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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Questionable comparables

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

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

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

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

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

Taxpayers beware

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

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

​Without steps by government officials, coronavirus-related property devaluations won't be taken into consideration, warns veteran tax lawyer Jerome Wallach.

U.S. businesses and lawmakers face an array of challenges related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Looking ahead, let's add one more legislative task to that list which, if addressed early, will better enable the economy to bounce back from the current disruption: Provide tax relief for the owners and tenants of commercial properties devalued by vacancy stemming from the virus and efforts to slow its spread.

One of the only tools available to federal, state and community leaders seeking to slow the spread of the disease has been to limit opportunities for person-to-person transmission. Ever-tightening restrictions, either voluntary or enforced, limit or halt the use of commercial properties ranging from restaurants, bars and hotels to call centers, office buildings, stores, entertainment venues and other structures.

While necessary, these measures will drive growing numbers of tenants into distress up to and including closing their doors, defaulting on lease payments or both. Near term, this will slash property income streams and reduce property owners' ability to pay expenses including property tax on partially or fully vacated properties. Longer term, companies struggling to regain their footing and new tenants moving into spaces vacated during the crisis can expect much of their monthly occupancy costs to include a weighty property tax burden based on assessments completed when real estate values were near all-time highs.

Widespread devaluations likely

Even before President Trump declared a national emergency related to the coronavirus on March 13, researchers were tracking widespread commercial real estate devaluations as reflected in REIT performance. The day before the emergency declaration, economists at the UCLA Anderson School of Management concluded that the U.S. had already entered into a recession. The following Tuesday, March 16, news reports of a Green Street Advisors presentation conveyed that the performance of REITs and drop in share prices suggested investors had marked down asset values, on average, by 24% over the course of the previous month. According to news coverage, a Green Street presenter predicted that private market real estate values would decline by another 5% to 10% over the next six months.

Such a rapid decline in property income and market value creates worrisome property tax implications for taxpayers in most jurisdictions. In months to come, when landlords and tenants may anticipate struggling to recover from the pandemic in a flat or recessionary economic environment, they can also expect to receive property tax bills (or tax liability passed through and attached to their lease obligation) based on pre-crisis property values. In many cases, those assessed values will far exceed current fair market value.

Assessors in the jurisdiction in which this writer practices value real property for ad valorem tax purposes as of the first year in a two-year cycle. This means that, for most local owners, property tax bills they receive this year and last year both reflect their property's fair market value as of Jan. 1, 2019. The time to appeal the 2019 value as set by the assessor has long since run out. Short of an intervening event such as a fire or tornado damage, or perhaps construction or addition of a building or other physical improvement, the Jan. 1, 2019, base value is effectively carved in stone and is no longer subject to legal review or modification.

In those jurisdictions where the value may be determined later, it is most typically set on Jan. 1 of the current year. Even if time remains to contest those values, however, most tax statutes would treat any change in value occurring after the effective valuation date to be irrelevant to tax bills based on that valuation date.

Appeal to lawmakers

COVID-19's impact on property values will be profound if not catastrophic. It would seem to be a callous response for a government official to say, in effect, "So what? The assessor followed the law and valued your property before the pandemic."

A storied law professor used to tell his students, this writer among them, that "there is no wrong without a remedy." Paying taxes based on a value that no longer exists is a wrong, yet there seems to be no immediate remedy.

Indeed, few tax codes will provide taxpayers with relief from the unfair burden they face in the wake of this sudden, global crisis. Remedy will require educating lawmakers and the public about this pending tax dilemma.

Phone calls, letters, texts and emails to government officials at any level may help. Perhaps, together, we will find a solution that balances government revenue requirements with current property values.

Ask the right questions, understand your rights and develop a strategy to avoid costly mistakes.

When it comes to property taxes, what you don't know can hurt you. Whether it is failing to meet a valuation protest deadline, ignorance of available exemptions or perhaps missing an error in the assessment records, an oversight can cost a taxpayer dearly. Understanding common mistakes — and consulting with local property tax professionals — can help owners avoid the pain of unnecessarily high property tax bills.

Think ahead on taxes

Many owners ignore property taxes until a valuation notice or tax bill arrives, but paying attention to tax considerations at other times can greatly benefit a taxpayer. For example, it's good practice to ask the following questions before purchasing real estate, starting a project or receiving a tax bill:

Does the property qualify for exemptions or incentives? Every state offers some form of property tax exemptions to specific taxpayers and property types. Examples include those for residential home-steads, charitable activities by some nonprofits and exemptions for pollution control equipment. Similarly, governments use partial or full property tax abatements in their incentive programs for enticing businesses to expand or relocate to their communities. While many of these programs are industry-specific, it is important to consider all of the taxpayer's potential resources and the costs and benefits of pursuing each.

