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

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

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

Selling premium amenities and convenience

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Separate ancillary revenue from real estate value

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

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

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

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

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

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

Outdated valuations create risk of assessment increases under Shelby County's 2025 reappraisal.

In late 1811 and early 1812, West Tennessee's New Madrid Fault produced several earthquakes greater than magnitude 7.0, swallowing the town of Little Prairie, Missouri, in liquefaction and temporarily reversing the flow of the Mississippi River to crest its banks and create Reelfoot Lake.

Almost 200 years later, pseudo-scientist Iben Browning infamously sparked an earthquake frenzy by predicting another major New Madrid quake would occur on Dec. 3, 1990. School children of the 1990's likely still remember earthquake drills in the classroom and "earthquake kits" (trash cans filled with food, water and medical supplies) assembled and stored in basements and garages for years after.

Fortunately, Browning's prognostication was a dud and nothing happened. Still, those living above the New Madrid Fault today know in the back of their minds that "The Big One" could hit at any time.

For taxpayers, that time may be 2025, when Shelby County Assessor Melvin Burgess will reappraise properties countywide to 100 percent of fair market value for the first time since 2021. It may not shake buildings to the ground or flood low-lying areas, but the 2025 reappraisal could do grievous damage to unprepared taxpayers.

Market heat builds pressure

During the Shelby County reappraisal in 2021, the market was recovering from the 2020 slow-down in lending and sales transactions due to COVID-19. The assessor seemed to take the pandemic into account, refraining from aggressively capturing all of the market's growth from 2017 to 2019.

Low interest rates helped transaction volume accelerate in 2021 and the first half of 2022, however, quickly putting distance between the assessor's mercifully low appraisals and actual market value. The real estate market cooled after interest rate hikes in late 2022, but the value differential was already significant. A sales ratio study by the Tennessee Division of Property Assessments indicated the overall level of assessor's value in Shelby County was 75.87 percent of actual market value by Jan. 1, 2023. That ratio could be even lower for individual properties.

Shelby County's 2025 reappraisal program will aim to eliminate such undervaluations. The bigger the current undervaluation, the bigger the taxpayer's potential increase next year.

This is a major flaw in long reappraisal cycles: Undervaluations expand over the course of the cycle like geothermal pressure until the difference suddenly, and sometimes catastrophically, vaporizes in a single year with a massive increase in assessed value.

These delayed assessment adjustments and resulting tax increases make budgeting more difficult than would more frequent but less dramatic reappraisals. The Tennessee Legislature has been considering shorter reappraisal cycles, but none of the proposals have passed both houses yet.

Bad timing for a big setback

Property tax increases are never convenient, but 2025 could be especially poor timing. If interest rates stay relatively high and operating expenses keep rising, tax increases may arrive when there is no room to accommodate them in over-stressed taxpayer budgets.

Even in 2024, a non-reappraisal year, the mayor of Memphis has proposed a monstrous tax rate increase for properties inside the city. It is doubtful the city will raise rates as much as the mayor wants, but a 2024 increase in city taxes before the assessor's 2025 reappraisal could create back-to-back blows that are hard to absorb.

Preparing for "The Big One"

Hiding under a desk or filling a trash can with supplies will not stop a major assessment increase in 2025, but there are other ways to prepare.

1. Understand the timeline. The assessor will formally certify 2025 values by April 20, 2025, but value-change notices are expected around mid-March or early April. Appeals must be filed to the Shelby County Board of Equalization, with a likely deadline of June 30. The city of Memphis sends tax bills around July that are due by the end of August. Shelby County taxes are due by the end of the following February.

2. Anticipate the increase. Don't be caught off guard by a higher tax bill. It is important to estimate the assessor's reappraisal value and develop a realistic 2025 property tax budget. If the assessor's new value is unreasonably high, it can be challenged through a timely appeal to the Shelby County Board of Equalization. Some amount of increase is likely to be fair and supportable, however, so adjusting tax escrows in advance would be prudent.

Property tax professionals can help

Preparing for the 2025 reappraisal needn't be a daunting process. A property tax professional can provide a tax estimate in preparation for the 2025 reappraisal, and if the assessor's new value is too high, file an appeal.

Taxpayers preparing for The Big One to rattle their real estate would be well served to consult a property tax professional in advance. An experienced advisor can help identify the fault lines of undervaluation and brace-up vulnerable budgets before the reappraisal strikes.

To tax assessors, an investor's single-family, build-to-rent neighborhood is a cluster of separately valued properties.

Multifamily investors are accustomed to paying property taxes based on an assessor's opinion of their asset's income-based market value. But for the growing number of developers and investors assembling communities of single-family homes and townhomes for rent, tax assessment is more complex and potentially troublesome.

The difficulty for these taxpayers is that most assessors shun the income approach to valuing single-family rental properties. In the following paragraphs, we examine the roots of this common assessor stance, and explore strategies that may help taxpayers argue for a more predictable, apartment-like treatment for their single-family rental communities.

