June 13, 2019

Board of Directors IAAO
IAAO Headquarters 314 West 10th Street
Kansas City, Missouri 64105

Re: IAAO May 2019 Exposure Draft: Setting the Record Straight on Fee Simple

Dear Board Members:

American Property Tax Counsel is the preeminent organization of real estate tax attorneys in North America.Please accept this letter as our official comments in response to the May 2019 Exposure Draft entitled Setting the Record Straight on Fee Simple promulgated by the IAAO Fee Simple Task Force.Consistent with our professional focus, these comments will address property tax policy and the legal implications of the Exposure Draft. As attorneys, our concern is the accuracy of the legal arguments advanced in the paper. The starting point is to ask the question, "why would the assessor's organization attempt to write a paper addressing legal theory and not one on appraisal methodology?"The paper appears to be nothing more than an attempt to support new legal/appraisal theories to gain an advantage in pending litigation and to shape public opinion to support a new way of valuing and taxing commercial properties.

This Exposure Draft reads like a solution in search of a problem.The Fee Simple Task Force has done little to disguise the Exposure Draft as anything but an attempt to tax certain commercial taxpayers differently than all other taxpayers.While perhaps intended as primarily a public relations vehicle, the Exposure Draft undermines the credibility of the IAAO as an organization purportedly dedicated to education and research, and its official adoption would do a disservice to the IAAO's respected assessors.[1]

Sound tax policy requires common ground and uniformity.As recognized in the Exposure Draft, fee simple estate is the foundation of what assessors are often asked to measure.However, while the Draft's authors posit a false premise that "it is essential to clarify fee simple in order to maintain accuracy, consistency, and uniformity in assessment practices," the truth is fee simple requires no further clarification.The most glaring flaw in the Exposure Draft is the unchecked presumption there is some conflict or digression between how the legal and appraisal professions define fee simple.There isn't.[2]

Context matters, and many terms can differ from the legal to the technical or industrial uses.Liabilities in accounting, for instance, can mean short-term or long-term payables.Within the law, a liability in an income tax dispute is understood to mean something different than a liability in a tort case.Similarly, title companies will speak of a fee simple estate or fee simple title and understand that it describes how title will pass to heirs.Appraisers, being in the profession of valuation, must define and communicate how fee simple impacts an asset's value.[3] Even within the legal environment, fee simple can mean that property passes as an inheritable estate in the context of a will, or that a fee simple interest in property is to be valued in the context of assessment or eminent domain.While the phrase "fee simple" can have different implications depending upon the setting in which it is invoked, there is no conflict between the legal and appraisal definitions—in any setting, it is understood to describe the "largest possible estate," "absolute ownership," "broadest interest," and so on.No experienced lawyer or judge is confused by whether "fee simple" in the assessment context invokes questions of inheritability.

States vary somewhat in the terminology used to describe the measure of assessed property, using phrases like "true value," "fair cash value," "actual value," etc., but such phrases are generally understood to mean fair market value.As to what must be assessed, states overwhelmingly agree that the taxable estate should be fee simple.Fee simple is important as a base because the fundamental aspect of assessment in most states is uniform treatment of taxpayers within a class.Some states treat residential, agricultural, and commercial/industrial property as different classes.In other states, all real estate is considered one class.Regardless, the measure of the tax must be the same across the class, and the object being measured must also be the same across the class.Where uniformity is required, one taxpayer cannot be assessed on a fee simple with no lease while a neighbor pays taxes on the fee simple subject to a lease.[4]And in law, the unencumbered fee simple is the only standard that returns uniform assessments.

2.The Definition of Fee Simple Is Already Clear

The Exposure Draft's authors make much ado about the historical evolution of the definition of fee simple but fail to consider the modern evolution of real estate as a tradeable asset.Again, it is worth noting why context is important.Real estate was not a particularly sophisticated investment until the advent of modern financing arrangements, sale-leaseback transactions, and the trading of leases as investment vehicles.As the real estate industry grew increasingly complex, it became necessary for its definitions to get specific.Similarly, the accountants among APTC's membership have observed that the accounting profession and the federal courts interpreting the Internal Revenue Code were also compelled in the early-1980s to address the growing prevalence of sale-leaseback transactions.

The Task Force argues that practitioners are confused by the word "unencumbered," yet the only cases it cites are not even on point.As a matter of law, the Ohio cases in the Exposure Draft have been superseded by the enactment of that state's amended assessment code.Contrary to the Task Force's interpretation, those cases stood for the fact that the prior statute required valuation based on a property's recent sale price even when the sale price reflected atypical circumstances or included the value of non-realty assets.The change in the statute eliminated that issue, as Ohio now mandates that assessors value the fair market value of "the fee simple estate as if unencumbered." R.C. 5713.03, as amended by 2012 Am. Sub. H.B. No. 487 (emphasis supplied to indicate new words added).[5] As for the 9^th Circuit case cited in the Exposure Draft, it is unclear what the Task Force means to suggest by its partial quotations.[6] The rest of the cited paragraph actually recognizes that a freehold estate can be "encumbered or unencumbered," and nothing in the full text of that case indicates the court is confused by that premise or by the definitions it discusses.City of Los Angeles v. San Pedro Boat Works, 635 F.3d 440, 450 (9th Cir. 2011).

As a practical matter, several states have approvingly cited (and sometimes even adopted [7]) the Appraisal Institute's definitions of fee simple and leased fee.In those jurisdictions which have explicitly relied on the recent editions of The Appraisal of Real Estate and/or The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal to explain these concepts, this Exposure Draft would directly conflict with applicable law.And even in states which have not adopted those definitions, most appraisers have been using the Appraisal Institute's definition of fee simple for over 35 years at minimum.No industry or professional association can force upon a state a definition which conflicts with existing laws, and the IAAO should take care not to encourage its members to violate the rules of their jurisdictions.

3.The Bundle of Sticks Endures Because It Is a Useful Metaphor

The example of the bundle of sticks is almost sacrosanct.As a technical matter, the statement, "The bundle of rights or bundle of sticks metaphor originated as a description of real estate, not a fee simple absolute estate" is incorrect.While legal historians debate the origin and evolution of the bundle metaphor there is consensus it came into common usage around the turn of the 19th century to describe ideas of ownership and rights in property, both real and personal.The fact that the bundle metaphor may be misused or misunderstood by some does not necessitate its abandonment or overhaul.As a descriptive tool, it helps most students and practitioners to visualize the interplay between the interests and the encumbrances that impact property rights and affect value.