In most cases, a taxpayer must claim an exemption or obtain an abatement in order to receive its benefits. Failing to timely do so may lead to the forfeiture of an applicable exemption. If the taxpayer becomes aware after the deadline that it may have qualified for an exemption, it is still prudent to speak with a local professional.

Once the exemption is in place, review the assessment each year to ensure it is properly applied. Additionally, taxpayers and their representatives should closely follow legislative action affecting the exemptions that may be available.

How will a sale or redevelopment affect the property's tax value? For instance, will the sale trigger a mandatory reassessment or perhaps remove a statutory value cap? If a change in use removes an exemption, will it trigger rollback taxes or liability equal to the amount of taxes previously excused under the exemption? Will the benefit of an existing exemption be lost for the following tax year?

Taxpayers that fail to ask these questions risk underestimating their tax bill, which can quickly under-mine an initial valuation analysis and actual return.

Learn whether the purchaser or developer must disclose the sales price or loan amount on the deed or other recorded instruments. If so, avoid overstating the sales price by including personal property, intangible assets or other deductible, non-real estate items. Assessors often use deed and mortgage records in determining or supporting assessed value, and it can be an uphill battle trying to argue later why a disclosed sales figure is not the real purchase price.

Don't assume, without further inquiry, that the tax value will stay unchanged following a sale; nor that it will automatically increase or decrease to the purchase price. In determining market value, the assessor may consider (or disregard) the sale in a variety of ways depending on the jurisdiction, transaction timing, arm's-length condition and other factors.

Perhaps the assessor will change the cost approach assumptions to chase a higher purchase price, or disregard a lower sales price suspected of being a distressed transaction. A local, knowledgeable adviser can help the taxpayer set reasonable expectations for future assessments following a sale or redevelopment.

Plan to review, challenge

Before the valuation notice or tax bill arrives, make a plan to review it and challenge any incorrect assessments within the time allowed. An advocate who thoroughly under-stands local assessment methodologies and appeal procedures can be invaluable in helping to craft and execute a response strategy.

The first hurdle in any property tax protest is learning the applicable deadlines. This can be more difficult than it appears, as local laws don't always require a valuation notice. For instance, some states omit sending notices if the value did not increase from the prior year. Additionally, many states reassess on a less-than-annual basis, although there may be different periods within the reassessment cycle in which appeals can be filed.

It is critical to understand the reassessment cycle and protest periods in every jurisdiction in which a taxpayer owns property. Missing a deadline or required tax payment can result in the dismissal of a valuation appeal, regardless of its merits.

The owner, or the company's agent, should understand not only appraisal methodology but also legal requirements governing the assessor. Is there a state-prescribed manual that dictates the application of the cost approach? Does the assessor use a market income approach to value certain property types?

In some jurisdictions, assessors reject the income approach to value if the owner fails to submit income in-formation by a specific date. In others, submitting income information may be mandatory.

With mass appraisal, assessors often make mistakes that will go undetected if not discovered by the taxpayer's team. Has the assessor's cost approach used the correct build-ing or industry classification, effective age of improvements, square footage, type of materials, number of plumbing fixtures, ceiling height, type of HVAC system, etc.?

Even one small error could skew the final value and should be timely brought to the assessor's attention, whether or not in a formal protest setting.

In addition to correcting the error for future assessments, the owner should determine whether it is entitled to a refund for previous taxes paid and, if so, timely file any refund petitions.

With countless jurisdictions and varying assessment statutes, it is unreasonable to expect a property owner to master property tax law. Yet with proper planning and local advisors, taxpayers can avoid pitfalls they may have otherwise overlooked.

​States that impose inventory taxes put their constituent businesses at a competitive disadvantage.

Inventory taxes pose an additional cost of doing business in more than a dozen states, and despite efforts to mitigate the competitive disadvantage the practice creates for many taxpayers, policymakers have yet to propose an equitable fix.

Virtually all states employ a property tax at the state or local level. The most common target is real property, which is land and land improvements; and tangible personal property such as fixtures, machinery and equipment.

Nine states also tax business inventory. Those are Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Arkansas,Mississippi, Kentucky, West Virginia, Maryland and Vermont. Another four states – Alaska, Michigan, Georgia and Massachusetts – partially tax inventory. In these 13 states, inventory tax contributes a significant portion of overall property tax collections.

From a policy standpoint, however, inventory tax is probably the least defensible form of property tax: It is the least transparent of business taxes; is "non-neutral," as businesses with larger inventories, such as retailers and manufacturers, pay more; and it adds insult to injury for businesses whose inventory is out of sync with finicky consumer buying habits.

