Best & Friedrich LLP, the Wisconsin member of the American Property Tax Counsel. You can contact him via email at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

By Stephen H. Paul, Esq. and Benjamin A. Blair, Esq. as published by IPT - Tax Report, July 2012

On June 4, 2012, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a significant decision in Armour v. City of Indianapolis, No. 11-161, finding that a city's forgiveness of sewer assessments for some property owners without offering refunds to others did not violate the Equal Protection Clause. Applying a rational basis standard of review, the Court held that administrative concerns can be sufficient to justify tax-related distinctions without running afoul of the Constitution.

Introduction
On June 4, 2012, the Supreme Court of the United States decided Armour v. City of Indianapolis, No. 11-161, which affirmed the Indiana Supreme Court's ruling that when a city switches from one method of infrastructure financing to another, the city's decision to forgive certain financial obligations arising under the prior financing method may be justified by administrative concerns even when the forgiveness creates disparate consequences. Although ostensibly a sewer-financing case, the Supreme Court's decision directly affects the scope of state and municipal taxing authority and the impact of the Equal Protection Clause on tax-related distinctions.

Facts
For more than a century, cities in Indiana have been permitted to apportion the costs of infrastructure projects among all affected property owners by a statute called Barrett Law. When a city built a Barrett Law project, the city would divide the total cost of the project equally amongst the affected lots. The city would issue a lot-by-lot assessment and would collect payment of the assessment in the same manner as other taxes. Barrett Law allowed lot owners to pay the assessment either in a single lump sum or as installment payments over a period of 10, 20, or 30 years with accruing interest. Until fully paid, an assessment constituted a lien against the property, and the city could foreclose on the property in the event of a default.

For several decades, the City of Indianapolis (the "City") used the Barrett Law system to fund sewer projects. One of the Barrett Law projects was the Brisbane/Manning Project, which began in 2001. It connected about 180 homes to the City's sewer infrastructure, and in July 2004, the homeowners were sent formal notice of their payment obligations. Each property was assessed $9,278 for the project, with options for 10-, 20-, and 30-year payment plans at 3.5% interest. Thirty-eight homeowners paid the assessment in full.

In 2005, the City adopted a new system of sewer-financing, the Septic Tank Elimination Program ("STEP"), in which each homeowner was charged a flat fee and the remainder of the cost was financed by bonds paid by all taxpayers. STEP had the advantage of lowering sewer-connection costs for individual lot owners. However, more than 40 Barrett Law sewer projects had been constructed before STEP was adopted, and more than half of those projects still had installment paying lot owners, including the Brisbane/Manning Project, which had been in place for only a year. In enacting STEP, the City decided to forgive all outstanding assessments under the Barrett Law system because the system presented financial hardships on lower income homeowners who most needed sanitary sewer service. However, no refunds would be issued for assessments already paid. Thus, while 38 of the homeowners in the Brisbane/Manning project had paid $9,278, others paid as little as $309.27 for the same sewer connection.

The homeowners who had paid in a lump sum brought a lawsuit seeking a refund from the City, claiming that the City's refusal to provide refunds at the same time that the City forgave outstanding assessments of other homeowners violated the Federal Constitution's Equal Protection Clause, which provides that "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the homeowners, and the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment. The Indiana Supreme Court reversed the lower court, finding that the City's distinction was "rationally related to its legitimate interest in reducing its administrative costs, providing relief for property owners experiencing financial hardship, establishing a clear transition from Barrett Law to STEP, and preserving its limited resources." Slip op. at 5. The homeowners appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court to consider the equal protection question.

Holding
In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court held that the City's tax-related distinction was supported by a rational basis and thus did not violate the Equal Protection Clause.

Analysis
The Court began by finding that the proper question was whether the City's distinction between homeowners had a rational basis. Although the Equal Protection Clause strongly protects individual rights in certain circumstances, a classification that does not involve fundamental rights and which does not proceed along suspect lines "cannot run afoul of the Equal Protection Clause if there is a rational relationship between the disparity of treatment and some legitimate purpose." Slip op. at 6. Rational basis review requires deference to reasonable underlying legislative judgments, and legislatures have "especially broad latitude" in creating classifications and distinctions in tax statutes. Id.