4. Fee Simple Unencumbered Is the Basis for All Property Tax Liens

It should go without saying, but the value on which the property tax is determined should match the basis for the property tax lien to which it is attached.In every jurisdiction, property tax is a liability of the property, not the owner.When any property is valued for tax purposes, the resulting assessment gives rise to a tax lien that attaches to that property.This in rem obligation means that if the tax is not paid, the lien can be sold for the unpaid taxes.If the owner fails to take steps to satisfy the lien, the purchaser of the tax lien can become the owner of the property.These basic principles underlie every assessment of property tax.

However, the position in the Exposure Draft would cause a valuation of assets that the tax lien does not attach to.When a tax lien is sold, it is sold free and clear of all other liens and encumbrances.The buyer receives title known as "fee simple absolute."That title does not include any liability on a mortgage or any liability (or benefit) arising from a lease. None of those private, contractual rights are part of the lien.Leases and encumbrances are expressly made subordinate to the tax lien. This is because the entire premise of the property tax is that the government can seize and sell "the property" to satisfy the tax lien.

How then, can the value on which the property tax is computed include assets that the tax lien does not attach to?The answer is obvious – it cannot.Respectfully, the position in the Exposure Draft contravenes this basic principle of ad valorem taxation, further demonstrating why that position is incorrect as a matter of property tax law.

5.The paper raises ethical issues that need to be properly addressed.

The IAAO Code of Ethics raises many concerns relative to the paper.For instance, the Code provides:

"It is unethical for members to conduct their professional duties in a manner that could reasonably be expected to create the appearance of impropriety …

It is unethical to perform any appraisal, assessment, or consulting service that is not in compliance with the IAAO governing documents or the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice …

It is unethical for members to accept an appraisal or assessment-related assignment that can reasonably be construed as being in conflict with their responsibility to their jurisdiction, employer, or client, or in which they have an unrevealed personal interest or bias …

It is unethical to accept an assignment or responsibility in which there is a personal interest without full disclosure of that interest …

It is unethical to accept an assignment or participate in an activity where a conflict of interest exists and could be perceived as a bias, or impair objectivity …

It is unethical to knowingly fail to observe the requirements of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice …"

There are pending cases across the country on this very issue, including many in the home states of the authors of this report and members of the Board of Directors.This paper imbeds the IAAO into pending litigation with no acknowledgment of that in the report.The report is silent on the pending matters where one or more authors are a party or are expert witnesses.The paper should not be silent on the conflicts of interest of the authors, the Board of Directors and the organization.

Given its significant authoritative status in the appraisal industry, all appraisers are encouraged to follow the standards in the Appraisal Institute's treatise, The Appraisal of Real Estate. Advocating to specifically reject the definitions in the Appraisal of Real Estate, 14^th edition, the Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, 6^th ed., and local law is antithetical to the IAAO's mission and responsibilities to their membership.

6. Conclusion

As with the IAAO's 2017 white paper on Commercial Big Box Retail, the Fee Simple Task Force is attempting to legislate through its latest paper, without regard to the nuances in each jurisdiction. Fortunately, under the constitutions of nearly all states, the fundamental aspect of assessment is uniformity and the ideas expressed in the Exposure Draft are legally untenable.

The constitutional mandate of uniformity requires that real estate be assessed upon the fee simple, unencumbered, because that is the only definition applicable to all real estate.Office buildings that are leased can be assessed based on fee simple, unencumbered.Single-family homes that are owned can be assessed upon that same standard.Properties held as tenants-in-common can be assessed upon that same standard.Without this "white canvas" standard, assessors would be left with no basis on which to comply with uniformity requirements.

The paper raises issues of ethics, USPAP compliance and creates confusion even within the publications of the IAAO[8].

We urge the IAAO reject the adoption of the May 2019 Exposure Draft Setting the Record Straight on Fee Simple.

Respectfully submitted,

American Property Tax Counsel
BY: Linda Terrill, President

[1] The Exposure Draft's authors are all involved in litigation concerning this issue. Indeed, several are serving as expert witnesses for taxing authorities advocating for the position set forth in the Exposure Draft. Given USPAP's clear prohibition against "Advocacy" by appraisers, the IAAO should not be taking sides in this manner.The paper gives the appearance of "creating" supporting authority because none exists.

[2] Unfortunately, the Exposure Draft's authors fail to cite any authoritative legal definitions of fee simple, relying instead on references to secondary sources.While seemingly obvious, we feel it is necessary to point out that Black's Law Dictionary is binding nowhere.Similarly, although the Restatements are generally more respected, they are likewise nonbinding except in the limited jurisdictions where limited sections have been adopted.Moreover, it is unclear why the Task Force cites to an outdated Restatement.

[3] Brokers and agents may use the term loosely or even incorrectly, but that is not a reason for the appraisal or assessment professions to change a long-accepted definition.

[4] Beyond the problem of non-uniformity, because most states recognize contracts as personal property, such a framework seems doubly unworkable in states where personal property is not taxable.

[5] Importantly, the Ohio cases cited were in large part the basis for the legislative clarification.

[6] The Task Force fails to discuss California's property tax regulations pertaining to fee simple, such as the inclusion of "unencumbered or unrestricted fee simple interest" in the definition of fair market value, the adjustment of the sale price for a property encumbered with a lease to its unencumbered-fee price, and the capitalization of unencumbered net income in the application of the income approach.(18 Calif. Code of Regs., §§ 2(a), 4(b)(2) and 8(d).)The City of San Pedro case does not discuss any of these property tax regulations.

[7] See, for example, In re Equalization Appeal of Prieb Properties, 47 Kan. App. 122, 275 P. 3d 56 (2012).The IAAO cannot advocate for its members to adopt a definition and value real property in violation of their law.

[8] The positions set forth by the taskforce are inconsistent with other IAAO publications below:

Page 12, Property Assessment Valuation 3 ed., starts with a paragraph titled Fee Simple Interest. "The owner of a fee simple absolute interest holds the title to the property free and clear of all encumbrances. The assessor typically values property as an estate in fee simple, unless statutes or administrative rules dictate otherwise. The bundle of sticks example, as well as the acronym SLUGGER stating how the rights in the bundle can be bargained away, is located at page 10, Property Assessment Valuation 3 ed.

At page 11 leases are described as being private encumbrances able to affect fee simple ownership of property. Property Assessment Valuation, 3 ed.