Similar, but different

Multifamily construction has delivered a tremendous volume of apartment properties over the past decade. Once stabilized, these assets have been relatively simple to value by relying on market rents, occupancy, expenses, and cap rates.

On the heels of this apartment construction, the nation is seeing a proliferation of investor-backed, single-family construction and acquisitions of large blocks of homes and townhouses for use as rental properties. This may take the form of constructing a multitude of homes or townhomes in a single development. Alternatively, it may involve the acquisition of many existing homes or townhomes in a localized area.

A concentration of adjacent or proximate single-family residences operated as rentals can enable owners to achieve economies of scale for management, maintenance, groundskeeping, repair and similar costs, similar to the operation of a large apartment complex or group of complexes. In most jurisdictions, however, the similarity between apartments and communities of rental homes and townhomes doesn't extend to valuation for property taxation.

As a rule, houses and townhomes are individually platted and therefore have separate tax parcel numbers. For existing properties acquired from third parties, this is expected. When it occurs with new construction, however, it typically results from the developer's decision to create true townhouses and single-family houses, as opposed to a traditional rental complex. The reasoning for this decision may be complex, but at the gate it appears to be a protective measure to allow for subsequent sales of the units.

For taxing purposes, each separate parcel – house or unit – is valued separately and independently, just as if individually owned and occupied for personal use by a homeowner. The taxing authorities value these properties using a market-comparable-sale approach, just as if the units were individually owned for personal use.

This is causing a good deal of consternation among investors who seek to have the units valued utilizing the income approach, and for those who would like to value assembled units collectively. The owner of a row of inline townhomes, for example, may prefer to have the properties valued as one economic unit, in the nature of an apartment complex.

Case law insights

The North Carolina Property Tax Commission in two recent cases affirmed that assessors must use the comparable sales approach to individually assess independent, platted rental homes. In those cases, (Mingo Creek Investments III LLC and American Homes 4 Rent Properties One LLC), commissioners set forth numerous reasons for their decisions.

Those cited factors included a legal requirement that each separately platted parcel be separately taxed. Additionally, the common owner was able to sell off a single unit at any time, and lacked an apartment owner's common control over amenities and other units. Not all units in a particular development are necessarily owned by the same entity, and in the cited cases there was a history of buying or selling of the individual units or neighboring units.

Assessors often make the policy argument that where single-family rental units exist in common with units that are individually owned for personal use, applying a different valuation method to those held for rent would create inequitable results. It would also raise uniformity concerns, because similar properties would be taxed differently. The same inequity issue that applies to a rental residential unit also applies to homes used as vacation rentals. To value rental single-family residences using an income approach and the neighboring, owner-occupied, single-family residence by the comparable sale approach would create inequities and a lack of uniformity.

Taxpayer tactics

So, where is the investor to go from here?

The elements addressed in each of the two Property Tax Commission decisions issued thus far, together with the policy considerations, limit the taxpayer's options. An investor or developer could common-plat the residential rental units in the development stage, creating a single plat that could be more readily valued with an income approach.

If the owner or developer is unwilling to common-plat the assemblage of rental homes or townhomes but seeks to have them valued for tax purposes under the income approach, it appears they would at least have to consider imposing common control restrictions on the parcels to create, as nearly as possible, the functional equivalent of an apartment complex.

For example, a development or ownership regime could impose not only common ownership but also common control over all the units, including a prohibition on the sale of individual units, or perhaps restrictions that the sale of a specific unit would not release that unit from the common control mechanism. Such a mechanism would be akin to a 100 percent developer-controlled homeowners association.

From a practical perspective, the developer could prohibit investors from selling individual properties until the developer chooses to start divesting itself of the project piecemeal. At that time, the developer could amend the restrictions, since it would still have total control because no units had been sold, and therefore no third parties had vested rights. At that time, it is likely the taxing authority would change the valuation method to a comparable sales approach.

Further, the developer would most likely need to ensure that the units under such common ownership and control would be physically distinct from neighboring properties. For example, all the units could be in a designated subdivision or portion of a development, as opposed to being alongside units held for personal use by their owners. By so doing, the developer could hopefully remove the uniformity argument.

From a market perspective, the units held for rent under common ownership and control would never be for sale on the open market as single units, at least so long as the restrictions remained in place.

As to appraisal, the appraiser could either apply the income approach to each unit, or appraise the combined residences as one economic unit and then apportion value among the units, so that each tax parcel receives a separate value. This is not to say this approach would be accepted by a tax court, but it would address many of the concerns espoused to date against use of the income approach for separately platted residential units held for rent.

These valuation regimes described above may prove too restrictive for some investors, in which case they would appear stuck with the current process. In all events, before becoming wedded to any plan, taxpayers should at least run the numbers both ways – using income and comparable sale approaches – to be certain the value difference is worth the effort of contesting their assessment. 

Jaye Calhoun and Divya Jeswant of Kean Miller LLP on an assessment strategy that may help you trim your property tax bill.

Few states impose property tax on intangible assets such as a trade name, franchise, goodwill and the like. Indeed, some office buildings, industrial properties and big-box stores don't derive significant value from intangibles in the first place.