The City's classification involved neither a fundamental right nor a suspect classification. "Its subject matter is local, economic, social, and commercial." Id. The City did not discriminate against out-of-state commerce or new residents, actions which would have increased the degree of scrutiny the Court would give to the City's action. The distinction between fully-paid homeowners and those who had their debt forgiven was simply "a tax classification." Id. Hence, the Court found that the case fell directly within the scope of its precedents holding such a law constitutionally valid

if there is a plausible policy reason for the classification, the legislative facts on which the classification is apparently based rationally may have been considered true by the governmental decision maker, and the relationship of the classification to its goal is not so attenuated as to render the distinction arbitrary or irrational.

Slip op. at 7 (quoting Nordlinger v. Hahn, 505 U.S. 1, 11 (1992)).

The Court found that the City's decision to stop collecting outstanding Barrett Law debts was based on rational administrative concerns. Administrative considerations can justify a tax-related distinction. The City's administrative burdens would have included the need to maintain parallel and expensive administrative systems to monitor both the new and the old financing systems, with the possible need to track down defaulting debtors and bring legal action. The fixed administrative costs would have continued to increase on a per-debtor basis as debts were paid off. Further, the City would have to calculate and administer refunds, which would require appropriating funds from other city programs. In other words, the entire purpose of transitioning from Barrett Law to STEP would have been defeated. While the homeowners put forth systems they deemed superior to the one implemented by the City, the Court noted that "the Constitution does not require the City to draw the perfect line nor even to draw a line superior to some other line it might have drawn... only that the line actually drawn be a rational line." Slip op. at 11.

Although the Indiana court held that relieving financial hardship was also a rational governmental concern, the Court noted that it did not need to consider that argument, explicitly holding that "the administrative considerations we have mentioned are sufficient to show a rational basis for the City's distinction." Slip op. at 10. The homeowners correctly stated that administrative considerations could not justify a system where a city arbitrarily allocated taxes among a few citizens while forgiving others simply because it is easier to collect taxes from a few people than from many. "But that is not because administrative considerations can never justify tax differences." Slip op. at 11. "The question is whether reducing those expenses, in the particular circumstances, provides a rational basis justifying the tax difference in question." Slip op. at 12. The Court held that the homeowners had not met their burden of showing that there was no rational basis justifying the distinction.

In a spirited dissent, Chief Justice Roberts noted that the Court had never before held that administrative burdens alone justify grossly disparate tax treatment of those who should be treated alike. "The reason we have rejected this argument is obvious: The Equal Protection Clause does not provide that no State shall 'deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, unless it's too much of a bother.'" Dissent at 4. Similarly, the City's argument that the unequal burden was justified because it would have been "fiscally challenging" to issue refunds "gives euphemism a bad name." Dissent at 5. The dissent disagreed that the City could evade returning money to its rightful owner by the "simple expedient of spending it." Dissent at 6.

The City had been presented with three choices: 1) continue to collect installment payments from all homeowners; 2) forgive the debts of installment-plan homeowners and give equivalent refunds to lump-sum homeowners; or 3) forgive future payments and offer no refunds of past payments. "The first two choices had the benefit of complying with state law, treating all of Indianapolis' citizens equally, and comporting with the Constitution." Dissent at 2. The City chose the third option, and the dissent saw the equal protection violation as plain.

The Ongoing Vitality of Allegheny
The Court's decision in Armour will have a significant impact beyond the limits of Indianapolis' sewer system, particularly in the realm of equal protection challenges to state tax regimes.

The most substantial disagreement between the majority and the dissent, and the area where some commentators have expressed concern, is the continuing vitality of Allegheny Pittsburgh Coal Co. v. Commission of Webster County, 488 U.S. 336 (1989). That case involved a county assessor who valued real property on the basis of its recent purchase price, except where the property had not been recently transferred, in which case the assessment for each property remained essentially flat. The system resulted in gross disparities in the assessed value of generally comparable properties. The Constitution allows a State to divide property into different classes, but the division must not be arbitrary and the distinctions in practice must follow state law. The Supreme Court held that the assessments violated the Equal Protection Clause because the Clause requires that similarly situated property owners achieve rough equality in tax treatment.