Again, at page 11 both Leased Fee and Fee Simple interests are discussed and the caution that "before a property is valued, the appraiser must know which interests are to be valued." Absolute Ownership—Ownership of all real property rights and interests in a real estate parcel. See fee simple. P. 1, IAAO Glossary for Appraisal and Assessment, 2d ed. Fee Simple—In land ownership, complete interest in a property, subject only to governmental powers such as eminent domain. Also fee simple absolute. See estate in fee simple; fee; and absolute ownership. Page 67, IAAO Glossary for Appraisal and Assessment, 2d ed.

Statutory law continues to require that assessors value only the real estate, not the success or lack thereof, by the owner of the real estate.

Assessors and their minions frequently take the position that an occupied store is more valuable than an unoccupied store, a conclusion commonly referred to as the "Dark Store: theory. Owners of big-box retail properties and their tax advisers bristle at this erroneous contention, because real property taxes are just that– a tax on the value of the real estate.

It is the assessor's function to value the property's real estate components, which consist primarily of land, bricks and mortar; or in the cases of most big boxes, land, concrete, pop-up concrete or metal slabs. It is a common but mistaken practice of assessors to place a greater taxable value on a big box occupied by a major retailer than on a vacant building of equal design, construction and utility.

This errant valuation methodology has given rise to controversy played out through expert testimony and sophisticated argument before administrative agencies and the courts. It is in this context that the term "Dark Store theory" has come into play.

A call to action

Owners of big-box real estate need to deliver a consistent response in the face of this increasingly pervasive and costly misconception. And because informal meetings between the owner's representative and the assessor are limited in time and scope, providing little opportunity for sophisticated argument, these owners must take a position that can be expressed in laymen's terms and understood by the average taxpayer.

That message is that the dark store theory is not a theory at all. It is a reality. The real estate components of occupied buildings have the same value as the real estate components of vacant buildings.

Dark Store theory has become part of the dialogue when valuing commercial properties for taxation. It's vilified as though it were a new concept with dark connotations, like the revelation of a new and insidious scheme by Darth Vader. In fact, its underlying concept is as old as the exercise of determining value for any purpose.

Unless a particular property has actually sold on a particular date, any opinion of its market value is hypothetical. Any such opinion is subject to informed disagreement within the boundaries of accepted valuation methodology. The standards of that methodology, as expressed, for example, in the Uniform Standards of Appraisal Practices, require that the value of a property is based on the willing-buyer, willing-seller concept. The assumption is that a willing buyer wants to buy and use the property.

Logic, not to mention all standards of appraisal practice, dictates that the hypothetical buyer is buying the property for some purpose. Whatever that purpose, it precludes the seller's continuing to use the property. This discussion is independent of a sale-leaseback transaction, which is a financing strategy.

The reality is that the buyer wants to use the property, as is the case across the spectrum of property purchases.

A residential parallel

The same concept applies to the sale of a suburban bungalow. When the Smiths buy a home from the Joneses, they expect the Jones family to vacate the property by the closing date. The Smith family bought the property expecting it to be available for occupancy on the closing date. Nothing about the selling family's success or possible dysfunction affects the purchase price.

In valuing single-family homes, assessors do not discuss the resident families' success (all the children became neurosurgeons). Yet assessors effectively do so in valuing big boxes, which by all valuation standards must be deemed available for occupancy as of the date of closing.

One does not hear the expression "dark house theory," because the assumption of availability of the property for use by the buyer at closing is intrinsic to the transaction. In appraisal parlance, the concept has been and remains that the exchanged property is "free and clear of all encumbrances," ergo vacant, or in current usage, "dark."

Many big boxes, typically measuring in the neighborhood of 100,000 square feet, have come on the market in recent years due in part to changing consumer buying patterns and reduced store counts by retailers. There is a tendency among assessors to over-value properties occupied by the surviving big-box retailers, in effect imposing a form of income tax that they justify by citing retailers' over-all company sales, while turning a blind eye to the availability of big boxes standing dark in the same market.

The sales volume and profits produced by a big-box store are as unrelated to the real estate's value as apple pie is to a computer. Thus, two side-by-side buildings of the same size and specifications, with one housing a high-profit retailer and the other an empty or dark box, have the same real estate value.

​Managing expenses is one of the best ways to ensure the long-term profitability of investment properties, and prudent developers know the importance of carefully monitoring and challenging property tax assessments. But student housing, as a subsector populated largely by tax-exempt educational institutions, presents unique opportunities to minimize taxes for some projects.

Excepting abatements and other local incentives, there are two principal ways to minimize property taxes: The property can be entitled to a statutory tax exemption, or the property can be deemed to have a value of zero dollars. In certain instances, creative structuring can take advantage of these options to improve the developer's cash flow and returns.

Beneficial vs. actual ownership

One of the most potent ways to minimize property taxes is a statutory exemption. For university-owned housing, exemptions will almost always eliminate the tax bill before it arrives in the mail. But what if the property is owned by a private developer, not the university?

Although private ownership by a for-profit entity often sentences real estate to a lifetime of property tax liability, some states disregard formal ownership for property tax purposes, focusing instead on who benefits from the asset. In states adopting this "beneficial ownership" doctrine, the law may treat privately owned properties the same as university-owned real estate, entitling them to exemptions otherwise limited to properties used for educational purposes.

Consider the example of a small private college that wants to develop new on-campus housing, but lacks the resources to borrow the necessary funds to construct the building. Instead, the school contracts with a private developer, which builds the student housing and leases it to the college. The school then operates and maintains the property as student housing, just as it would any other dormitory.

Even though a private developer owns the structure, the benefits of the building go to the college, which may be deemed the beneficial owner of the property. Because the college's intent is not to earn a profit, but rather to support its educational mission by providing housing for its students, the property is exempt.

This structure still allows the developer/owner the right to earn a reasonable return on its investment in the property. This result is logical when one considers that the college's intent is to finance the construction of on-campus housing. If the college financed the construction of a dormitory with a bank loan, the school would not be disqualified from claiming an exemption just because the bank earned a return on its loan.

Precluding profit in this manner would effectively prevent any educational institution from borrowing funds at market rates to finance any construction. Just as the bank is entitled to a reasonable return on its loan, the student housing developer is entitled to a reasonable return on the lease.

Of course, beneficial ownership works in both directions, potentially making an otherwise-exempt property taxable. If university-owned property is leased to a private party who uses it to make a profit, then the property would likely not be entitled to an exemption. Even though the true owner is an exempt educational entity, the beneficial owner is not exempt.

Leaseholds without market value

Even when a property lacks a statutory exemption, however, it will not incur property tax liability if it is deemed to have a negligible market value. An assessed value of zero dollars will always result in zero taxes owed.