A few fixes

Taxpayers have had few options in attempting to reduce inventory tax liability because an inventory's valuation is seldom easily disputed. So, modeling a classic game of cat and mouse, some enterprising businesses would move their inventory to the jurisdiction with the lowest millage, frantically shuttling property about before the lien date. Taxing jurisdictions eventually caught on, however, and many of these states adopted an averaging system whereby taxpayers must report monthly inventory values that are then averaged for the year. So much for gaming the timing of taxes.

The underlying problem is that imposing an inventory tax puts that state's businesses at a competitive disadvantage. At the same time, local jurisdictions cannot easily afford to give up the revenue generated by inventory taxes.

When West Virginia was contemplating phasing out its inventory tax, one state legislator pointed out that the proposal placed elected representatives in the predicament of telling educator constituents the state could not afford to pay them sufficiently, while turning to another group of business constituents and relieving them of a tax burden which would create a hole in the state's revenues.

Some states including Louisiana and Kentucky have implemented creative workarounds, such as giving income or corporate franchise tax credits to businesses to offset their inventory tax liability. But these imperfect fixes add uncertainty and unnecessary complexity to a state's tax code.

For instance, when Louisiana implemented a straightforward inventory tax credit in the 1990s, businesses paid local inventory tax and were reimbursed for the payments through a tax credit for their Louisiana corporation income/franchise tax liability. The state Department of Revenue fully refunded any excess tax credit.

Between 2005 and 2015, however, the state's liability more than doubled. In 2015, the Legislature imposed a $10,000 cap on the refundable amount of an inventory tax credit and allowed any unused portion of an excess tax credit to be carried forward for a period not to exceed five years. Then in 2016, lawmakers increased the fully refundable cap to $500,000 and adjusted how the excess tax credit could be taken, but left the carry-forward period unchanged. This has created another inventory tax timing problem: Businesses now lose any unclaimed excess tax credit at the end of that carry-forward period, and businesses have no assurances that the tax credit amounts won't be lowered or otherwise made less user-friendly the next time the state faces a fiscal crunch.

Kentucky recently implemented its own inventory tax credit system. Even less taxpayer friendly than Louisiana's approach, it provides only a nonrefundable and nontransferable credit against individual income tax, corporation income tax and limited liability entity tax. The state is phasing in the tax credit in 25% increments each year until it is fully claimable in 2021.

Texas has taken a different tack by offering businesses a limited, $500 exemption for inventory tax. Unadjusted for inflation since its implementation in 1997, however, the exemption for business personal property has lost relative value as the cost of living has increased. The Texas Taxpayers and Research Association recently evaluated Texas' inventory tax and found that the $500 exemption in today's dollars is equivalent to only $367 in 1997 dollars. The association further noted that a property valued at $500 generates, on average, a tax bill of $13, which is less than the likely cost of administering the tax. Not surprisingly and quite rightly, the association recommended increasing the amount of the exemption.

Clearly, these workarounds are not really working for this problem. What's the best solution for Louisiana, Kentucky, Texas and the rest of the inventory tax states? Join the rest of the crowd and simply abolish the inventory tax, as a task force created by the Louisiana Legislature recommended in 2016. No more cat and mouse games, no more paltry exemptions and no more convoluted tax credits. At least in this regard, businesses in all states would be on the same competitive footing.

Kieran Jennings of Siegel Jennings Co. explains how taxpayers and assessors ensure a fair system, with tremendous swings in assessment and taxes.

A fundamental problem plaguing the property tax system is its reliance on the government's opinion of a property's taxable value. Taxes on income or retail sales reflect hard numbers; real estate assessment produces the only tax in which the government guesses at a fair amount for the taxpayer to pay.

Assessors' estimates of taxable property value create ambiguity and public scrutiny not found in other taxes, and incorrect assessments can lead to fiscal shortfalls that viciously pit taxing authorities against taxpayers seeking to correct those valuations. Worse yet, the longer a tax appeal takes to reach its conclusion, the worse the outcome for both the taxpayer and government. Paradoxically, swift correction of assessment roll protects the tax authority as well as the taxpayer.

As an example, Utah daily newspaper Desert News reported in December 2019 that, due to a clerical error, Wasatch County tax rolls recorded a market-rate value of $987 million for a 1,570-square-foot home built in 1978. The value should have been $302,000. The Wasatch County assessor said the error caused a countywide overvaluation of more than $6 million and created a deficit in five various county taxing jurisdictions, according to the county assessor. The Wasatch County School District had already budgeted nearly $4.4 million, which it was unable to collect.

How does an overvaluation error cause taxing districts to lose money? In many, if not most jurisdictions, the tax rate is determined in part by the overall assessment in the district as well as the budget and levies passed. Typically, there is a somewhat complex formula that turns on the various taxing districts, safeguards and anti-windfall provisions.