The majority in Armour distinguished the earlier decision by emphasizing that Allegheny was "the rare case where the facts precluded any alternative reading of state law and thus any alternative rational basis." Slip op. at 13. There, the assessor "clearly and dramatically violated" a clear state law requirement of equal valuation. In contrast, the City in Armour followed state law by apportioning the cost of its Barrett Law projects equally. State law said nothing about how to design a forgiveness program or how to draw rational distinctions in doing so. Thus, to adopt the view of the homeowners "would risk transforming ordinary violations of ordinary state tax law into violations of the Federal Constitution." Slip op. at 13-14.

The dissent found the equal protection violations to be identical between Armour and Allegheny. Whereas the majority spent little time on the Allegheny decision, the dissent saw the cases as direct analogs, even down to the levels of disparity. Whereas the majority found that the City complied with state law, the dissent viewed the state law as requiring the assessment to be equally apportioned amongst the homeowners. The result of the City's decision was that some homeowners were charged 30 times what the City charged their neighbors for the same service.

The fundamentally different treatments given by the majority and the dissent treatments to Allegheny show that Allegheny is still an important case in equal protection claims relating to taxation. The sides disagreed about how central Allegheny is to the argument for rational basis and the manner in which compliance with state law demonstrates a rational basis.

The majority seems to have taken steps to avoid dealing with Allegheny, despite the obvious parallels between the cases. The Court only discussed Allegheny after finding that the City had a rational basis for the distinction. Whereas Allegheny stands for the notion that failure to comply with state law demonstrates a lack of rational basis, the majority found a rational basis and then read the state law in a way that supported its finding.

The dissent viewed compliance with state law as central to the argument for rational basis. If a City's tax regime fails to comply with state law, it fails rational basis review. Thus while the majority took a broad view of compliance, saying that the assessment itself complied with state law, the dissent took a narrow view of compliance, saying that the end result of the tax regime must comply with state law.

Allegheny, though a "rare case", has long provided taxpayers with some guidance on how to proceed in an equal protection challenge to an unequal tax regime. The decision in Armour shows how rare Allegheny truly is, and how difficult the path for future taxpayers will be. The most significant lesson for taxpayers seeking to overturn a tax regime on equal protection grounds is that the bar is set extremely high. Taxpayers who attack legislative line-drawing have the burden of showing that it was not rational for the City to draw the line to avoid an administrative burden. Slip op. at 12. Taxpayers must show that the administrative burden on the municipality is "too insubstantial to justify the classification." Id. The homeowners in Armour were unable to do so. The discriminatory effect in future cases will need to be egregious in order for taxpayers to successfully show an equal protection violation in light of Armour.

The Impact of Armour on Amnesty Programs
The Court's decision in Armour is also significant because it may be broadly interpreted to give state and municipal governments a wide berth in crafting amnesty programs and other tax policies.

The Court drew a parallel between Indianapolis' assessment forgiveness and other common amnesty programs involving mortgage payments, taxes, and parking tickets. Slip op. at 9-10. The City's distinction between past payments and future obligations is a line consistently drawn by courts between actions previously taken and those yet to come. The Court implied that to overturn the City's sewer-financing distinction would require overturning tax amnesty programs that are regularly used by governments.

The dissent, however, emphasized that the Court's analogy to typical amnesty programs was misplaced. "Amnesty programs are designed to entice those who are unlikely ever to pay their debts to come forward and pay at least a portion of what they owe." Dissent at 5. Because administrative convenience alone does not justify those programs, their constitutionality would not be in question.

The Court's decision continues the line of cases allowing under the Equal Protection Clause distinctions between taxpayers in forgiveness situations. As more states offer tax amnesty programs to increase tax revenues and encourage future compliance, they can feel secure that their programs should receive broad support from the courts, so long as they serve a rational purpose.

Conclusion
The question in Armour was summarized by Justice Breyer, the eventual author of the decision, near the close of oral argument as whether the City's choices were rational. To the majority of the Court – including, notably, Justice Thomas who broke with the conservative wing of the Court – found that administrative considerations alone can justify a tax-related distinction between taxpayers and a city's decision to stop collecting on certain assessments. Despite an invitation by the dissent, the Court refused to say "enough is enough" to continuing pressures on the Equal Protection Clause. The Supreme Court rarely grants certiorari to state tax cases, and the decision in Armour shows that taxpayers will continue to have an high burden when they do reach the courthouse steps.