A recent case from the West Virginia Supreme Court shows how a new student housing development – or, at least, the developer's leasehold interest in the development – could properly be assessed as having no market value.

In that case, a university leased land to a developer for the purpose of developing student housing with a retail component. The developer constructed the improvements on the leased land at its own expense and transferred title of the new building to the university, which executed a sublease to use the student housing. As the subtenant, the university offered the on-campus housing to students, collecting rent and turning it over to the developer, who then returned 50 percent of the net cash back to the university as a payment on its lease.

The university operated the residential facilities, therefore, while the developer was compensated for constructing the improvements and retained the right to sublease the retail space. The developer's interest in the property was a leasehold.

Because university-owned property is exempt, the university's interest in the property was not taxable. But in West Virginia, leaseholds are taxable real property interests, meaning the developer's interest needed to be assessed. The county assessor concluded that the developer's interest in the property had a value independent from the university's exempt interest, and assessed that interest. The developer challenged the assessment, arguing for a zero value.

The case eventually came before the state Supreme Court, which held that the value, if any, of a leasehold interest is based on whether the leasehold is economically advantageous to the lessee and freely assignable, so that the lessee can realize the benefit of the lease in the marketplace. After all, market value is measured by what the interest could garner if sold on the open market.

If the lease could not be freely assigned to another party, it would have no value in the marketplace. Because the lease was drafted in a way that the assessor conceded was not freely assignable, the Court affirmed that the value of the developer's leasehold interest was zero.

Beware potential pitfalls

The applicability of these strategies to a particular project is fact-dependent. For example, some states, especially those with large amounts of public lands, tax possessory interests. In those states, a government-owned property leased to a private entity can be taxed if the private entity has a "possessory interest" in the real estate. Likewise, privately owned improvements on exempt land can be taxable because the tax is being imposed on the improvement, rather than on the whole property. And assessors eager to increase the tax base can still challenge even the best structuring.

Not all development deals will be ripe for these types of exemption-planning opportunities, nor will all student housing developers find these strategies compatible with their business objectives. Competent tax counsel can help developers weigh the myriad factors that may determine what strategy can deliver the best returns.

But property taxes are one of the largest ongoing expenses of property ownership, so opportunities to minimize their impact on a project's financial results deserve full consideration. With some creativity, developers can improve their own profitability while also helping their academic partners achieve their goals. 

​The American Property Tax Counsel argues that if a property tax assessment is premised on a uniform per-square-foot value, rental rate or vacancy rate for all office properties in a metro area, the assessor is likely going to overlook distinguishing factors in submarkets that could benefit building owners.

Managing fixed expenses is the best way to ensure the long-term profitability of investment properties, especially in a flat market. The largest continuing expense for most commercial properties is the property tax bill, and in a market with skyline-defining properties and headline-grabbing sales prices, tax assessors have multi-tenant office properties in the crosshairs.

Any reduction in tax burden can drastically improve an investment's profitability, competitiveness and tenant retention. As another assessment season begins across the Midwest, understanding tax assessors' common errors can equip property managers and owners with the tools necessary to review the accuracy and reasonableness of the assessments on their office properties and, when appropriate, challenge those assessments.

Know the relevant market

To an outsider, the office market can appear monolithic. To such people, rent, occupancy and other income characteristics of office properties are consistent throughout the market. But pulling data from the wrong market can lead assessors to an incorrect result.

For example, assessors may assume that Class A downtown office towers are the best-performing assets in the market, and value them accordingly. Contrary to this perception, though, Class A properties may not outperform all Class B or Class C properties, and downtown may not be the strongest office submarket in a certain metro area.

Nowhere is the distinction between office submarkets clearer than in the downtown-suburban divide. In many Midwestern markets, suburban office properties tend to be newer, have better occupancy, and in some cases, command higher rents than their downtown competition.

The factors influencing the relative performance of downtown and suburban office properties vary, but they include employees' desire to work closer to their homes, and comparatively low land prices, which allow office building construction with the larger floorplates many tenants prefer. Suburban office markets also typically are able to offer free parking, while paid parking — which is common in the central business district — increases occupancy costs for tenants and their employees. Downtown towers though may appeal to large law firms, accounting firms and banks seeking a prestigious address.

If an assessment is premised on a uniform per-square-foot value, rental rate or vacancy rate for all office properties in a metro area, the assessor is likely failing to consider distinguishing factors in submarkets. Finding those distinctions can benefit owners on either side of the downtown-suburban divide.

Don't blindly trust sales

Assessors are often too reliant on sales data. Although some properties may be valued by considering sales prices for comparable properties, office properties do not neatly lend themselves to such an analysis. Applying the recent sales price of a downtown office tower to all other office towers in the downtown area may seem reasonable on its face, but fails to recognize how buyers and sellers interact in the office market.

For many real estate types, an assessor can identify comparable sales and adjust those transactions to reflect differences between the comparable and subject properties. Unlike owner-occupied buildings, investment properties that are otherwise similar are not easily adjusted for real estate-related factors. This is because market participants do not settle on sales prices based on attributes of the real property, but on attributes of the income stream.

Buyers of multi-tenant office buildings are motivated by the durability of the income stream, reflecting either potential for growth or existing leases with creditworthy, in-place tenants. Knowing a target's income characteristics, buyers apply their own capitalization rate thresholds and back into the sales price. But that price necessarily reflects the particular income stream being purchased, which may have limited applicability to another property. This approach is opposite to the way many assessors believe sales prices are set.

This is not to say that sales of comparable properties are entirely irrelevant in valuing an office property for tax purposes. For example, because capitalization rates reflect the behavior of investors in the market, sales of properties that are comparable as investments can inform the selection of a capitalization rate in a particular analysis. But if an assessor has used a recent sale as the sole basis to set the assessments of the competitive set, whether their assessments truly reflect the market is questionable.

When income isn't income

As income-generating assets, office properties are most commonly valued using the income approach. But even though office rents are not as attributable to personal or intangible property as is, for example, a hotel's income, the rents paid by office tenants are not entirely attributable to the real estate. Simply capitalizing a building's existing income stream mistakenly assumes it is.

The market for office properties in many areas is extremely competitive, and nearly all leases in some markets reflect tenant incentives like improvement allowances. Even long-standing tenants expect such incentives when their leases are up for renewal, and tenants are accustomed to using those allowances to refresh their space. Landlords, in turn, collect marginally higher rent that amortizes those costs over the lease period. But the impact of above-market allowances must be removed from the lease rate in determining the market level of rent. An assessor cannot say that a lease is $15 per square foot if the landlord paid the tenant $5 per square foot upfront.