Simply stated, tax rates are a result of the budget divided by the overall assessment in the district. A $1 million budget based on a $100 million assessment would require a 1 percent tax rate to collect the budgeted revenue. If the assessment is corrected after the tax rate is set, however, then not all the revenue will be collected and the district will incur a fiscal shortfall.

The sooner a commercial property assessment is corrected the healthier it is for all involved. In the Utah example, had the error been corrected prior to the tax rate being set there would have been no impact on the taxpayer, the school or any of the taxing authorities.

FAIRNESS FOR THE COMMON GOOD

Most state tax systems are flawed and provide inadequate safeguards for taxpayers—if the tax systems were designed better, there would be less need for tax counsel. By understanding the workings of the property tax system, however, taxpayers can help maintain their own fiscal health as well as help to maintain the community's fiscal well being.

As with all negotiations, it is important to understand the opponent's motivations. Although residential tax assessment typically is the largest pool of overall assessment, taxing authorities know that commercial properties individually can have the greatest impact on a system when they are improperly assessed, to the detriment of schools and taxpayers. That makes it important to act as quickly as possible in the event of an improper assessment. And, importantly, resolutions that minimize impacts to the government can maximize the benefit to the taxpayer.

A lack of clear statutory definitions, political tax shifting or a simple error can cause a breakdown in the tax system. In Johnson County, Kan., the assessor raised the assessments on all big box retail stores, in some cases by over 100 percent. Recently, the Kansas State Board of Tax Appeals found those assessments to be excessive. The board reduced taxable values in several of the lead cases back to original levels, and the excessive assessment caused a shortfall.

The Cook County, Ill., assessor has been in the news for raising assessments on commercial real estate in many cases by more than 100 percent. If those assessments are found to be excessive, it could be detrimental for the tax authorities and taxpayers alike. In Cook County, the assessor has stated that the increase is in response to prior underassessment.

SEEK UNIFORMITY, CLARITY

With tremendous swings in assessment and taxes, how can taxpayers and assessors ensure a fair system? Uniform standards and measurements are the answer.

Like the income tax code, the property tax code is criticized for being confusing and overly wordy. To achieve greater equity and predictability, clarity is key. Defined measures of assessed value and standards to ensure uniform assessment results will help create transparency and ensure fundamental fairness between neighbors and competitors, so that no one has an advantage nor a disadvantage.

All taxpayers must be subject to the same measurement. For instance, a government cannot apply an income tax as a tax on gross income for one taxpayer and on net income for another. Likewise, one taxpayer should not be taxed on the value of a property that is available for sale or lease, and another owner taxed based on the value of its property with a tenant in place. Because tax law under most state constitutions must be applied uniformly, one set of rules must be established for all, and what is being taxed should be clearly defined.

Tax laws often include phrases like "true cash value" and "fair value." To be clear, the only measure of taxable value common to all property types is the fee simple, unencumbered value. The value of a property that is measured notwithstanding the current occupant or tenant is not necessarily the price that was paid for the property; it could be higher or lower. And because this concept is difficult for many taxpayers and assessors to understand, there needs to be a second check on the system; that safeguard is taxpayers' right to challenge their assessment based on their neighbors' and competitors' assessments.

To protect themselves on complex matters, it is often helpful for taxpayers to hire counsel that is intimately familiar with the law, real estate valuation and the local individuals with whom the taxpayer will be negotiating. To reduce the need for counsel, get involved with trade groups and state chambers of commerce, which can aid in correcting the tax system.

Uniform measurements of assessment, the ability to challenge the uniformity of results, and swift resolutions combine to create fairness and stability, which in turn enhance the fiscal health of both taxpayers and tax districts.

​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 may have a significant impact on their property tax liability.

It is often too late when a taxpayer learns that their tax liability for real estate has increased under a new statute or assessment practice. Property owners that fail to keep up with proposed rule changes are at risk of incurring unexpectedly high tax bills at a time when they may be least-prepared to pay them.

Property owners may take for granted that key precepts assessors use in determining taxable value are so widely held and accepted as to be immutable. Almost every state's tax law holds that a property owner pays property taxes on the asset's "real market value.," Real market value is the price a willing buyer and willing seller would agree upon in an open-market transaction

In a retail real estate sector that is still reeling from widespread store closures and mounting competition from e-commerce, the lease rate for a lease in place may not reflect market rent. Thus, it is the "fee simple" estate that is being valued for tax purposes: What rent does the market data support as of the tax assessment's date?

