Menu

Property Tax Resources

Jan
01

New Hampshire Property Tax Updates

Updated december 2022

New Hampshire property tax bills have been issued

Most communities in New Hampshire have sent out their 2022 property tax bills. These tax bills have an assessing date of April 1, 2022. The property tax assessment of taxable real estate should be the fee simple market value of the property as of April 1, 2022, multiplied by the jurisdiction's median assessment ratio. If your property is assessed in excess of that amount, you may have grounds for a tax appeal. In general, abatement applications must be filed with the local assessors by March 1, 2023. If you are aggrieved by the action or inaction of the local assessors, you may file a petition with the State Board of Tax and Land Appeals or the Superior Court in the County where the property is located. The deadline for filing the petitions is generally September 1, 2023. There you will be afforded a full hearing on the merits where the rules of evidence will apply.

David G. Saliba
Saliba & Saliba
American Property Tax Counsel (APTC)

Continue reading
Jan
01

Ohio Property Tax Updates

UPDATED june 2025

Supreme Court of Ohio Rejects Appeal from Fifth District Ohio Court of Appeals Decision

Siegel Jennings recognizes the lion’s share of our updates to the APTC over the last few years have revolved around House Bill 126 and its fallout.  HB 126 has been and will continue to be a primary influencer of property tax law and litigation in Ohio.  We appreciate your continued interest in its status and will continue to inform you as challenged aspects are settled.

House Bill 126 was signed into law on April 21, 2022 and became effective July 21, 2022. Among other changes, the bill amended Ohio Revised Code 5715.19, which regulates who may file a tax valuation complaint and when said complaint may be filed.

As amended, R.C. 5717.19 requires that, for a complaint seeking a value change based on an arm’s length sale to be valid, that sale must have occurred before, but not after the tax lien date for the tax year for which the complaint is filed.

Here, a third-party complaint was filed based on a post-tax lien date sale.  The complainant argued against the constitutionality of amendments to 5715.19.  The BOR dismissed for failure to adhere to the filing requirements of the Code but did not address the constitutionality issues for lack of authority.  The Board of Tax Appeals affirmed the BOR decision on appeal and similarly did not address the constitutionality issues.

On appeal to the Fifth Appellate District, assignments of error were made claiming the arm's length sale restriction and “before but not after” tax lien date restriction in 5715.19 violate the uniform rule of the Ohio Constitution, appellant’s right to equal protection under the US and Ohio Constitutions, and appellant’s right to due process under the US and Ohio Constitutions.

All assignments of error were overruled, and the lower decisions were upheld. 

Regarding the uniformity argument, the Ohio Constitution mandates that all property be taxed by a uniform rule.  However, the Court held that 5715.19 regulates the timing of complaints regarding certain similarly situated properties but it does not regulate the valuation of the property in question. 

As for appellant’s equal protection argument, the Court held appellant failed to establish that appellant’s property was similarly situated to the property owned by appellee.  Without demonstrating such similarity, an equal protection analysis could not be performed. 

Finally, the Court held that laws limiting rights are inherently constitutional with respect to due process if the laws are rationally related to a legitimate governmental goal.  The state has no obligation to produce evidence to sustain the rationality of a statutory classification, and appellant failed to argue 5715.19 is not rationally related to a legitimate goal of the government.  Further, the Court found 5715.19 provides for notice and a reasonable mode of contesting tax assessments.

As anticipated, appellant sought certiorari of the Supreme Court of Ohio.   On April 1, 2025, the Court issued an Entry declining to accept jurisdiction of the appeal, thereby resolving this prong of the ongoing HB 126 litigations in finality.  At least under this set of facts.

Updates to follow as appropriate.


Kristopher Nicoloff
Siegel Jennings Co., L.P.A.
American Property Tax Counsel (APTC)

Continue reading
Jan
01

Oklahoma Property Tax Updates

UPDATED june 2025

Oklahoma Supreme Court Ruling On Equity Transactions

In June 2025, the Oklahoma Supreme Court issued its decision in The Icon at Norman Apts, LP v. Douglas Warr, Cleveland County Assessor, 2025 OK 42 (Case No. 122099). The Court held in Icon that the transfer of a limited partnership interest does not constitute a transfer of title of real property owned by the limited partnership, as is required by the Oklahoma Constitution to lift the 5% cap on year-over-year increases to the real property’s taxable value.