Assessors also often misunderstand reimbursement income. Triple-net leases are uncommon in the office market; instead, landlords build an assumed level of expenses into their base rent and if the expense exceeds that base-level in future years, the tenant reimburses the landlord for the excess. Some assessors mistakenly view reimbursement income as additional profit. But, as the word "reimbursement" suggests, landlords only collect reimbursement income when, and to the extent, expenses exceed the base amount. Assessors should be reminded that reimbursement income is not a profit center.

As the office market continues its slow expansion, assessors are eager to capitalize on the most visible parts of the city skyline. But by grounding the assessor in the economic realities of the office market, diligent owners and property managers can reduce fixed expenses, lower tenant occupancy costs and ultimately improve profitability.

​Investors should be wary when taxing authorities single out properties to be assessed in a method that is inconsistent with the treatment of other taxpayers in the same class, says attorney Kieran Jennings.

Recently, The New York Times published an article on property taxes imposed on retailers under the headline "As Big Retailers Seek to Cut Their Tax Bills, Towns Bear the Brunt." This and similar articles question the fairness of how retailers have reduced their tax bills by using sales of unoccupied stores as comparable transactions to establish the assessed value for an occupied store.

The local government has cried foul, and the article concentrates on the perceived end result―lost revenue for government coffers.

What is missing from the article is basic tax law, which holds that all taxpayers in a given class must be taxed uniformly. Thus, the series of bad decisions that led local government to overtax retailers made communities dependent on inflated revenue. The initial mistake many assessors made was to seize upon sales prices associated with leased retail stores without critically examining the transactions.

Investors, and taxpayers in general, should be wary when taxing authorities single out properties to be assessed in a method that is inconsistent with the treatment of other taxpayers in the same class.

Most state constitutions specify that taxes must be uniformly assessed, which requires assessors to follow the same rules for all taxpayers within a class. At the most simplistic level, the rules of the game must be consistently applied to all and not changed to affect the outcome.

To understand how equally applied rules achieve fair taxation of property, bear in mind this fundamental truth: The assessor's goal is to measure the value of real estate only. Taxing entities then use that value to determine the tax. A lack of well-thought-out rules and procedures created the problem of non-uniform assessment.

Many states don't even have a clear definition of what they are trying to measure. States use terms such as "true value" or "true market value" without any further defining language. For most people, fair value simply means what a home would sell for in an open-market transaction. But commercial real estate is not that simple and requires clear definitions applied uniformly to all taxpayers.

Commercial property values are influenced by many factors unrelated to real estate. Consider how, under various circumstances, the same property might sell for wildly different values: An owner-occupied property will sell based on what the market will pay for the building once it is vacant, either for the new owner to occupy or as an investment for the buyer to lease-out at market terms.

The same property, were it leased at an above-market rental rate or to a highly credit-worthy tenant, functions much like a bond and will sell based on a market capitalization rate and for a greater price than the owner-occupied property.

Finally, the same property leased with long-term, below-market lease terms or a less credit-worthy tenant might sell for less than the owner-occupied price or the above-market-leased example. In each scenario, the same property sells for different amounts. Without a clear set of guidelines, establishing value based on sales price would be inconsistent even for a single property, much less an entire class.

Of the three scenarios, the only method that can be replicated consistently and applied to owners of both leased and owner-occupied real estate alike is that of the owner-occupied property. Owner-occupied interest is the unencumbered, fee-simple interest, which makes it the measuring stick common to all taxpayers. All other interests are influenced by non-real-estate factors such as lease terms or business value.

Adding to the confusion is the ever-changing commercial real estate sector, where market data is full of sales that include non-real-estate influences. The single-tenant market, for example, has evolved from almost exclusively retailer occupancy to include specialty uses and even nursing homes and hospitals.

The assessment goal should be to measure the real estate value alone, ensuring that all taxpayers are taxed with the same measuring stick, but confusion comes in when the sales alone don't indicate real estate value. Leased sales indicate the value of the real estate along with the tenant's credit-worthiness, the life of the lease and a host of other factors that can include enterprise zones and outside influences.

The court cases that are clarifying the methodology and the measuring stick appear to reduce assessments, when they are actually correcting the assessments and requiring assessors to value the same interests for all taxpayers. Defining terms and ensuring rule uniformity protects all taxpayers. There is no foul to be called and the losses affecting some local governments are the result of their own mistakes.

The cure is simple, but the short-term pain for community coffers is significant. States must establish clear definitions and guidelines around property rights so that assessors can value all real estate without encumbrances. Local governments cannot rely on a single taxpayer subset to carry the tax burden.

​True to campaign promises, the new Cook County assessor has proposed sweeping legislation that borrows the most burdensome tax requirements and penalties from jurisdictions across the country. But will this enhance transparency or simply saddle taxpayers with inaccurate assessments and the need for costly appeals?

The 2018 race for Cook County Assessor ended in Fritz Kaegi beating out incumbent and long-time political powerhouse Joseph Berrios. Kaegi's campaign promises targeted the "insider" game of property tax appeals and proposed to bring fairness and transparency to the Illinois property tax appeal system.

The proposed requirements would only be imposed on commercial or income-producing properties worth more than $400,000, or residential properties with seven or more units worth more than $1 million. Residential properties with six units or less, as well as mixed-use commercial/residential buildings with six or fewer apartment units and less than 20,000 square feet of commercial area, are exempt from reporting income data.

In Cook County, these commercial properties will be required to submit income and expense data to the assessor prior to July 1 each year, and attest to the truthfulness of such information. Counties outside of Cook County may adopt the same requirement.

Property owners who fail to file the required information may receive a notice from the assessor demanding its submittal. If the taxpayer fails to report the income pursuant to the notice, the taxpayer will be fined 2 percent of the previous year's total tax bill. If the taxpayer still does not submit evidence within 120 days of the original notice, the proposal adds a second penalty of 2.5 percent of the prior year's tax bill.

As if these financial penalties were not enough, the taxpayer who fails to provide the information within 120 days is precluded from appealing the subject property's tax assessment. Furthermore, the Cook County State's Attorney's office is granted the right to subpoena the income and expense data from the tax payer on an annual basis.

None of the legislation eliminates the right to appeal to the Board of Review, however.

So, will the proposed statute bring fairness and transparency to the appeal process? No.