Valuing the fee simple estate at market rent is a significant taxpayer protection in the changing landscape of today's marketplace for retail spaces. Sales of brick-and-mortar stores have plummeted due to changing consumer spending habits, a decline in international tourism spending and a lack of investor demand for many big boxes. It is no secret that internet sales have battered the department store sector. The resulting closures of large department stores have further dampened investors' appetite for large-box spaces, and these effects have trickled down to impair the value of smaller retail spaces.

Assessors question assumptions

In the past several years, some assessing authorities have pushed to change the definition of real market value to disregard the perspective of a willing buyer in an open market, and to instead create a false value as if the property were fully leased at market rates as of the assessment date.

In Oregon, recent rules are being proposed (and the theory tested in court) with the assumption that a property can always receive a stabilized rent in the market place. Thus, an assessor would use a property's expected occupancy and market rent in using the income approach to determine the fee simple interest. The costs to get to a stabilized rent, according to the new rules, cannot be applied to discount the stabilized rent. Thus, a vacated department store, or a brand new vacant building, will be assessed as if it is receiving full market rent, without reflecting any of the costs associated to get there.

For example, the proposed rule states that it is implied in the cost approach that valuation reflect not only construction and materials but also all indirect costs, such as the cost of carrying the investment in the property after construction is complete but before stabilization is achieved, as well as all marketing costs, sales commission and any applicable holding costs to achieve a stabilized occupancy in a normal market. Thus, even though the taxpayer has not yet incurred all these expenses, they can be added to the taxable value and the taxpayer may not subtract them in arriving at market value for property tax assessment purposes.

The result is that not only will a new vacant space be valued as if it is fully rented, but a second-generation retail space may be assessed under the cost approach as if it is fully leased. The reality of lease-up costs, including holding costs and tenant improvement costs, are simply to be ignored.

The International Association of Assessing Officers (IAAO) recently published a paper titled Commercial Big-Box Retail: A Guide to Market-Based Valuation. This paper appeared to ignore generally accepted appraisal methods for valuing these types of properties and to advocate for the changes in accepted definitions of property rights that taxing entities in many states are now seeking. Importantly, when American Property Tax Counsel reviewed the IAAO's paper, its lawyers found that many of the propositions cited in the paper were based on cases or laws that had been overturned and were clearly inconsistent with established case law and law.

These attempts by the assessing authorities to change the definition of real market valuation for property taxation purposes should worry commercial property owners, and particularly owners of retail properties, given the continuing potential for prolonged vacancy. For these properties to remain viable, the owners need to mitigate all costs, including property taxes.

A reduction in property taxes can benefit a property owner significantly. Oregon has the benefit of a five-year statutory hold, with some exceptions, on a successful appeal to property taxes. Thus, a $100,000 reduction in property taxes through the appeal process could result in a $500,000 savings.

With the assessing authorities' proposed changes to the tax rules, however, market realities and real market value are compromised.

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 taxed fairly.

Here are key considerations for common scenarios.

Property Acquisition

Whether an investor is buying a single property or a portfolio, it is wise to understand how the transaction will affect property taxes going forward. In some taxing districts, the assessors will move the value to 80%-90% of the sale price in the assessment year following an acquisition. If the sale is an arm's length, open market transaction with no unusual investment drivers, there remain few arguments against increasing taxable value to equal the sale price, less personal property.

When running income and expense projections on a potential acquisition, look to how the sale will affect taxable value. To pencil in reasonable budgets, consult with local experts who can zero in on a likely tax rate. Those who know the market can forecast local rate increases with some accuracy.

When there are non-open-market factors in a sale – such as unusual financing, tax shelter exchange considerations or a portfolio value allocation based on forecasts – there is more room to make arguments for a value based on an income approach. In discussing this approach with assessors, the greatest source of disagreement is the capitalization or cap rate used to extrapolate value from the income stream.

For apartments in the Midwest, initial cap rates can range from 4.5% to 6.5%, and assessors will often choose rates from the lower end of the range or use an average. Taxpayers who can demonstrate or work with the assessor to derive the correct cap by using appropriate comparable sales will enjoy a more reasonable value discussion.

Opportunity Zones

An opportunity zone stimulates investment within its perimeter by enabling investors to reap tax benefits on deferred capital gains and spur growth. This vehicle has been of special interest to developers of student and low-income housing. To get the full benefit of the new program, investors must decide to invest in a qualified opportunity fund (QOF) by the end of 2019.

Investors in QOFs which were formed to meet a June deadline must invest these funds into qualified property by year end. Investors that miss the deadline will be subject to IRS penalties. After 10 years of investment, 100% of the gain will be free of capital gains. This can enhance returns considerably.

The race to the year-end finish line could lead investors to initiate apartment deals that fail to meet market development yields. When looking at the values for property tax purposes, the costs of such projects driven by tax advantages can be discounted in a valuation analysis.