Intangibles are a significant income generator for many hotels, casinos, restaurants and other properties, however. For these assets, assessors are required to identify and exclude the value attributable to those nontaxable intangibles. The proper method to do so has been the subject of much debate.

Fortunately for taxpayers, recent case law is helping to clarify best practices for isolating and removing value attributable to intangibles from commercial assessments. By following the examples of taxpayers who have successfully applied alternative approaches, property owners across the country may be able to exclude a larger portion of overall property value as intangible and, in turn, lower the property taxes on their business real estate.

Scaling Rushmore

Although some assessors persist in applying the cost approach, most valuation professionals consider the income approach most appropriate for valuing income-producing properties. That is because a property's past, present and future or projected income inevitably impact its valuation.

Many assessors have traditionally applied the "Rushmore Approach" to exclude the value of intangibles from an income-based valuation. This essentially deducts management and franchise fees from a property's net income, treating those amounts as a proxy for the value of intangibles.

Many taxpayers reject the notion that the Rushmore Approach can account for the full value of intangibles. Some of these property owners and their appraisers have countered with the "Business Enterprise Approach," which seeks to remove the often significantly higher revenue generated by intangible assets. This approach is sometimes called the "Income-Parsing Approach" because it requires going-concern income attributable to intangibles to be parsed and stripped from taxable property income.

A spate of decisions over the last few years, particularly concerning hotel valuation, has created a growing momentum favoring the Business Enterprise Approach. Taxpayers should be aware of the potential for significant tax savings with this approach.

Business enterprise successes

The most significant recent cases in which taxpayers successfully argued for using the Business Enterprise Approach are in two states known for high property taxes: Florida and California.

The first is Singh vs. Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S. Inc., a 2020 case dealing with the valuation of the Disney Yacht & Beach Club Resort adjacent to Epcot. A Florida appellate court categorically ruled that the Rushmore Approach fails to remove all intangible business value from an assessment. The court was simply unconvinced by the assessor's arguments that deductions for franchise and management fees can remove the entire intangible business value.

Another encouraging decision occurred in 2023, SHR St. Francis LLC vs. City and County of San Francisco. A California appeals court considered various income streams of the Westin St. Francis hotel, including its management agreement, income from cancellations, no-shows and attritions, in-room movies, and guest laundry services.

The court held that it was insufficient to simply deduct the management fees because income from a nontaxable, intangible asset like a management agreement should include both a "return of" and a "return on" that asset. In other words, the owner would expect to generate a profit, or income-based value over and above the cost of the management agreement. The court found that the assessor failed to present evidence that the management agreement's value did not exceed management fees.

In dealing with the remaining items, the court drew a dividing line between "intangible attributes of real property" that merely allow the taxable property to generate income (cancellations/no shows/attritions) and are therefore includible vs. "intangible assets and rights of the business operation" utilizing the real property. These latter assets and rights, including in-room movies and guest laundry services, relate to the intangible business operation and are, therefore ,excludible from income-based, taxable property value.

Another widely reported decision from 2023 is Olympic and Georgia Partners LLC vs. County of Los Angeles. The appellate court in this case pointed out a key flaw in the Rushmore Approach. That it is unlikely the deduction of franchise and management fees could fully account for the value of intangibles because no owner would normally agree to fees "so high as to account completely for all intangible benefits to a hotel owner."

Half Moon Bay legacy

Several recent decisions cite SHC Half Moon Bay LLC vs. County of San Mateo, a 2014 California case involving the Ritz Carlton Half Moon Bay Hotel's workforce, leasehold interest in the employee parking lot, and agreement with a golf course operator. The appellate court explicitly acknowledged that the deduction of management and franchise fees from the hotel's projected revenue stream did not properly identify and exclude intangible assets.

Taxpayers throughout the country have successfully made these same arguments. In 1300 Nicollet LLC vs. County of Hennepin, a Minnesota court in 2023 took stock of case law across the country and observed that although the two methods have been competing for 20 years, there is an emerging preference for the Business Enterprise Approach and increasing skepticism of the Rushmore Approach.

Some states such as New Jersey continue to rigidly administer the Rushmore Approach, while other states consistently uphold the Business Enterprise Approach, at least in recent years. Yet other states view both methods as potentially reasonable for an assessor to apply; some of those cases may have more to do with the standard of proof during appellate review. There are also states such as Louisiana in which the issue is yet to be dealt with judicially, arguably giving taxpayers an opportunity to get ahead of the curve.

Clearly, taxpayers and their commercial appraisers should determine whether the assessor has properly excluded maximal value for intangibles in valuing their income-producing properties for property tax purposes. In particular, appropriately applying the Business Enterprise Approach can generate significant property tax savings on commercial real estate and may be worth pursuing.

Below is a property owner's guide to reducing the taxable value of contaminated real estate.

Valuing contaminated properties presents numerous challenges due to the complexity and uncertainty that contamination entails. The presence of hazardous substances or pollutants can affect both a property's value and potential uses. As an assessment must reflect market value, contamination can significantly impact taxable valuation.