Brady R. Lippoldt
Elias, Books, Brown & Nelson, P.C.
American Property Tax Counsel (APTC)

Continue reading
Jan
01

Oregon Property Tax Updates

UPDATED september 2023

Oregon Taxation of Delta Airlines Intangible Property Unconstitutional

In Oregon, centrally assessed properties have historically been subject to assessment of their intangible property. While locally assessed properties are statutorily exempt from taxation of intangible property, which includes a business’s work force, customer lists, patents, trademarks, trade secrets, goodwill, and contacts. 

In a significant decision, the Oregon Tax Court concluded that this statutory scheme, the taxation of intangible property listed for centrally assessed businesses, violated the Oregon Uniformity Clause and the federal Equal Protection Clause. The opinion was specific to Delta Airlines, because the court found no genuine differences between Delta’s (taxable) use of intangible property in its transportation business and the (exempt) use of intangible property in road transportation businesses or other businesses that rely on a network of property. How the court will later interpret “other businesses that rely on a network of property” is yet to be seen.

In this same decision, the court rejected the PacifiCorp’s regulated utility challenge because the court found genuine differences between PacifiCorp’s (taxable) use of intangible property in its business as a regulated public utility and (exempt) uses of intangible property in non-regulated businesses. Additionally, the court concluded the legislature could have determined that taxing the value of intangible property of a utility compliments the regulatory scheme by redistributing for public purposes some value that accrues through regulated operation that would otherwise be inure to investor-owners. 

As of the date of this writing, the Department of Revenue had not appealed this decision.

Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. Dep't of Revenue, No. TC 5409, 2023 WL 5425246 (Or. T.C. Aug. 23, 2023).


Cynthia M. Fraser
Foster Garvey PC
American Property Tax Counsel (APTC)

Continue reading
Jan
01

Pennsylvania Property Tax Updates

UPDATED March 2025

Pennsylvania Legislator Proposes Cyclical Reassessment System

In January 2025, Pennsylvania State Senator Wayne Fontana announced that he plans to introduce legislation to move Pennsylvania to a cyclical reassessment system, as is the system in nearly every other state.

This is good news for taxpayers and other stakeholders. Pennsylvania is the only state in the United States to have a “base year” system under which counties can choose to stay in their “base year” (last year of the countywide reassessment) indefinitely. The State of Delaware - the only other state which had a base year system – in a decision by its highest court -- declared in May 2020 that a base year system of assessment is unconstitutional.

Due to Pennsylvania’s base year system, it is not uncommon for counties to fail to reassess for decades or more. The Pennsylvania County with the oldest reassessment year is Franklin County (south central Pennsylvania) which last reassessed in 1961. Pennsylvania is also one of a handful of states that allows government bodies to file increase assessment appeals (labeled “illegal spot appeals” in most states).  These two factors taken together – a county’s failure to reassess coupled with a school district’s right to “cherry pick” some taxpayers for increase appeals – leads to, as a practical matter, a disparate tax experience (especially for commercial taxpayers who tend to be the targets of school increase appeals) and a complete lack of uniformity in taxation, contrary to Pennsylvania ‘s Constitution.

APTC Western Pennsylvania Representative Sharon F. DiPaolo, Esquire, CRE, was invited to testify at Senator Fontana’s July 2024 hearing on the need for cyclical reassessment in Pennsylvania.  Ms. DiPaolo’s testimony called for cyclical reassessment to address the best practices of tax policy, namely, fundamental fairness, transparency, and consistency. As of this writing, the proposed legislation is in the process of being drafted. Siegel Jennings will advise of developments as they occur.

In the meantime, to discuss the specifics of this proposed legislation or your property tax needs in Pennsylvania, please reach out to:

Sharon F. DiPaolo, EsquireSiegel Jennings, Co., L.P.A.
American Property Tax Counsel (APTC)

Continue reading
Jan
01

Rhode Island Property Tax Updates

Updated December 2022

File an account to protect your right of appeal

Now is the time for Rhode Island taxpayers to preserve their right of appeal for Tax Year 2023 by filing an account with the local assessor. In most jurisdictions the Tax Year 2023 tax bill will be sent out during the summer of 2023. The Tax Year 2023 tax bill has a valuation or assessing date of December 31, 2022. In most cases the filing of a valid account by January 31, 2023, is a prerequisite to a valid appeal. The account must describe the property, claim a value of the property, and be signed under oath and notarized. Occasionally the assessors do not send out account forms or the form may omit a section on real estate. It is incumbent upon the taxpayer to seek out a form and add a section for real estate if needed and properly complete and file it. It is acceptable for a taxpayer to construct his own account form, but it must include all required information and be signed under oath, notarized, and filed timely.