Procedural Concerns

Property owners' increased sophistication in challenging assessed values has led many taxing jurisdictions to use procedural arguments to shut down a petitioner's case, citing failure to comply with minute details of technical rules such as income disclosure requirements.

• In some jurisdictions, petitioners must disclose certain information for an appeal to go forward. For example, in Minnesota a petitioner that contests the assessed value of income-producing property must provide a slew of information to the county assessor by Aug. 1 of the taxes-payable year. These include: year-end financial statements for both the year of the assessment date and the prior year;
• a rent roll on or near the assessment date listing tenant names, lease start and end dates, base rent, square footage leased and vacant space;
• identification of all lease agreements not disclosed on the above rent roll, listing the tenant name, lease start and end dates, base rent and square footage leased;
• net rentable square footage of the building or buildings; and
• anticipated income and expenses in the form of a proposed budget for the year subsequent to the year of the assessment date.

The duty to disclose is strictly enforced, even if there is no prejudice to the taxing authority. In the case of an appeal for an apartment project, it would be prudent for a petitioner to clarify with the assessor in advance what data is required. Particularly if there is a commercial component to the project, where license agreements can be considered leases, a prior agreement with the assessor on what is required will remove the risk of a case ending on procedural grounds.

Seniors Housing

Many seniors housing complexes include independent living sections; assisted living areas, usually with smaller unit sizes and limited or no kitchen facilities; and memory care areas with even more limited furnishings, locked access and egress and full-time staffing by case professionals.

No matter what type of living area is involved, the monthly rental payment covers services provided to residents over and above rental of an apartment unit. These services are most intensive and comprehensive for residents in memory care, who require the most direct staff attention and receive all meals and services through the facility.

Even assisted living and independent living residents enjoy significant non-realty services, including wellness classes and other programming, spiritual services, medication dispensing, field trips for shopping or other events, onsite dining facilities and operation, and access to full-time staffing at the facility. These services are part of what residents pay, and it's important when trying to determine the real estate value for tax purposes that the service income component is excluded from the valuation analysis.

Although the market is robust for both multifamily investment sales and construction, taxpayers who apply a data-based approach with knowledge of local market conditions, procedures and opportunities can achieve a reasonable property tax bill.

Investment value is not market value for property tax purposes because the excess value transfers elsewhere, according to attorney Benjamin Blair. But where does the value go?

When a new building enters the market with a headline-grabbing development budget, the local tax assessor is often happy to use the value stated on the construction permit as a blueprint for a high initial tax burden. After all, would a property owner fight an assessment equal to construction cost? The answer is yes, and here is why the taxpayer should file a protest.

Consider this all-too-common scenario: A new building's publicized development cost is, say, $50 million. The first year after the completion of construction, the assessor assigns the property a market value of $50 million. The owner, now a taxpayer, protests the assessment, relying on an appraisal that shows the property's value to be only $40 million.

The initial reaction of virtually every assessor that faces this common pattern is skepticism—skepticism sometimes shared by the judges deciding the tax appeal. How can it be that the property "lost" $10 million in value so quickly? Why would the owner have even constructed the building if it was an economic loser?

An owner who can explain this value loss—or, more accurately, this value transfer—will be better prepared to ensure a property's tax assessments are based solely on the value of the real estate in question. And, when appropriate, that owner will be prepared to challenge inaccurate assessments.

COST IS NOT MARKET VALUE

Anyone who has ever purchased a new car or made-to-order clothing understands that cost may not equal value. Regardless of the price the buyer paid, those items are worth less to the market after the initial sale. The same factors that immediately depreciate a new car or custom suit affect some types of real estate.

A property can have an off-the-rack market value and then minutes later have a resale value that is different. This does not mean that the owner overpaid for the asset. Rather, the owner paid what the asset was worth to that owner, but a second buyer will not necessarily pay the same price at a later sale.

Real estate buyers will not pay for branding elements, design elements or items of personal preference. When a building is built to the specifications of a specific user, the design, layout and components make it unlikely that cost will equal market value. These buildings exist because they are worth the cost to the first user, not because they inherently have an increased market value.

Investment value is not market value for property tax purposes because the excess value transfers elsewhere. The key question is, where does the value go?

WHERE THE VALUE GOES

Circumstances vary and different properties will transfer value in different ways. Here are some common ways it can occur.

The examples of a custom suit or built-to-suit building illustrate how value can transfer to a person or organization, but value can also transfer to another property. For example, a golf course surrounded by homes is unlikely to have a market value equal to its development cost. The golf course's value is not in the golf course alone; much of its value is reflected in the increased sales prices garnered for the surrounding homes. Likewise, amenities in a subdivision or common spaces in a condominium tower have little value on their own because their value is transferred to the adjacent properties.