Determining the extent of that impact requires careful consideration of legal, technical, and economic factors as the valuation of contaminated properties is governed by a combination of statutory law, regulatory guidance, and case law. Yet these are the fields a taxpayer with contaminated real estate must tread to evaluate assessments for fairness and, if necessary, to appeal an unfair assessment.

Tax assessment review proceedings are crucial mechanisms for all property owners to ensure fair and accurate assessments. These proceedings provide avenues to challenge property assessments they believe are incorrect or unfair. Understanding the process, timelines, and legal considerations involved is essential for property owners, assessors, and legal professionals alike.

Most real estate taxes in the United States are ad valorum or "according to value." Thus, the owner of a high-value property would expect to pay more real estate taxes than the owner of a lower-value parcel. While the exact procedures to file a tax appeal can vary by state, all give property owners the right to challenge property assessments through various means, including administrative review, grievance procedures, and judicial review.

Four Preparatory Keys

To prepare for a tax appeal, the following important considerations should be addressed:

1. Assess contamination levels: Determining the extent and severity of contamination on a property requires expertise in environmental engineering, so expert assistance is a must. Documentary evidence can significantly strengthen a property owner's case during the appeal process. Procure this with expert testimony from environmental consultants, appraisers, and other qualified professionals to establish the impact of contamination on the property's value. Assessors may need to rely on those reports to understand and truly appreciate the contamination's nature and scope.

2. Estimate remediation costs: The price tag to remove or contain pollutants can vary widely depending on the type, quantity and spread of the materials involved, as well as the chosen remediation method. While there are state statutes concerning remediation and liability, those matters are also codified at federal levels within the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation & Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, commonly referred to as the Superfund Law. If a site is designated a "superfund site," it will typically have a remediation plan with anticipated cleanup costs, which assessment professionals can rely upon in determining market value.

3. Gauge market perception: Market perception can play a significant part in valuation since contamination can have a negative impact on the property's appeal to potential users or buyers. Known as "environmental stigma," this can severely depress market values. Prospective buyers are typically hesitant to purchase contaminated properties, often leading to decreased demand and lower market prices.

4. Don't sweat legal liability: Property owners may face legal liabilities for environmental contamination, which can also affect the property's value. This, however, should have no effect on valuation in a tax appeal proceeding, because the statutory mandate to value property in a tax appeal according to its market value cannot be subordinated to environmental property concerns. Most significantly, any liabilities for contamination or remediation must be addressed in a separate proceeding outside the tax appeal.

More to Consider

The three accepted approaches to valuation in the context of a tax appeal are income capitalization, sales comparison, and replacement cost less depreciation. Unfortunately, none of these truly account for the presence of contamination and its negative influence on value. The effects of environmental contamination, and even stigma from nearby contamination, must be part of the valuation equation.

Local case law also plays a significant role in shaping the legal landscape surrounding contamination in tax assessment review proceedings. Many courts have recognized the impact of contamination on property values and have upheld adjustments to tax assessments to account for this factor. Additionally, these same courts have established principles regarding the burden of proof and evidentiary standards in contamination-related tax appeals.

For example, the seminal case in New York is Commerce Holding vs. Board of Assessors of the Town of Babylon. In this 1996 case, a property owner filed a tax appeal contending the assessed values should be reduced to account for contamination by a former on-site tenant. While New York's highest court held that "any fair and non-discriminating method that will achieve [fair market value] is acceptable," they concluded that contaminated property in a tax assessment review proceeding shall be valued as if clean, then reduced by the total remaining costs to cure the contamination.

Clearly, valuing contaminated properties in tax assessment review proceedings requires a nuanced understanding of environmental regulations, property valuation principles, and market dynamics. Assessors and property owners must navigate complex legal and technical challenges to arrive at a fair and accurate valuation that reflects the unique circumstances of each contaminated property. By employing appropriate valuation strategies and seeking expert guidance, stakeholders can ensure that contaminated properties are assessed fairly and in accordance with applicable law. 

Market deterioration and municipal ineptitude are driving taxpayers to the courts for relief.

The New York City real estate market, once the pinnacle of economic health, has undoubtedly declined in recent years. Exploring the factors that brought the market to this point paints a clearer picture of what current conditions mean for property taxpayers and suggests strategies that may offer relief.

Five Causes of Decline 

The COVID-19 pandemic left an indelible mark. The coronavirus took a significant toll on New York City, which became an epicenter of U.S. infections. Many residents fled to suburban areas for more space and less harsh mandates from local authorities. According to a Cornell analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data, "New York City's population plunged by nearly 4 percent – more than 336,000 people – during the pandemic's first year as residents migrated to less dense areas in nearby counties and neighboring states."

The New York City Comptroller's Office estimated that the City lost an additional 130,837 residents from March 2020 through June 2021. This caused unprecedented vacancies in residential and commercial properties, and approximately 100 hotels in the City closed. Those that survived endured high vacancy rates and struggled to pay property taxes.