Benjamin A. Blair, Esq. is a partner in the Indianapolis office of Faegre Baker Daniels, the Indiana 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.

Stephen H. Paul is a partner in the Indianapolis office of Faegre Baker Daniels, the Indiana 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..

One useful aid in arguing a property owner's appeal is often overlooked because it comes right out of the appraiser's tool box. The Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) can help to level the playing field for the property owner.

By John E. Garippa, as published in National Real Estate Investor Online, June 2012.

Property owners throughout New Jersey have observed that more tax appeals are headed to trial. More than ever, cases that would have been settled had they occurred a few years ago are now routinely in the litigation track.

What's behind this trend? The most significant reason is that government is under increasing pressure to preserve the municipal treasury. And as the drive for tax revenue brings more taxpayers to court, many of those property owners find an uneven playing field during litigation. The assessment is presumed to be correct until it is overcome by the preponderance of the evidence. The level of proof the taxpayer must provide to reach this standard has become increasingly more difficult to attain.

One useful aid in arguing a property owner's appeal is often overlooked because it comes right out of the appraiser's tool box. The Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) can help to level the playing field for the property owner. Taxpayers need to understand this set of regulations because it affords opportunities to attack the credibility of the taxing jurisdiction's presentation.

Any licensed appraiser in the state of New Jersey is subject to USPAP, which mandates that an "appraiser shall ensure that all appraisals shall, at a minimum, conform to the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice." An appraiser's failure to comply with the provisions of USPAP may be construed to be professional misconduct in violation of New Jersey tax law.

For example, USPAP sets minimal standards for the retention of records, referred to as the "recordkeeping rule." An appraiser must prepare a work file for each appraisal, appraisal review or appraisal consulting assignment. A work file must exist prior to the issuance of any report, and a written summary of any oral report must be added to the work file within a reasonable time after the issuance of the oral report. Such a work file must include the report as well as the information used in creating the report.

The standards set time requirements as well. The work file must be retained for at least five years after preparation or at least two years after final disposition of any judicial proceeding in which the appraiser provided testimony related to the assignment, whichever period expires last. Any appraiser who willfully or knowingly fails to comply with the obligations of this recordkeeping rule is in violation of the state's ethics rule.

In further clarifying the recordkeeping rule, USPAP states that it applies to "appraisals and mass appraisal, performed for ad valorem taxation assignments."

USPAP is adopted by statute, so a violation of its standards may leave a violating appraiser susceptible to sanctions imposed by the governing professional association. In addition, New Jersey's tax statute provides explicitly that for engaging in an act of professional misconduct, the professional licensing board may penalize the offender by suspending or revoking any certificate, registration or license.

It is not unusual to find situations where appraisers are brought in to assist tax assessors in setting assessments. This is certainly understandable when complicated properties are being appraised. Now, however, as the appraiser advises the assessor as to value in setting an assessment, that advice and conclusion is now discoverable by the taxpayer. This presents a significant opportunity for taxpayers to discern the machinations behind the setting of an assessment.

Under USPAP, the appraiser must have a work file demonstrating all of the evidence relied upon to determine that value. It does not matter whether the advice given the assessor is written or oral; the work file must contain written evidence supporting the advice and conclusions given to the assessor. This now becomes a potential gold mine of information that can be used to damage the presumption of correctness of the assessment.

In another common scenario, taxing jurisdictions that rely on outside appraisers to assist the assessor in setting the assessment will typically retain those same appraisers to defend the assessments before the tax court. Because of the backlog of cases in the tax court, this means that an appraiser that originally assisted in setting an assessment could be testifying about value several years after the assessment was set.

This presents an opportunity for the taxpayer to probe the appraisal report prepared for trial and compare it to the work file prepared when the assessment was made. Was the value predetermined because of the early work in setting the assessment? Does the early work erode the conclusions of the later work?

These are all important considerations, and will significantly help to level the playing field against recalcitrant taxing jurisdictions. Appraisers who lend their licenses and credibility to taxing jurisdictions in setting assessments need to be aware that there could be a day of reckoning.

John E. Garippa is senior partner of the law firm of Garippa, Lotz & Giannuario with offices in Montclair, N.J. The firm is the New Jersey and Eastern Pennsylvania 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.