Value can also transfer within a property. For example, a parking garage or conference center in a suburban office development is unlikely to generate sufficient rent to make those assets independently feasible, but the increase in rents achievable to the adjoining tenant spaces can make those amenities valuable to the whole. Were the parking garage to sell in the open market, it would almost certainly garner a sale price below its development cost.

Finally, value can transfer to the community. A highway interchange will never have a market value equal to its multimillion-dollar price tag, and public transit systems and arenas would never be justified based on ticket sales alone. Communities deem these projects worthwhile, however. The value of such properties transfers to the community.

Similarly, in many markets the cost of "green" building features, such as a green roof or permeable parking surfaces, is rarely recovered upon the property's sale. Developers still incur those development expenses, even when they will not contribute to the property's profitability. The value of those features is transferred to the community, which receives air purification and water retention benefits.

FIGHT FOR TRANSFERRED VALUE

Understanding the concept of transferred value is important, both because it explains the motivations of those who build and own properties that are worth less than cost to the open market, and because it can help to avoid overvaluing the property. Property can be overvalued in many situations—for example, for insurance or financing purposes—but the pain of overvaluation is most acute in property taxation, since overvaluation generates a higher tax bill and corresponding lower profitability for the life of the asset.

Understanding transferred value can also assist enterprising owners in generating additional revenue streams. If part of the property's value transfers to another person, property or the community at large, then the owner may be able to build a case for monetizing the value transferred to others.

In times of stagnant growth and personnel cutbacks, assessors are eager to capitalize on published construction costs. But by explaining how cost relates to market value, and being able to show where the value went, diligent owners and property managers can reduce fixed expenses, lower tenant occupancy costs and ultimately improve profitability.

Protest any tax assessment that doesn't reflect the cost to remediate any existing environmental contamination.

Owners of properties with environmental contamination already carry the financial burden of removal or remediation costs, whether they cure the problem themselves or sell to a buyer who is sure to deduct anticipated remediation expenses from the sale price. Fortunately, New York law allows those property owners to reduce their property tax burden to reflect their asset's compromised value.

Tax types

Most local governments in the United States impose a property tax on real estate as a primary source of revenue, levied and calculated by either ad valorem or specific means. Latin for "according to value," ad valorem taxes are imposed proportionately based upon the market value of the property. Thus, the higher the market value, the higher the real estate tax.

Specific taxes, on the other hand, are fixed sums without regard to underlying real estate value. School, county and town governments nearly always compute real property taxes using the ad valorem method, whereas lighting, garbage or sewer districts typically apply specific taxes. Because school and county/town taxes account for the overwhelming majority of a property tax bill, property owners frequently use assessment litigation concerning the market value of the subject property to reduce assessments and, as a result, lower the real property tax burden.

The cardinal principle of property valuation for tax purposes is that assessments cannot exceed full market value. Many states including New York codify this in their constitutions. The concept of full value is regularly equated with market value, which is the highest price a willing buyer would pay and a willing seller accept, both being fully informed.

Disagreements often arise if the subject property is afflicted with environmental contamination. The treatment of environmental contamination and remediation costs is of particular concern to both owners and municipalities. Owners seeking to depress taxable values and thereby reduce their tax burden claim these expenses dollar-for-dollar off the market value under the principle of substitution. In other words, a proposed buyer would not pay more than $8,000 for a parcel worth $10,000 which needs $2,000 of remediation.

On the other hand, municipalities would prefer the adoption of a rule (either via legislation or court decision) barring any assessment reduction for environmental contamination. Otherwise, they claim, polluters would succeed in shifting the cost of environmental cleanup to the innocent taxpaying public, in contravention of the public policy of imposing remediation costs on polluting property owners and their successors in title.

Pivotal case

Fortunately for property owners, a seminal 1996 court decision guides the treatment of environmental costs to cure taxable value in New York. In Commerce Holding Corp. vs. Town of Babylon, the petitioner purchased 2.7 acres of land in the Town of Babylon, Suffolk County. A former tenant of the property had performed metal plating on the premises and discharged wastewater containing multiple heavy metals into on-site leaching pools, ultimately resulting in the severe contamination of the parcel. The owner filed tax appeals and argued the value of the property should be reduced by the considerable costs needed to clean up the parcel.

As expected, the town's position relied on a public policy approach and urged the court to reject any argument for a reduced assessment. Ultimately, the case traveled to New York's highest court, which summarily rejected the public policy arguments that polluters should not be rewarded with lower assessments.

Instead, the court applied the constitutional and statutory requirements of full market value assessments, holding that the full value requirement is a "constitutional" mandate which cannot be swept aside in favor of public policy. Thus, property must be valued as clean, with the value reduced by the costs to cure the remediation per year. Challenges seeking the limitation or outright reversal of the Commerce Holding case have been continually rejected.