Economic uncertainty plagues the real estate market. The economic fallout of elevated vacancies and decreasing income has rendered investors and developers hesitant to invest in New York City real estate.

Remote and hybrid work slashed office demand. The decline in office usage that accelerated during the pandemic is ongoing and appears permanent. Most workplaces have loosened to a hybrid work environment, and many employers allow a full-time work-from-home option as well.

This means office buildings that once bustled with employees are now vacant or significantly emptier than they were in 2019. Midtown Manhattan lunch spots and after-work happy hour sbars and restaurants have also taken a hit. The National Bureau of Economic Research estimated in 2022 that New York office buildings had lost as much as $50 billion of value in the wake of reduced demand.

Crime is soaring. New York City police reported making 4,589 arrests for major crimes in June, a 9.3 percent increase from the same period a year earlier. In the first six months of 2023, officers made 25,995 such arrests – the most for any half-year period since 2000.

Property tax revenues are under threat. The previous trends have been slow to erode the municipal view of the tax base. The City's Department of Finance reported a tentative assessment roll of $1.479 trillion for fiscal 2024, a 6.1 percent increase from the previous tax year. For the same period, the department reported a 4.4 percent increase in citywide, taxable, billable assessed value, the portion of market value to which tax rates are applied, to $286.8 billion.

"New York City continues to show mixed signs of growth and economic recovery, with the FY 24 tentative property assessment roll reflecting improvements in subsectors of the residential market while key commercial sectors still lag behind pre-pandemic levels despite modest growth over the past year," Department of Finance Commissioner Preston Niblack said in a press release announcing the tentative tax roll.The decline in office occupancy continues to impact retail stores and hotels in the City contributing to the sector's slow recovery. At the same time, single family homes, which constitute a majority of residential properties, have exhibited a robust recovery and continued growth."

A study by NYU's Stern School of Business and Columbia University's Graduate School of Business calculated that a decrease in lease revenue, renewals and occupancy would cut the value of office buildings in the City by 44 percent over the next six years. Based on those findings, a worst-case analysis by New York City Comptroller Brad Lander found that a 40 percent decline in office property market values over the same six years would result in $1.1 billion less tax revenue for fiscal 2027, the last year of the City's current financial plan. Real estate taxes on office properties currently generate 10 percent of overall City revenue. The City expects office vacancies to peak at a record 22.7 percent this year, posing a potential threat to tax collections.

The result of the forgoing changes is that income is down, expenses are up, demand is evaporating, and market values have plunged by more than 50 percent for most commercial properties except perhaps multifamily (although sales of condominiums have stalled due to high mortgage costs).

How To Get Relief

The hotel industry anticipates a four-year recovery period. Hotel owners preparing arguments for reduced assessments should collect information for their team documenting closure dates, occupancy rates, and any specific pandemic-related expenses incurred during the reopening process.

It is inappropriate for assessors to evaluate hotels for property tax purposes solely based on non-real-estate income. A recent court ruling has affirmed the illegality of utilizing non-real-estate income generated by hotel businesses, leading to an overassessment of real estate taxes that must be refunded to owners. Business-related income, such as that from movie rentals, should not be considered in property tax assessments.

In addition, it is essential to identify and exclude income from personal property, furnishings, and the value of intangibles, franchises, trained workforce, and going concerns when determining real estate income.

The prevalence of empty stores and closures of local standby establishments in every corner of New York City underscores the severe economic impact on retail properties. Retail and office owners should be prepared to demonstrate declines in gross income and rents reported in their financial filings with the City. They are also required to provide a list of tenants who have vacated or are not paying rent. The Tax Commission now mandates an explanation for declines in rents exceeding 10 percent.

There is considerable potential for assessment reductions, but it is crucial for taxpayers to compile evidence of market value declines, and to collaborate with experienced advisors to secure warranted tax reductions.

There is no longer any absorption of vacant office space since demand is declining. That means that 80 percent occupancy or lower is the norm. Only an adjustment in property taxes to the actual earnings of the property will save the real estate, and over-leveraged properties may be lost.

Tax Process in a Tailspin

Extensive personnel turnover has hampered the review process that relies on action by City agencies, with inexperienced staff and numerous unfilled positions at both the Department of Finance (assessors) and the Tax Commission. Thus, expected remediation of excessive assessments often go unresolved. This leaves no alternative but to go to court.

Resorting to the courts is also difficult because in-person appearances are still relegated to video conferences, with few trials taking place.

The taxpayer's best approach is to push forward with all speed to demand a trial.  Only pressure to demand speedy trials will provide the needed result.

Office property owners should contest excessive assessments now, before a potential crisis drives up taxes.

The Great Recession, from December 2007 to June 2009, was the longest recession since World War II. It was also the deepest, with real gross domestic product (GDP) plummeting 4.3 percent from a peak in 2007 to its trough in 2009.

Entering that recession, unemployment was at an unalarming 5.0 percent, which is on par with historical averages, and interest rates hovered around 6 percent. The roots of the recession lurked at the intersection of risky subprime mortgages and the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, which allowed for the mega-mergers of banks and brokerages to escalate.