As high-tech companies downsized in the US, their campuses were left with significant excess space.

"Therein lies the problem for property owners and tax assessors: What is the market value of these older high-tech campuses that were built without an exit strategy as single-user, special purpose properties?..."

By David Canary, Esq., and Cynthia M. Fraser, Esq., as published by Real Estate Forum, May 2012

In the 1970s and 1980s, the explosive growth of technology in the US touched off a construction frenzy of special-purpose, high-tech buildings in campuses designed for single users.

Dubbed flex manufacturing space, these buildings provided large floor plates to accommodate research and design, manufacturing and assembly, storage and distribution. Flex campuses came with fully integrated and interconnected utility systems, with office space typically arranged in what came to be known as cube farms.

These campus headquarters were built at a time when it was desirable and economically feasible for all of these functions to be under one roof, or one location, to facilitate internal communication, maintain control and security of specialized processes and promote internal efficiency.

By the early 2000s, however, demand for these sprawling hightech campuses declined. It became more cost effective to move manufacturing and assembly functions overseas and to reduce transportation costs by locating near emerging global markets. As high-tech companies downsized their operations in the US, their campuses were left with significant excess space.

Therein lies the problem for property owners and tax assessors: What is the market value of these older high-tech campuses that were built without an exit strategy as single-user, special purpose properties? An investigation into the market value of one of these campuses must begin with an analysis of the property's highest and best use.

There are only three scenarios for highest and best use of any improved property, and they are (a) continuation of the existing use; (b) conversion to an alternative use; or (c) demolition of the improvements and redevelopment of the site. A single property may also incorporate some combination of these alternatives. What follows are key points to consider with each approach.

Continuation of existing use. This valuation scenario assumes the owner would be selling or leasing excess space. There may be legal prohibitions and physical limitations to this alternative, however. Although communities embraced these campuses for the jobs they brought to the local economy, zoning ordinances enacted to establish these projects often contain provisions insuring that the properties maintain their campus-like setting, including limitations on ingress and egress, the percentage of accessory uses not directly connected to the high-tech use, signage and parking ratios that are inconsistent with a multi-use property. Frequently, utilities, security systems and the physical configuration of the campus are interconnected, making it impossible to convert the property to a multi-use or multi-tenant facility. In some cases, it is not financially feasible for the owner of a hightech campus to sell or lease excess space because the revenue generated from a sale or leasing would not justify the expense required to convert to a multi-use facility. These costs include tenant improvements, separate metering of utilities and leasing costs. Thus, the excess space becomes functionally obsolete and it is more cost effective to let it go dark.

Converting to an alternative use. An owner/user could consider vacating the entire campus and selling it on the open market. However, potential users for these types of properties are limited due to the property's excessive size (typically 700,000 to two million square feet), age and condition, large floor plates, outmoded technology and lack of demand due to globalization. A campus property may sell if the price is low enough to justify a significant expenditure in converting the campus to an alternative, multi-tenant use. In 2007, for example, real estate developer Benaroya purchased Microchip Technology Inc.'s wafer manufacturing facility, a 700,000-square-foot, 10-building campus in Puyallup, WA, for $30 million, far less than Microchip's asking price of $93 million. Thereafter, Benaroya reportedly invested $45 million to convert the facility into a multi-tenant, state-of-the-art business and technology center. Today, a significant portion of Benaroya's renovated facility remains vacant. Thus, the financial feasibility of converting a high-tech campus property to an alternative use is problematic.

Demolish the improvements and redevelop the site. Because the previous two alternatives may not be legally permissible, physically possible or financially feasible, a number of large high-tech campus properties have been shuttered or demolished. Reported examples are Motorola's manufacturing plant in Mesa, AZ, and IBM's research park in Poughkeepsie, NY. For these reasons, high-tech campuses have been described as white elephants. Their current use is no longer in demand, and they are not suitable for conversion to an alternative, or second generation, use. The valuation and the assessment of these campuses must account for their inherent functional and economic obsolescence, which directly affect their market value.

David Canary is Of Counsel to Garvey Schubert Barer, the Washington, Oregon and Idaho 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.. Cynthia M. Fraser is an owner at Garvey Schubert Barer. She can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. They are based in Portland, OR

Lease Terms Can Impact Property Valuation' "But Tax Assessors May Not Realize It

"The loss of tenant reimbursements ... can have a significant impact on the property's net operating income."