Round hole, square peg

The requirement to file income and expense data is not revolutionary. In many cases, taxpayers file appeals based directly on the property's income data rather than incur appraisal expenses. On the other hand, income-producing properties that commission an appraisal will provide the income and expense data to the appraiser in order to explain any differences between the actual rents in the subject property and the market rents used to calculate the assessment. Thus, the new rules will not necessarily bring more transparency to the values of multimillion-dollar commercial properties.

For the institutional investor, the greatest concern about the proposal is the validity and application of the collected income and expense data. As the old saying goes "garbage in, garbage out."

The assessor claims that the collection and aggregation of data directly from taxpayers will help identify the true rental market value of specific real estate. The concern is that taxpayers will be reporting a variety of unadjusted rents rather than market rates. Market rates take into account the differences between gross, modified and triple net leases, as well as tenant improvements, concessions, length of lease, sale-leasebacks and a host of other factors. Without adjustment to market rates, the data will be incorrect and the assessments will be inflated. This will produce a higher rate of appeal on an annual basis and impose greater appeal burdens on all involved.

Furthermore, the new requirements will bring the greatest harm to smaller commercial investors who may not be filing property tax appeals at all. Many of these are mom-and-pop organizations that keep handwritten ledgers and have market values between $400,000 and $1 million. The annual reporting requirement and respective penalties would be financially burdensome to taxpayers in this group, many of whom never undertook the expense of filing an appeal. Now those taxpayers may be open to valuation increases on an annual basis and have to spend money on appraisals and attorney representation.

And transparency?

The proposed statue prohibits "non-personal income and expense data" the assessor collects from being accessed through Freedom of Information Act searches. Does this indicate that the data sets the assessor produces cannot be analyzed by the taxpayer for accuracy? Where is the fairness and transparency in that?

If the statute passes, the hurdle for Illinois taxpayers will be to clearly identify the difference between market rents and actual rents for each of their properties, which may result in extremely burdensome requirements and penalties. The mandated steps may require intricate analysis and could result in property owners expending time and money responding to annual notices for documentation, fines for noncompliance, and the inability to challenge illegal assessments as a right.

Much of the income-and-expense statements, rent rolls and other data the assessor seeks are already available in documentation currently being submitted in support of annual appeals. Based upon this readily available data, the assessor should be able to generate guidelines that reflect current rental rates, occupancy levels and capitalization rates.

If Cook County taxes need reform, this is not the reform.

​The FTZ Act prohibits state and local taxes on tangible personal property.  Here's what you should know about the potential for reducing your tax bill.

Foreign-trade zones can offer substantial tax savings for businesses involved in various aspects of manufacturing and international trade. While there are costs involved in setting up and maintaining such a zone, the prospect of escalating trade wars is spurring companies to explore the FTZ designation as a potential cost-control measure.

First, some background. FTZs are the U.S. equivalent of what are known internationally as free trade zones. Authorized under the Foreign Trade Zones Act of 1934, they are usually in or near U.S. Customs and Border Protection ports of entry, and are generally considered outside CBP control. Many communities have integrated these zones into state or local economic development incentive programs.

Broadly speaking, FTZs are designed to stimulate economic growth and development. In an expanding global market, countries increasingly compete for capital, industry, and jobs, and FTZs promote American competitiveness by encouraging companies to maintain and expand their U.S. operations. The zones accomplish this by removing certain disincentives associated with operating in the U.S.

The best-known incentive is designed to level costs among domestic and foreign- manufactured goods. For a product manufactured in a foreign country and imported to the United States, the duty is based on the finished product rather than on its individual parts, materials, or components.

Domestic manufacturers must often pay duties on multiple parts, materials, or components that are imported to be incorporated into a finished product. When those duty payments are added together, the cost of the finished product is higher than for comparable finished goods. FTZs correct this imbalance by assessing duties on products manufactured in an FTZ as if they were manufactured abroad.

Companies operating in FTZs enjoy a number of other benefits:

• No duties or quotas on re-exports

• Deferred customs duties and federal excise taxes on imports

• Streamlined customs procedures

• Exemption from certain state and local taxes

These benefits become increasingly valuable to domestic companies during trade wars, particularly when the disputants impose steep tariffs on manufacturing parts, materials, and components.

STATE AND LOCAL FTZ RULES

FTZs are subject to the laws and regulations of the U.S., as well as those of the states and communities in which they are located, with one significant exception: The Foreign-Trade Zone Act specifically prohibits state and local ad valorem ("on the value") taxation of imported, tangible personal property stored or processed in one of these zones, or of property produced in the United States and held in the zone for export.

Several states, including Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Texas, Virginia and West Virginia, impose ad valorem tax on business inventory. In a handful of other states, including Alaska, Georgia, Massachusetts, and Michigan, some jurisdictions tax some inventories. But even in these states, most legislatures have carved out "freeport" exemptions from ad valorem taxes on merchandise being shipped through the state.

The problem is, the longer it takes for the merchandise to be shipped out of state, the greater the temptation for an enterprising tax assessor to conclude that the merchandise is no longer actively in transit. In such cases, the exemption may no longer apply and the merchandise could become subject to an inventory ad valorem tax.

FTZs may offer a safe harbor from these taxes. Foreign and domestic merchandise may be moved into a zone for operations, including storage, exhibition, assembly, manufacturing, and processing. Such merchandise may remain in a zone indefinitely, whether or not it is subject to duties. And, while no retail trade of foreign merchandise may be conducted in an FTZ, foreign and domestic merchandise may be stored, examined, sampled, and exhibited in the zone.

Of course, there is a catch. When a proposed FTZ designation could result in a reduction to local tax collections, the zone's governing authority must consider the potential impact on local finances. Specifically, an applicant must identify the local taxes for which collections would be affected, and provide documentation that the affected taxing jurisdictions do not oppose the FTZ designation. Importantly, in jurisdictions that already have "freeport" exemptions to ad valorem taxes, the adverse impact would be limited only to the amount of ad valorem taxes imposed on inventory that is determined by a tax assessor to have come to rest in the state, such that it is no longer subject to the "freeport" exemption.

There are costs associated with FTZs, including application fees and assessments as well as operating fees to maintain the designation. Therefore, individual companies must conduct their own cost/benefit analyses and determine whether these zones are right for them. A competent legal or tax advisor can help to project initial and ongoing costs.

Considering the other trade uncertainties currently buffeting manufacturers, eliminating ad valorem tax exposure alone may warrant using an FTZ.

​Assessors too often value newly constructed apartments as fully occupied, producing excessive assessments.