And here we are in January 2024, looking down a steep market slope. On the bright side, we are in a more advantageous position than at the beginning of the Great Recession. GDP was a respectable $25.46 trillion in 2022, up 19 percent from $21.38 trillion in 2019. Unemployment is at 3.7 percent, and values in the single-family housing market are increasing again, in part due to a lack of supply.

The investors standing on unstable ground this time around are those heavily leveraged in major metropolitan markets, such as New York, Chicago, and San Francisco, or other municipalities that rely on office values. (Think suburban office markets.) The sharp increase in interest rates under the Federal Reserve's tightening monetary policy, and the extreme drop in demand for commercial office space that accelerated during the pandemic, will have significant ramifications on all property types.

Dire developments

What ramifications? Assume a hypothetical "Metro City" that, like most major markets, has a tax base with 75 percent of its independent parcels classified as residential, and 25 percent as commercial real estate. However, the assessment values are strongly weighted on the commercial properties, with 30 percent of the entire assessment value born by office properties.

The municipality has a total tax levy of $16.7 billion and overall assessed property value of $83.1 billion. The office portion of the property makeup is 30 percent, or $24.9 billion in assessed value. The office share of the total tax levy is $5.0 billion.

Now assume that the city's overall office market value collapses by 50 percent. This leaves Metro City with a $2.5 billion deficit – not a small number. To recapture that $2.5 billion, the city must increase its tax rate by 15 percent. That means tax liability increases by 15 percent for every taxpayer, even if their property's assessed value is unchanged.

So, how can developers and owners protect themselves from excessive tax liability, given the current market conditions? One solution is to appeal property tax assessments aggressively. Regardless of the jurisdiction, regardless of property type, property owners must evaluate their opportunity for an assessment appeal.

Office-specific issues

Market transactions show vast valuation differences between Class A office properties, which are typically newer buildings with great amenities, versus "the others," or those office properties 10 or more years old and offering fewer amenities. Properties that fall in the latter category have many opportunities for assessment reductions. Here are key points to consider.

Ensure the appraiser or assessor is using the property's current, effective rental rates. In many instances, an owner will show a tenant's gross rent on the rent roll without disclosing specific lease terms contributing to effective rent. For example, the lease may have been negotiated at $27 per square foot, but the rent roll does not account for free rent, amortization, free parking or other amenities the tenant receives.

Additionally, although office leases historically pass through taxes and other costs to tenants, many negotiated leases now cap expenses for the tenant, potentially shifting a portion of expenses to the landlord. That is a key issue the taxpayer should address in the income analysis of an appeal, because it provides evidence for a reduction in effective rental rates, as well as an imputed increase a buyer would demand in the capitalization rate to reflect the additional risk.

Appraisers need to understand this issue for rental comparables as well as for the subject property. Typically, they will confirm public information posted by various data services, but if they lack the finer details of a transaction, the rates they derive could exceed the true market.

Address vacancy and shadow vacancy. Prior to the pandemic, office vacancy in most markets hovered between 5 percent and 14 percent, depending on the location and building class. As of the third quarter of 2023, vacancy is over 18 percent, according to CBRE.

In October 2023, CBRE reported that suburban Chicago's office vacancy rose 50 basis points to 25.9 percent in the third quarter. Manhattan's overall office vacancy rate including sublease offerings is 22.1 percent, according to Cushman & Wakefield.

Shadow vacancy, or space where the tenant is still paying rent but no one physically occupies the space, is the canary in the coalmine for an office building's future. If a building is 12 percent vacant, the assessor probably won't be sympathetic. But if the owner highlights that leases in the space expire in the next year or two, and/or they are large blocks of space, the assessor (or at least the owner's appraiser) should acknowledge that risk and apply a higher cap rate for the subject property.

Adjust for interest rates. Any investment-grade property is now worth less than it was two years ago, simply because of the rise in interest rates.

Because interest rates have increased significantly, the property owner can argue that the assessor should use the "band of investment" method, which calculates capitalization rates for the components of an investment to produce an overall cap rate by weighted average. This methodology takes into account not only the increase in market interest rates, but also equity demands of lenders. Interest rates have increased over 3 percentage points across the last 2 years, which in many cases equates to a 100 percent increase in interest rates.

Additionally, the equity requirements on commercial mortgages have increased from 30 percent to 50 percent. Increasing the base capitalization rate to reflect these changes in an income analysis will offer significant relief in the assessment.

Jurisdictions that rely heavily on office values to support overall assessment value in the tax base will be experiencing increasing tax rates. This increase in rate is factored into the loaded capitalization rate, which obviously means a lower market value for assessment purposes. Analysts and appraisers should review the increased rates annually.

The near term will be challenging for entities that invested in office properties prior to 2023, but the strategies outlined above can offer some protection in this stormy market.

Incurable obsolescence — the stealth killer of commercial real estate value — is all too often overlooked in property tax appeals.