By Douglas S. John, Esq., as published by Commercial Property Executive, April 2012

In the past 24 months, published lease rates have continued to decline or remained flat in most markets and for almost all property types.

But published lease rates tell only part of the story. In an effort to keep and attract tenants, landlords have been forced to offer lease terms that can erode a property's value.

In states where tax assessors rely on leased fee valuations (valuing property based on its actual performance), the rates listed in rent rolls may omit these changes to leases. Similarly, where state law requires tax assessors to use fee-simple assumptions of market rent, published lease data typically reflects either asking rates or reported rates that also ignore the effect of these changing terms. Unfortunately for taxpayers, assessors rely on these sources, which are often unreliable indicators of true market lease rates and can result in inflated tax bills.

Taxpayers and their attorneys must dig deep into the terms of lease transactions and explain to assessors how changing terms impact their property's valuation. Following are some key changes in the leasing market and how they are affecting property values.

Transition from Triple Net to Modified Gross Leases: Tenants with sufficient leverage are no longer inclined to fully reimburse landlords for real estate taxes, insurance or common-area maintenance charges. As a result, when leases are renegotiated, the structure may transition from a triple-net lease to some form of a modified gross or even a full-service lease. A cursory review of the rent roll by the tax assessor may suggest that the rate is unchanged upon renewal. But the loss of tenant reimbursements for expenses can have a significant impact on the property's net operating income, resulting in a significant loss of value.

Free Rent: Free rent is a common inducement landlords use to keep or attract tenants. This can take many forms, with landlords offering from a few months to a year or more. In some distressed retail centers, landlords have been known to give anchor tenants free rent for extended periods as a means of retaining other tenants.

To obtain longer lease terms' "and in some instances in lieu of providing tenant improvement allowances they cannot afford' "landlords are also offering free rent on the back end of a lease rather than the front end, with tenants taking it at month 24, 36 or 48. A rent roll reflecting a 72-month lease may only provide 60 months of rent payments, with the final year rent free. In addition, landlords are offering furniture, equipment, free parking and moving allowances.

These rent concessions typically are omitted from rent rolls or published lease data, masking the extent of a property's economic vacancy, reducing its net operating income and contributing to a loss of value.

Tenant Improvements: Some space users want allowances for tenant improvements. But how a landlord accounts for their cost can significantly affect a property's value. For instance, say a tenant renews its lease at the same base rate as before but the landlord also provides $20 per square foot to rehab the property. If the landlord amortizes the improvements into the renewal lease rate, the rate reflected in the rent roll will overstate the effective lease rate. It is critical to explain to assessing authorities that using lease rates that amortize tenant improvements will result in overvaluation of the property.

Co-Tenancy Clauses: Tenants are also using their leverage to include co-tenancy clauses in leases or renewals that allow them to either reduce their lease rate or terminate the lease if the property's occupancy rate falls below a specific level or if a key anchor tenant moves out of the property. When an anchor tenant goes dark, the impact on the property's value is compounded by the potential loss in rent and expense reimbursements from smaller tenants that may decide to exercise their rights under the co-tenancy clause. The existence of a cotenancy clause may have a ruinous impact on the value of a property and should always be brought to the assessor's attention.

These and many other changes to leases that may be seen in the coming years—such as marginal or nonexistent escalator clauses and FASB rule changes—will continue to weigh down property values. It is critical that taxpayers and their attorneys develop presentations that clearly demonstrate to tax assessors, administrative tribunals and courts how a wide variety of lease changes can affect a property's valuation.

Douglas S. John is an attorney in the Tucson, Arizona, law firm of Bancroft & John P.C., the Arizona and Nevada member of American Property Tax Counsel (APTC), the national affi liation of property tax attorneys. He can 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.

Rather than simply redevelop existing buildings to suit their needs, the build-to-suit model calls for the development and construction of new buildings that match the trade dress of other stores in a national chain. Think CVS pharmacy, Walgreens and the like...

By Michael P. Guerriero, Esq., as published by Rebusinessonline.com, March 2012

The build-to-suit transaction is a modern phenomenon, birthed by national retailers unconcerned with the resale value of their properties. Rather than simply redevelop existing buildings to suit their needs, the build-to-suit model calls for the development and construction of new buildings that match the trade dress of other stores in a national chain. Think CVS pharmacy, Walgreens and the like. National retailers are willing to pay a premium above market value to establish stores at the precise locations they target.