Developers frequently ask how to estimate property taxes on newly constructed multifamily properties, and tax assessors often provide an easy answer by adding up the value of building permits or by projecting the project's value when fully rented. However, this seemingly simple question grows complex when the assessor's valuation date precedes full occupancy and the ramifications of a wrong answer can linger for years.

Consider these points to value a new multifamily project more accurately.

Valuation Methods

Charged with valuing hundreds or thousands of parcels, assessors often seek a quick way to value a new multifamily project.

The cost approach offers the quickest and easiest route for the assessor, who estimates the current expense to construct an identical structure. One way to do this on a new project is to add the value of the building permits to the land value.

While building costs are clearly a factor in the decision to build, the cost approach ignores the market preference to value income-producing projects based primarily on income.

The assessor's second-easiest option is to rely on an appraisal's stabilization value and ignore the time and cost required to achieve stabilization. In valuing a not-yet-built multifamily project using an income approach, appraisers preparing a financing appraisal should, but don't always, calculate two different values: the "at completion" value and the "stabilized" value.

"At completion" is the project's value when construction is complete but prior to being fully leased. The prospective market value, or "as stabilized," reflects the property's projected market worth when, and if, it achieves stabilized occupancy.

The Dictionary of Real Estate defines stabilized value in terms of the expected occupancy of a property in its particular market, considering current and forecast supply and demand, and assuming it is priced at market rent. To determine a property's fair market value prior to stabilization, one must account for the monetary loss the owner will incur prior to stabilization.

Development Issues

Improvements generally trigger reassessment. The assessor's statutorily mandated valuation date generally ignores the development calendar's key milestones, most importantly the construction commencement, completion and revenue stabilization dates.

The developer makes assumptions during the development process, calculating the cost of building and operating the improvements as well as the rents that can be achieved. This calculation serves as the basis for a pro forma of an income and expense analysis of the project when fully leased.

Construction loans reflect building costs and subsequent time and money needed to achieve full lease-out or stabilization. Banking regulations require the lender to obtain an appraisal. The completed, but not yet stabilized, project incurs costs in the form of income not received during initial leasing, until it reaches stabilization.

Permanent financing depends on the stabilized value, which, in turn, depends on the project's income. Appraisals for permanent loan commitments obtained prior to the project's completion use a prospective valuation date and must contain various assumptions as to the property's financial condition on that prospective date.

The FDIC's Interagency Appraisal and Evaluation Guidelines authorize using a prospective market value in valuing a property interest for a credit decision. The Uniform System of Professional Appraisal Practices requires disclosure of assumptions in an appraisal with a prospective market value, as of an effective date subsequent to the appraisal report's date.

Assumptions regarding the anticipated rent at stabilization and the time required to lease the property are key to calculating stabilized value. Also critical are incentives the owner may offer prospective tenants during lease-up, and the project's projected income once fully leased. The appraisal should clearly disclose these assumptions, but they can still prove incorrect.

Clear disclosure of assumptions is critical. Unfortunately, many appraisers fail to adequately disclose their assumptions, and shortcut to the project's stabilized value.

Valuation Dates

Most state statutes prohibit taxation of improvements while under construction. The project usually comes on line for tax purposes after completion but prior to stabilization.

Being mandated by statute, the valuation date often does not account for where the multifamily project is on the spectrum between completion and stabilization. Unsophisticated assessors charged with valuing these projects often employ mass-appraisal techniques and may value the asset similarly to the market's stabilized properties.

Statutory Caps

Some states cap potential increases in tax value, which may magnify impact of the initial tax valuation. Caps limit increases that would otherwise bring values up to the market. For example, South Carolina properties undergo countywide reassessment every five years, but property values ordinarily cannot increase by more than 15 percent from the previously determined value.

Assessors know that a project's value at completion will nearly always be lower than its stabilized value because stabilization takes time and costs money. Competition may lower the project's achievable income, too. This knowledge can spur assessors to reach for stabilized values regardless of whether the project is yet stabilized. This taxes the unrealized, additional value between completion and stabilized levels.

A Matter of Time

All of the above considerations involve a timing disconnect between the property's actual condition on the statutorily mandated valuation date and its estimated future value based on fallible projections by the lender, developer or assessor. Axiomatically, assumptions don't always hold true. Lease-up may take longer than expected and may require concessions that increase cost. In over-built markets, the stabilized income may be lower than originally anticipated.

Charged with calculating true or fair market value as of a statutorily mandated valuation date, the assessor should examine how the market would value the property as of that date. If the asset has not achieved stabilization, the assessor should discount appropriately for time and financial costs required to achieve stabilization.  That is what the market would do, and is what the assessor is statutorily obligated to do.

And that should be the answer to the seemingly simple question of how to value newly constructed multifamily projects for tax purposes.

​Here's what taxpayers should do if the tax controversy now brewing causes large property tax increases

Recent headlines questioning the taxable values of Atlanta-area commercial properties may threaten taxpayers throughout Fulton County with a heightened risk of increased assessments.

Changes in the Midtown Improvement District, which extends northward from North Avenue and along both sides of West Peachtree and eastward, are rapidly reshaping the Atlanta skyline. Multiple new buildings under construction rise 19 to 32 stories, ushering in more than 2,000 new apartment units as well as hotel and office uses.

Amid this intense construction, Fulton County tax assessors have come under fire in newspaper and broadcast news reports that showed assessed taxable values were well below the acquisition prices paid for many commercial properties. Both Atlanta and Fulton County have ordered audits to determine whether assessors consistently undervalued properties, resulting in lost revenue.

While it may be unsurprising that assessors failed to keep up with rapidly changing market pricing in a development hotspot like Midtown, the news coverage and government scrutiny may pressure assessors to increase commercial assessments across the board. Owners of both newly constructed and older properties should diligently review the county's tax assessment notices, sent out each spring, to determine whether they should appeal their assessed values.

Know the assessment process

Understanding the permissible approaches to valuation is key for the taxpayer to determine whether to appeal an assessment. The two most commonly used methods are the income approach and the market or sales comparison approach, both of which can be problematic if incorrectly applied by the county assessor.

Assessors typically value apartments and office buildings using the income approach. Initially, however, assessors use mass appraisal methods that may not reflect the specific financial realities of the individual property. Taxpayers should examine each of the various components of the county's income model and question whether each element of the formula is appropriately applied to their property.