Any obsolescence can affect a property's value. Normal obsolescence involves curable problems, such as outdated fixtures and finishes that reduce a building's desirability. In valuation, the anticipated cost to cure the obsolescence (in this case, with a refreshed interior) is deducted from the property's taxable value.

As the name suggests, incurable obsolescence cannot be cured within the boundaries of the property. The obsolescence stems from outside circumstances, whether next door or in the larger markets, and no change to the property itself can overcome the deficiency.

Perhaps the government is going to change the traffic pattern, or a hog farm is going in next door. The market value may rise if a good thing is coming to the area. It will surely decline if a bad thing is coming, and the market value declines in relation to the predictability of such an event.

Property owners who learn the common forms and causes of incurable obsolescence will be better equipped to recognize its symptoms in their own real estate. In arguing for a reduced tax assessment value, evidence of obsolescence weighing on a property's operations will often tip the scales in convincing an assessor, review board or court to grant a reduction.

Passing or permanent?

Owners should be aware of functional obsolescence and be prepared to discuss it when appealing assessments. If it is a problem that can't be cured within the boundaries of the property, it is incurable obsolescence and reduces the property's market value.

The condition may have existed from the inception of the property's development and use, but more typically it results over time from factors relating to design, usability, markets, traffic patterns, government takings or regulation. For example, economic need or a government requirement may leave a property without adequate parking to support commercial buildings on the site, rendering those structures incurably obsolete.

Incurable obsolescence can be partial and a handicap to the property's viability without entirely preventing its continued use. For example, an office building designed for single-tenant use will not accommodate multiple users. There is a very limited market for single-tenant, high-rise buildings. The cost of retrofitting such a building into separate leasable offices is infeasible.

The loss in value due to incurable obsolescence may be anticipatory. If the market's users and investors see imminent incurable obsolescence, it may already affect market value. The negative impact of incurable obsolescence occurs when the problem cannot be cured on site at any cost.

In evaluating a property for instances of incurable obsolescence, however, it is important to remember that the source of obsolescence may be offsite.

Owners concerned with the production and marketing of a product or service from their property may not be aware of external elements of incurable obsolescence affecting their property's value. Or they may simply regard the circumstance as a non-priority item — at least until they get their property tax bill.

Instances of the incurable

Incurable obsolescence takes many forms, but taxpayers are most likely to encounter it in one of a few common scenarios. Those include:

Property access changes. Typically imposed by a highway or street authority, moving or removing access points can reduce a commercial property's appeal to users and lower its market value.

Altered traffic patterns. Changes to surrounding roads or highways can reduce commercial value. Limiting the property's visibility and accessibility, for example, may reduce customer traffic and brand exposure for operators on the property.

Size modifications. The property may fail to meet the required property size in relation to improvements. Possible causes include changed government requirements or the physical loss of a portion of the property due to government taking. A simple change in setback lines may have a dramatic negative impact on a property's value.

Takings. Use of eminent domain may reduce the remainder of the property to a legal non-conforming use which may not be altered to accommodate a commercially viable use. Alternatively, commercial uses on a state highway may be untouched by highway takings, but diverting traffic to a new highway kills viable commercial use of properties on the abandoned roadway.

More examples

Other sources of incurable obsolescence span a wide range, from changing industry practices and preferences to evolving government regulations, markets and natural phenomena. Zoning or regulatory changes may restrict usage, for example. The property may no longer meet current tenant needs regarding loading dock height, or access by delivery and customer vehicles. Nearby development or street construction may inundate the property with surface water. Properties have incurred incurable obsolescence for their intended uses from light pollution, and from disruptive air traffic following a change in flight patterns.

Property owners discussing excessive taxable valuation with the assessor should recognize that the assessor has employed the cost approach to value. While cost may be a value indicator, it lacks relevance in situations involving incurable obsolescence. Help the assessor to look beyond cost by showing how obsolescence reduces the property's value in the marketplace.

In preparation for meeting with the assessor, an owner seeking a reduced assessment should look for negative conditions beyond the control or ability of the owner to correct within the boundary of the property. Be prepared to discuss with the assessor how the conditions affect the property value. Bring plat maps, photos, restrictive regulations and ordinances, and any documents that entail restrictions on the use of the property — legal, physical or otherwise — and an explanation of how these matters negatively affect the property's value.

While there is no cure for incurable obsolescence, there are treatments for unfair tax assessments. When incurable obsolescence results in lost improvement value, the owner is entitled to an appropriate downward adjustment of the assessed value. 

The American Property Tax Counsel is proud to announce that Chicago, Illinois will be the site of an in-person meeting for the 2024 Annual APTC Client Seminar.

Save the Dates! October 23-25, 2024 - Fairmont Chicago, Millennium Park - Chicago, Illinois

THEME - How to Hang On While the Market Hangs Fire

APTC seminars provide an exclusive forum where invited guests can collaborate with nationally known presenters and experienced property tax attorneys to develop strategies to successfully reduce and manage property taxes.