In a typical build-to-suit, a developer assembles land to acquire the desired site, demolishes existing structures and constructs a building that conforms to the national prototype store design of the ultimate lessee, such as a CVS. In exchange, the lessee signs a long-term lease with a rental rate structured to reimburse the developer for his land and construction costs, plus a profit.

In these cases, the long-term lease is like a mortgage. The developer is like a lender whose risk is based upon the retailer's ability to meet its lease obligations. Such cookie-cutter transactions are the preferred financing arrangement in the national retail market.

So, how exactly does an assessor value a national build-to-suit property for tax purposes? Is a specialized lease transaction based upon a niche of national retailers' comparable evidence of value? Should such national data be ignored in favor of comparable evidence drawn from local retail properties in closer proximity?

How should a sale be treated? The long-term leases in place heavily influence build-to-suit sales. Investors essentially purchase the lease for the anticipated future cash flow, buying at a premium in exchange for guaranteed rent. Are these sales indicators of property value, or should the assessor ignore the leased fee for tax purposes, instead focusing on the fee simple?

The simple answer is that the goal of all parties involved should always be to determine fair market value.

Establishing Market Value

Assessors' eyes light up when they see a sale price of a build-to-suit property. What better evidence of value than a sale, right?

Wrong. The premium paid in many circumstances can be anywhere from 25 percent to 50 percent more than the open market would usually bear.

Real estate is to be taxed at its market value — no more, no less. That refers to the price a willing buyer and seller under no compulsion to sell would agree to on the open market. It is a simple definition, but for purposes of taxation, market value is a fluid concept and difficult to pin down.

The most reliable method of determining value is comparing the property to recent arm's length sales, or to a sale of the property itself. It is necessary to pop the hood on each deal, however, to see what exactly is driving the price and what can be explained away if a sale is abnormal.

Alternatively, the income approach can be used to capitalize an estimated income stream. That income stream is constructed upon rents and data from comparable properties that exist in the open market.

For property tax purposes, only the real estate, the fee simple interest, is to be valued and all other intangible personal property ignored. A leasehold interest in the real estate is considered "chattel real," or personal property, and is not subject to taxation. Existing mortgage financing or partnership agreements are also ignored because the reasons behind the terms and amount of the loan may be uncertain or unrelated to the property's value.

Build-to-suit transactions are essentially construction financing transactions. As such, the private arrangement among the parties involved should not be seized upon as a penalty against the property's tax exposure.

Don't Trust Transaction Data

In a recent build-to-suit assessment appeal, the data on sales of national chain stores was rejected for the purposes of a sales comparison approach. The leases in place at the time of sale at the various properties were the driving factors in determining the price paid.

The leases were all well above market rates, with rent that was pre-determined based upon a formula that amortizes construction costs, including land acquisition, demolition and developer profit.

For similar reasons, the income data of most build-to-suit properties is skewed by the leased fee interest, which is intertwined with the fee interest. Costs of purchases, assemblage, demolition, construction and profit to the developer are packed into, and financed by, the long-term lease to the national retailer.

By consequence, rents are inflated to reflect recovery of these costs. Rents are not derived from open market conditions, but typically are calculated on a percentage basis of project costs.

In other words, investors are willing to accept a lesser return at a higher buy-in price in exchange for the security of a long-term lease with a quality national tenant like CVS.

This is illustrated by the markedly reduced sales and rents for second-generation owners and tenants of national chains' retail buildings. Generally, national retail stores are subleased at a fraction of their original contract rent, reflecting pricing that falls in line with open market standards.

A property that is net leased to a national retailer on a long-term basis is a valuable security for which investors are willing to pay a premium. However, for taxation purposes the assessment must differentiate between the real property and the non-taxable leasehold interest that influences the national market.

The appropriate way to value these properties is by turning to the sales and leases of similar retail properties in the local market. Using that approach will enable the assessor to determine fair market value.