A recent clarification

The New York State Court of Appeals did not address remediation again in a property tax litigation context for almost 20 years after Commerce Holding. In a 2013 case, Roth vs. City of Syracuse, a property owner sought to have the assessment on certain rented properties reduced because of the presence of lead-based paint.

The court declined to expand the application of Commerce Holding in this case for two significant reasons. First, the owner continued to rent the buildings and collect income. Second, the owner had not taken any steps to remove or remediate the lead paint and restore the properties. Thus, to successfully claim an assessment reduction, a property owner should not stand idle but take definitive actions to remediate the property. 

​Savvy commercial owners are employing use restrictions as a means to reduce taxable property values.

Most property managers and owners can easily speak about their property's most productive use, in addition to speculating on a list of potential uses. Not all of them, however, are as keenly aware of their property's specific use restrictions; even fewer realize how those limitations affect the property's value for tax assessment purposes. 

Government-Imposed Restrictions

Local zoning laws impose the most common use restrictions. Their impact on property uses and potential values is commonly understood. A property zoned for development as a retail power center, for example, will generally have a higher market value than a property that is limited to uses, such as auto repair or animal kenneling. Market values are often used to set tax assessment values, so a use restriction that increases or reduces market value will also increase or reduce a property's tax assessment value. 

Less common restrictions that can impair a property's value include covenants or agreements entered into with a municipality. Whether this pertains to the future development of a parking structure, to meet open-space standards, or to fire department ingress and egress lanes these covenants typically limit the owner's ability to fully develop the property and, thereby, reduce its market value. Historical designations by local government also generally reduce a property's market value. This is because they limit the owner's ability to configure the property to produce maximum rental income. 

Even fire suppression requirements reduced market value for one commercial property. This multi-building campus was constructed to suit a technology company, with all fire suppression controls located in a single building. When the technology firm moved out, regulations enforced by the local fire department prohibited the new owner from leasing or selling individual buildings because all but one of the structures lacked onsite control of the existing sprinkler system, those being in another building. 

Semi-private Restrictions 

The complexities of government imposed restrictions pale in comparison with semi-private restrictions that are often created during a property's development. Consider the covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&Rs) on use imposed when property is subdivided for development. 

CC&Rs are not typically classified as "government-imposed," as they are based on an agreement between the developer and property owners within a development. Yet, these covenants do limit how the property may be used. While CC&Rs often govern planned residential developments, they also regulate property usage in some industrial parks and retail centers. Because CC&Rs lack the uniformity of government-imposed zoning laws which, theoretically, would apply equally to competing commercial properties, the restrictions in CC&Rs usually impact property market values negatively by limiting potential uses. 

Another complex area involves easements between adjacent property owners or among multiple owners within a larger development. Like CC&Rs, easements limit property uses and can reduce market value.

Private Restrictions 

The most common private usage constraint is the deed restriction, which prevents the buyer of a property from using it for certain purposes. The treatment of deed restrictions and other limitations imposed by property owners varies by state. In some states like California, property tax assessors must ignore private use restrictions, while in other states, such restrictions are taken into consideration when assessing properties. 

Deed restrictions and other privately imposed usage limitations can significantly affect real estate values. A property restricted to residential use where neighboring properties are allowed retail or industrial uses will have a lower market value. However, if the local tax assessor is prohibited from considering such private restrictions, the property's assessed value may be much higher than the market would otherwise indicate. 

State, Local Laws Often Prevail 

Clearly, use restrictions — whether government-imposed or privately imposed — will usually impact a property's market value. From a property tax perspective, however, an assessor may or may not consider use restrictions in determining taxable value. 

Whether and how an assessor considers use restrictions in an assessment usually depends on state and local tax laws. In California, property tax regulations, court decisions and guidance documents issued by the State Board of Equalization assist property owners in understanding how use restrictions may or may not affect their property's taxable value. 

In some cases, the treatment of use restrictions is based on local tax assessment policies that are not set forth in any particular statute, regulation or court decision. Tax or legal advisers who interact regularly with local tax assessors can be invaluable resources in those jurisdictions. 

Use restrictions play a significant role in property tax assessments. Knowing a property's use restrictions and how those restrictions affect value is crucial to obtaining a fair property tax assessment. Armed with information about their particular use restrictions, savvy property managers and owners will find out how the local assessor uses those restrictions to determine taxable value. In most cases, that will involve collaborating with a professional experienced in handling local property taxes. 

​Cris K. O'Neall is a shareholder with the law firm of Greenberg Traurig LLP in Irvine, California. The firm is the California member of American Property Tax Counsel, the national affiliation of property tax attorneys.