FEATURED SPEAKERS 

MEMBER SPEAKERS 

Taxpayers should look beyond fair market value in deciding whether — and how — to protest assessments.

Taxpayers usually appeal property tax assessments by proving a market value different from the assessor's finding, but they should not overlook constitutional guarantees of uniform and equal taxation.

As an ad valorem tax, real property taxes are charged on the value of the underlying real estate, usually measured as fair market value. In many states, taxpayers can demonstrate their property's market value with a recent, arm's-length sale price or by independent appraisal evidence.

Two potential concerns emerge for taxpayers in an assessment appeal centered on market value: the declining reliability of data in volatile and rapidly changing markets, and the trailing nature of market data used by assessors. Those data issues can skew the mass appraisal techniques tax assessors often use, including comparisons to sales of similar properties, when assessing real property.

Volatility and rapid change

Commercial property data can lose relevancy with surprising speed in a volatile market. For example, office properties continue to bear the consequences of increased remote work and occupants' shrinking footprints since the pandemic. Many office properties with mortgages maturing in 2023 have lost half or more of their previously underwritten asset values. Badge swipes tracked by Kastle Systems show an average office attendance of about 50 percent throughout 2023.

In early 2023, Cushman & Wakefield attributed slowing construction to uncertainty in the office market along with challenges related to higher interest rates, supply chain issues, and labor shortages. Office properties may be in danger of becoming "zombie" buildings with utilization of 50 percent or less, while market watchers warn of doom loops or a domino effect of property failures, especially in dense central business districts. Most market participants are waiting for the other shoe to drop and for the market to reveal its bottom.

Assessors are not immune to the valuation problems this market uncertainty creates. Assessors currently valuing properties are likely considering comparable sales that occurred as far back as 2019 or early 2020. Even more recent sales are likely to be based on leases executed years earlier, or on financing obtained prior to the pandemic.

Further undermining data reliability is the decline in sales activity after March 2020, when pandemic-related uncertainty and economic pressures like rising interest rates began to discourage participants from unnecessary transactions. As pre-pandemic leases expire and loans underwritten on those leases mature, transactional data will likely show drastic valuation declines within a short amount of time. The lag in sales data as these properties are brought to market will affect the accuracy of property tax assessments.

What can a taxpayer do when market activity is too chaotic and volatile to accurately price value? Taxpayers should not forget constitutional safeguards of equal protection and uniform taxation.

The U.S. and most state constitutions protect taxpayers against non-uniform and discriminatory tax policies. For example, the Ohio Constitution requires that "land and improvements thereon" are "taxed by uniform rule according to value." Ohio statutes also require that assessors appraise property according to "uniform rule" in both the "mode of assessment" and as a "percentage of value." The constitutions of Pennsylvania and Texas also contain uniformity clauses. The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits the government from depriving any person of their property without due process or denying any person equal protection of the law.

These constitutional protections are important enough that federal and state courts have held that when the goals of uniform taxation and correctly assessing market value cannot both be met, the constitutional priorities of equity and uniformity prevail.

Uniform, equal taxation

There are a few ways to help ensure consistent and equitable property taxation, starting with regular reassessment cycles. Some Pennsylvania counties have not reassessed countywide since the 1960s. The lack of regular appraisals to determine market value results in fewer properties being taxed on their true market value, especially if recently sold properties are assessed at their sale price while others have not been reappraised in decades.

A related problem is variation in the taxed percentage of market value between similar properties, which leads to non-uniform assessment ratios. There have been a series of successful contests recently in Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania, by taxpayers demonstrating that other property owners with similar properties were not paying taxes based on similar market values. Therefore, properties with the same market values were not being assessed at the same ratio, leading to non-uniform assessments. "The problem in Lackawanna County was not caused by this assessor's office, but gets perpetuated when new construction is placed on the assessment rolls at 100% of construction costs based solely on permit information, while similar properties have not been property reassessed since the base year of 1967," explains James Tressler of Tressler Law LLC, the attorney who brought a number of these successful challenges.

Another way to ensure assessment uniformity is by valuing the unencumbered, fee-simple interest in the real property, regardless of whether a particular property is leased, owner-occupied, or vacant. Ohio amended its controlling legislation to clarify that assessors must value the market value of the fee simple interest for all properties. Valuing the same market-based fee simple interest for all properties safeguards real estate tax assessments from being influenced by the business value of a successful (or unsuccessful) enterprise conducted on the property.

Governments can check discriminatory treatment by allowing taxpayers to contest the unequal ratios of market value across similar properties, or by allowing taxpayers to challenge assessments based on the median assessments of a reasonable number of comparable properties. Texas law contains this type of protection for taxpayers, and similar legislative remedies are being discussed in Ohio.

These additional checks and balances to secure equal and uniform property tax systems assure taxes are not borne discriminatorily by a few. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court wisely reminds us of these protections in a 2017 decision involving Valley Forge Towers Apartments, stating: "As every tax is a burden, it is important that the public has confidence that property taxes are administered in a just and impartial manner, with each taxpayer contributing his or her fair share of the cost of government."