David G. Saliba
Saliba & Saliba
American Property Tax Counsel (APTC)

Continue reading
Jan
01

Tennessee Property Tax Updates

UPDATED March 2025

Major Tennessee Reappraisals in 2025

Counties in Tennessee are required by statute to have 4, 5 or 6-year reappraisal cycles, depending on various factors, such as population.  Many of the largest counties are on 4-year cycles with a reappraisal coming up in 2025, including Davidson (Nashville), Shelby (Memphis), Hamilton (Chattanooga), and Williamson (Franklin).  The last reappraisal for these counties was in 2021, based primarily on data from 2019 and 2020.  These counties will reappraise again in 2025 based primarily on data from 2023 and 2024.  Taxpayers should be prepared for “sticker shock” when values come out, especially in fast-growing markets like Nashville.  Appeal deadlines vary by county.  Taxpayers should get with their property tax representatives as soon as they receive their value notices. 


Andy RainesEvans Petree PC
American Property Tax Counsel (APTC)

Continue reading
Jan
01

Texas Property Tax Updates

Updated september 2024

Texas 1st Court of Appeals Provides an Important Reminder — the Filing Deadlines are Unforgiving

In Texas, fall is for football and escalating property tax protests. There are three different forums to escalate a Texas property tax protest that did not fall in your favor: (1) district court; (2) binding arbitration; and (3) State Office of Administrative Hearings. Each of these have unforgivably time sensitive deadlines and is highlighted by a recent case out of Texas’s 1st Court of Appeals.

In Harris Central Appraisal District v. Zheng, the property owner’s protest was denied and he decided to escalate by filing a lawsuit in district court. Section 42.21(a) of the Texas Property Tax Code establishes the time limit for this — 60 days after receiving the notice of the protest denial (known locally in Texas as a “board order”). Here, the property owner received the board order on September 5, 2020, making the lawsuit filing deadline November 4, 2020. But the property owner did not file until November 12, 2020. This is late and the district court dismissed his lawsuit.

To avoid the dismissal, the property owner attempted to argue that the intent of his pleadings must be considered in determining whether he complied with the 60-day deadline. Specifically, he intended to file the lawsuit timely but couldn’t because of extraordinary circumstances (Covid-19 and suffering a flesh wound on his left thumb). The 1st Court rejected this and recognized it as an acknowledgement that the property owner failed to file the lawsuit by the 60-day deadline and upheld the dismissal.

The takeaway from this quarterly blast is do not wait; file early if anything! The deadlines for escalating a protest that does not fall in your favor is unforgiving if missed, even by a day. This is true regardless of extraordinary circumstances, such as a global pandemic or serious injury (as shown by the above case). So, be vigilant in computing, knowing, and tracking deadlines.

To review the Opinion from Harris Cent. Appraisal Dist. v. Zheng, click the following link (or copy and paste): https://search.txcourts.gov/SearchMedia.aspx?MediaVersionID=82de247b-32b6-4bac-bc35-d051520e00cc&coa=coa01&DT=Opinion&MediaID=4bc8c61b-83a4-4d5e-abb5-61ac4a60328e.

Lee D. Winston
Michel Gray & Rogers LLP
American Property Tax Counsel (APTC)

Continue reading
Jan
01

Washington DC. Property Tax Updates

updated june 2022

Proposed Changes to Assessment Appeal Process

In the District of Columbia, the assessment appeal calendar was designed for taxpayers to complete the two-level administrative appeal process prior to the payment of their property taxes. As a result, taxpayers often pay lower property taxes in the first instance as a result of successful administrative appeals, instead of paying higher taxes and then challenging the assessment through an administrative appeal.