Michael Guerriero is an associate at law firm Koeppel Martone & Leistman LLP in Mineola, N.Y., the New York state member of the American Property Tax Counsel. Contact him at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

Taxpayers should review their individual property tax records maintained by the county tax assessor to determine whether the specific facts of their property are accurate. Is the amount of acreage or square footage accurate and up to date, including any additions or demolitions that have occurred?

By Lisa Stuckey, Esq., as published by National Real Estate Investor - Online, March 2012

In this era of computer-generated recordkeeping, Georgia taxpayers should be aware of several areas in which accurate records are critical in the proper valuation of their properties for ad valorem tax purposes. While software and online filing save time, these tools also increase the opportunity for inaccuracy and unfairly high tax bills.

The importance of accurate written records begins with the initial purchase of the property. Georgia law requires property owners to report real estate sales on a PT-61 form, which is filed online with the clerk of the county superior court. This form is transmitted to the county tax assessor, who is required to consider sales in determining the fair market value of property.

Taxpayers should ask themselves if there has been a proper allocation between real and personal property. Examples of personal property include furniture, fixtures and equipment for the operation of hotels. Has there been a proper allocation of tangible vs. intangible property?

A new statute in the Georgia property tax code requires that tax assessors exclude the value of intangible assets such as patents, trademarks, trade names and customer and merchandising agreements. If the reported sale price of a real property contains these intangibles, then inflated tax valuations are likely to occur.

Sometimes there is no allocation in county records of the underlying business being acquired as part of a property transaction. For example, portfolio purchases of convenience stores or daycare centers may reflect only the aggregate purchase price and not a proper allocation of the individual components being acquired. Has there been a proper allocation of specific assets in a multi-property sale transaction? Inaccurate sale price allocation among properties purchased as a portfolio often results in improper tax valuations.

A purchaser with ownership and control of a property must make certain that internal recordkeeping is accurate, for both real and personal property. Inaccuracies can expand over time throughout the length of ownership and life of the property. For instance, owners of personal property may carry pieces of property on their books and ledgers that have been sold, disposed of, moved from the county to another facility owned by the taxpayer, or which are obsolete or no longer in use.

County tax assessors rely upon taxpayers to accurately report property held by the taxpayer in the county on Jan. 1 of each tax year by filing the business personal property tax return. If owners carry over historical purchase prices of personal property without analyzing the facts surrounding current ownership, location, and use of the individual pieces of property, the inaccuracies will result in improper tax valuations of personal property by the county tax assessor. Each passing tax year can compound problems if additional pieces of property are disposed of or moved but continue to be reported to the tax assessor as being held in the county by the taxpayer on Jan. 1.

Real property owners should periodically review and make sure their internal records are accurate. For instance, for office, apartment, retail and warehouse properties, does the software used by the taxpayer to maintain rental records accurately reflect both actual contract rents and the current market rent of the property? Dated and inaccurate market rental rates can be misleading to county tax assessors, who review taxpayer rent rolls to obtain market information used to value commercial properties.

Similarly, for hotel properties, is the actual and market room rate data accurate in all fields of the software, or have record-keepers merely carried over historical market rates that could mislead the tax assessor and cause improperly inflated valuations?

Another area of proper record-keeping involves the actual county tax records. The new Georgia statute requiring county tax assessors to issue annual tax assessment notices to every real property owner places an even greater burden on the tax assessor than in years past, which may result in more factual errors in the county property tax records.

Taxpayers should review their individual property tax records maintained by the county tax assessor to determine whether the specific facts of their property are accurate. Is the amount of acreage or square footage accurate and up to date, including any additions or demolitions that have occurred? Does the county have the correct age for the property, including all of the portions of the improvements, which may have been built at different times?

Along that line, does the county have the appropriate percentage breakdown for the various areas of use at the property, such as office vs. warehouse or rentable area vs. common area? Are the wall heights correct for all portions of the property? These are just a few examples of the type of data maintained by the county tax assessor which must be correct to assist in the accurate valuation of a taxpayer's property.

Electronic records offer many advantages. But savvy property owners invest some of the time they are saving through modern technology, and make sure that inaccurate records related to their property aren't contributing to an overstatement of their tax burden.

Lisa Stuckey is a partner in the Atlanta, GA law firm of Ragsdale, Beal's, Seigler, Patterson & Gray, the Georgia member of American Property Tax Counsel, the national affiliation of property tax attorneys. She can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..