By utilizing data from the market, has the assessor overestimated the rental rates for the property? Property owners should analyze and discern whether it is beneficial to provide the previous year's rent roll to the assessor in order to argue that the county's model rental rate is inaccurate for their property. An older complex or building may have new competition from a recently built property offering up-to-date amenities. Not only will the older property be at a disadvantage to charge premium rents, but the newer construction is also driving its taxes higher.

Has the assessor used a market occupancy rate that does not correctly indicate the property's occupancy level? In order for the income approach to accurately achieve both physical and economic occupancy, the vacancy and collection loss should take into account both the occupancy rate and concessions that the owner provides to renters to maximize occupancy. Again, in a fluctuating market with new construction competing against old, occupancy rates can be affected.

In using market data, has the assessor underestimated the expenses for the property? Perhaps the expense ratio used is inappropriate for the property. If so, property owners can demonstrate this by providing the previous year's income and expense statement to the assessor, differentiating their property from the mass appraisal model.

A common area of disagreement is the capitalization rate. A capitalization rate is the ratio of net operating income to property asset value. Has the assessor used a cap rate that is derived incorrectly from sales of properties that are not comparable to the taxpayer's property?

Has the assessor properly added in the effective tax rate to the reported base cap rate from the comparable sales because the real estate taxes were not included in his allowable expenses? If the effective tax rate is not added to the base cap rate, and real estate taxes are not included in the expenses, the result is a lower cap rate, and thus, an artificially and incorrectly higher value. An analysis of the accurate application of the sales comparison or market approach is helpful in making the determination of the appropriate cap rate.

Many factors go in to determining if sales are sufficiently similar and can be relied upon. The comparable sales used should be of a similar age as the subject property. Older properties usually command a lower price per unit or lower price per square foot than newly constructed properties.

The comparable sales used should be similar in square footage to the subject property, with similar square footages in the various units within the property, because larger average unit size usually generates higher rents and also results in a quicker lease-up.

Consider the type of purchaser involved in the comparable sale transactions. Private investors typically pay less for properties than institutional purchasers such as real estate investment trusts because REITs are able to obtain lower-cost loans.

Similarly, if below-market-rate financing was already in place and the buyer was able to assume the loan, then the sale price may have been artificially inflated. Another circumstance to examine is, if the seller provided a significant amount of financing in the sale, there may have been unusually favorable financing terms; if so, the sales price must be adjusted.

Another aspect to investigate is the existence or lack of substantial deferred maintenance at the time of sale in comparison to the subject property. The necessity for additional capital expenditures after a purchase can affect the purchase price.

It is helpful to inquire into the effective real estate tax rates of the sold properties in order to determine if they are sufficiently similar to the subject property. Jurisdictions or taxing districts with lower tax rates can cause properties to sell for higher prices. Taxing neighborhoods with higher tax rates tend to generate sales with lower values, and thus, higher cap rates.

All commercial real property owners in Fulton County should carefully examine their tax assessment notices, because higher valuations by county assessors may be on the horizon. Property owners do not want to pay sky-high taxes based on what may be reflexive assessments stemming from the latest headlines.

Tax courts don't always recognize market value in setting property tax assessments.

Most real estate is taxed ad valorem, or according to the value. The theory is that each person is taxed on the value of the real property they own.

The New Jersey Constitution (Article VIII, Section 1, paragraph 1) stipulates that property is to be assessed for taxation by general laws and uniform rules, and that all non-agricultural real property must be assessed according to the same value standard.

Our statutes define the standard of value as the true property value. We call this market value, or the most probable price a property will bring in a competitive and open market under conditions requisite to a fair sale. That assumes the buyer and seller are each acting prudently and knowledgeably, and that the price is unaffected by undue stimulus.

In 2005, the state Tax Court, in a General Motors case, openly admitted it was making a determination that the highest and best use of the property was as an auto assembly facility. By this determination, the court set public policy indicating that this highest and best use fairly and equitably distributed the property tax burden.

In this case the court felt it was necessary to conclude the highest and best use of the property at issue was an auto assembly plant because to do otherwise may allow features of the property to go untaxed and therefore lower the value of the plant. The court also stated that this determination was consistent with and effectuates the public policy of fairly and equitably distributing the property tax burden. All of this was concluded while the market data suggested a different result, given that no auto manufacturing facility had ever before been sold to another automobile manufacturer. Further, by law, the tax court's role is to determine value, not to redistribute the tax burden.

The history of the Tax Court has, in practice if not in theory, interpreted the constitution and statutes of real property taxation to find value in a uniform and stabilized manner. In other words, although the market may vary over a period of years under review, the court would attempt to stabilize the effect of the differences when rendering opinions.

The Tax Court would also set precedent by using methods of valuation not normally used in the marketplace because it deemed the data before it at trial to be lacking. It has, for example, applied a cost approach to determine value when a buyer would purchase a property based on an income approach. This is common in court decisions, but often runs afoul of true market motivations and distorts the conclusion of value. The more the courts reach these types of decisions, the further away they move from concluding market value.

The court's attempt to carry these principles forward has appeared in various ways over the years. As early as 1996, in a case involving a super-regional mall with anchors not separately assessed, the Tax Court deemed the income approach inappropriate to value the stores and instead valued the stores on a cost approach. Today, the legacy of that decision requires plaintiffs to present a cost approach, which is not evidence of market value. This may well distort a property's valuation.

Issues such as capitalization rates are also problematic for certain assets in Tax Courts findings. Over the years, court precedent has set rates that often do not reflect the market. This is especially evident today when valuing regional malls classified as B or C grade. The market capitalization rates are well over those the courts have historically found. Although transactions verify this market data as accurate, the courts fail to recognize it, making it difficult for plaintiffs to prevail with values based on actual, transactional data.

In January 2018, after a number of decisions that rejected plaintiffs' approach, our Tax Court appears to have taken some pause. It recognized that by rejecting proofs from the market and data forwarded by taxpayers, it was ultimately failing to conclude to warranted assessment adjustments.

It stated:

"there has been some criticism of late, that the Tax Court perhaps has raised the bar for meeting the standard of proof too high in property tax appeals, given arguendo, what could be viewed as a growing trend seen in a number of recent decisions, where the court rejected expert opinions and declined to come to value. While such a suggestion may give the Tax Court pause for self-examination and reflection, it must not serve to invite expert appraisers to abrogate their responsibility of providing the court with 'an explanation of the methodology and assumptions used…'"

The quote seems to recognize that the proof bar was getting so high that a plaintiff could never prove its case. A more realistic view of the proofs provided by a taxpayer comes with it the recognition that market data and actions from market participants are the touchstones of value that should establish our assessments.