The Office of Tax & Revenue (“OTR”) in the District of Columbia has recently proposed significant changes to the administrative appeal calendar, which is governed by the D.C. Code. Although proposed assessments are currently issued by March 1st each year, under OTR’s proposal, new assessments would be issued later in the calendar year. OTR’s justification for the change is that this would purportedly allow the assessors time to review the property’s most recent financial data that is reported annually through the Income & Expense report filing prior to the issuance of the assessment.

OTR's proposal suffers from serious flaws that would weaken the current protections provided to taxpayers. First, issuing assessments later in the year would necessarily push back or truncate the administrative appeal process. This would either result in a compressed administrative appeal calendar that does not provide the opportunity for sufficient review of taxpayers’ claims, or it would place taxpayers in the unenviable position of paying property taxes prior to the issuance of a decision on their administrative appeal. Second, diminishing the effectiveness of the administrative appeal structure that is currently in place would lead to additional appeals filed in D.C. Superior Court and burden the court system with appeals. Third, OTR alleges that its proposal would result in more “accurate” assessments. In our experience, however, more “accurate” assessments from OTR mean an unjustified increase in taxpayers’’ liability.  

In sum, the D.C. Code’s administrative appeal process was carefully crafted to provide a robust administrative appeal process for taxpayers, and there is no legitimate justification for tinkering with the current appeal calendar.


Wilkes Artis, Chtd.
American Property Tax Counsel (APTC)

Continue reading
Jan
01

Wisconsin Property Tax Updates

Updated March 2025

Wisconsin Tax Appeals Commission Rejects State’s Attempt To Divest It Of Jurisdiction Over Large Tax Appeals

In a decision issued on March 11, 2025, the Wisconsin Tax Appeals Commission rejected an attempt by the Wisconsin Department of Revenue to divest it of subject matter jurisdiction over a large group of manufacturing assessment appeals involving millions of dollars in value.

The jurisdictional statute (Wis. Stat. 70.995(8)(c)1) states that objections to manufacturing assessments must be made “on a form prescribed by the department of revenue that specifies that the objector shall set forth the reasons for the objection … and the basis for” the objector’s opinion of value. The appeal form the Department of Revenue created under this statute includes a section for the objector to provide these two pieces of information. That section contains two adjacent boxes, one designated for the reason for the taxpayer’s objection and the other for the basis of the taxpayer’s opinion of value.

In the appeals in question, the taxpayers’ agent had placed text encompassing both pieces of information in the first box and left the second box blank. The State argued that leaving the second box blank per se divested the Commission of subject matter jurisdiction irrespective of whether all the required information was in the other box or elsewhere on the form.

The Tax Appeals Commission firmly rejected the State’s position, holding that as long as a taxpayer provides all the information required by the statute on the Department’s form the taxpayer has satisfied the jurisdictional requirement, whether or not the taxpayer has placed text in every box. The Commission’s decision was unusually harsh, finding one of the Department of Revenue’s arguments to be “frankly ridiculous,” and admonishing the Department to “restrain itself from making such frivolous and overreaching arguments” in future cases.

The case is Badger Mining Corporation and Smart Sand, Inc v. Wisconsin Department of Revenue.

Bryan J. Cecil
Hansen Reynolds LLC
American Property Tax Counsel (APTC)

Continue reading

American Property Tax Counsel

Recent Published Property Tax Articles

Subsidies Pose Property Tax Puzzle in Public-Private Partnerships

With the number of public-private partnerships for constructing public facilities on the rise, communities across the country wrestle with the question of how to treat such arrangements for ad valorem property tax purposes. In most instances, private developers and taxing entities take opposing positions on the issue.

Public-private joint ventures have...

Read more

When Property Tax Rates Undermine Asset Value

Rate increases to offset a shrinking property tax base will further erode commercial real estate values.

Across the country, local governments are struggling to maintain revenue amid widespread property value declines, as a result they are resorting to tax rate increases. This funding challenge increases the burden on owners of commercial...

Read more

Pennsylvania Court Reaffirms Fair Property Taxation Protection

A tax case in Allegheny County also spurs a judge to limit government's ability to initiate reassessments of individual properties.

Pennsylvania taxpayers recently scored an important victory when the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas reasserted taxpayers' right to protection against property overassessment, while limiting taxing authorities' ability to proactively raise...

Read more

Member Spotlight

Members

Forgot your password? / Forgot your username?