In Utah, only real and personal tangible properties are subject to property tax. Intangible property is exempt from Utah property tax. This includes such things as licenses, contracts, trade names custom software, trained workforce, copyrights and goodwill. If a property owner acquired any of these intangible properties along with the real estate, then there is an opportunity to reduce the property tax obligation for the real estate and other personal property. The key is to identify and separate the portion of the total purchase price that is associated with the intangible properties.

What is the standard of value for property tax?

Utah is a fair market value standard state. In simple terms, fair market value is the price a typical, willing buyer would pay a typical, willing seller for a property, with both parties being knowledgeable of all relevant facts. Accordingly, investment value or the price a specific buyer paid to acquire a property for a particular use may not indicate the fair market value. The price may need to be adjusted if the owner is trying to use it as evidence of the taxable property value.

What are the reporting requirements?

Generally, property owners will not have a reporting requirement for locally assessed land and buildings. Utah is a non-disclosure state, which means a buyer isn't required to disclose to the county assessor the price paid for real estate.
However, a buyer will likely receive a questionnaire from the assessor requesting voluntary disclosure of the purchase price, as well as access to the property to conduct an appraisal.

After reviewing the real estate, the assessor will issue an assessment that estimates what the property's fair market value was on Jan. 1. The county assessor is required to send notices indicating the property's fair market value and the associated tax by July 22. Appeals are due by Sept. 15, and taxes are due by Nov.

30. Utah does require reporting' of any business personal property. Each year, owners must submit a self-assessment of personal property tax liability, identifying 'the personal property, its cost and date of acquisition. Then the owner must apply a percent good factor to the property based upon the age and type of property in order to estimate the fair market value for the property. The tax commission is required to update and publish the percent good factors each year.

Apply the tax rate to the estimated fair market value to determine the amount of personal property tax due. Generally, signed personal property statements will be due to the county assessor by May 15. Appeals on personal property taxes are also due by May 15, or within 60 days after the mailing of a tax notice. While this brief discussion is certainly not a thorough review of Utah property taxes, it does cover the three basic things an investor should know when making a decision to acquire property in Utah.

David J. Crapo is the managing partner at Crapo Smith PLLC, Utah Member of American Property Tax Counsel. He can be reached at djcrapo@craposmith.com

"Regardless of property type, commercial owners should vigilantly review assessment notices upon receipt and determine whether the particular property has indeed increased in valuation, or if assessors using mass appraisal techniques have over generalized..."

By Lisa Stuckey, Esq., as published by Southeast Real Estate Business, June 2013

Under a recently enacted law, taxpayers who purchased property in Georgia in 2011 or 2012 face potentially steep hikes on upcoming tax bills. The new statute, which took effect on Jan. 1,2011, provides that the sale amount paid or real estate in an arms-length transaction shall be the property's maximum allowable fair market value for property tax purposes for the following tax year. That means owners of properties purchased in 2011 received ad valorem assessment notices for 2012 at a value no higher than the purchase price.

For tax year 2013, however, the county assessors' offices were free from this limitation on valuation for those specific properties purchased during 2011. For those properties, assessors were required to review the market, make a determination of fair market value as f Jan. 1, 2013, and issue assessment notices based on the new review for those properties. The same is true for owners of properties purchased in 2012. The assessment notices those owners receive for 2014 will be unfettered by the sale amount limitation that held values in check for those properties in 2013. Clearly, new property owners in Georgia must guard against a false sense of security based on property valuations and tax bills received during the year after the purchase of their property.

Georgia property owners need be mindful that tax authorities issue assessment notices in April, May and June, and taxpayers will only have 45 days from the date of the notice to file an appeal if they disagree with the county's valuation. Taxpayers cannot appeal tax bills. If an owner fails to timely file an appeal, there is no further opportunity to appeal the valuation or have any input into the amount of property taxes.

A review of the last few years of commercial sales tracked in the CoStar Group database for tl1e metropolitan Atlanta area, as well as discussions with the major metro Atlanta county assessors' offices, suggests that the property type with the greatest potential for increases in valuation over the next few years is office, but other property types are potentially subject to valuation changes as well.

Regardless of property type, commercial owners should vigilantly review assessment notices upon receipt and determine whether the particular property has indeed increased in valuation, or if assessors using mass appraisal techniques have over generalized. Be aware of the specific attributes affecting the value of the individual property, and ensure that the county appraisal staff has properly considered those factors in determining value.

Worthwhile points to review with the appraiser include a significantly higher vacancy rate at the property compared with other properties in the area, as well as how long the vacant space in the subject property has gone untenanted. Discuss any real or perceived reasons why the vacant space cannot be leased. What rent has been lost? What rent is in arrears, and for how long?

Also make the appraiser aware of any tenant instability or perceptions of tenant instability based on the type of company, and any necessary rent or expense concessions. How does the length of new lease terms compare with older leases? What will be needed in terms of capital improvements cost? And be sure to point out noteworthy or w1usual common area maintenance expenses, or unsuccessful marketing attempts and unsatisfactory responses to that marketing. There are plenty of other fact-specific arguments that will vary by property. When comparing your real estate to sold properties, various important considerations which may be relevant include geographic desirability and demographic comparability (or lack thereof) between the properties; actual and effective age; quality or class of the asset; and size. Consider, too, each property's condition, which may include any physical depreciation or property-specific peculiarities, and the presence of any intangible assets such as branding that affect value. Are the properties functionally equivalent, or is there disparity between the subject and the sold properties, such as differing qualities or quantities of parking, traffic anomalies, and other distinctions?

There are many promising areas for taxpayers to draw from in arguing with county assessors to reduce property valuations, and thus a decrease in the property tax burden. But in Georgia, it is critical for new owners to be diligent about taking appropriate action upon receipt of the county assessment notice.

Lisa Stuckey is a partner in the Atlanta law firm of Ragsdale, Beals, Seigler, Patterson & Gray LLP, the Georgia member of American Property Tax Counsel, the national affiliation of property tax attorneys. She can be reached at lstuckey@rbspg.com.

"The actual expenses, coupled with the rent restrictions, would cause a willing buyer to pay less for this type of a housing project as opposed to a market-rate apartment complex. Thus, the taxpayer carried its burden in proving that its property tax assessment was excessive..."

By Gregory F. Servodidio, Elliott B. Pollack as published by Affordable Housing Finance Online, June 2013

Property owners and assessment authorities continue to clash over the proper valuation for property tax purposes of rent-restricted, low-income housing. One of the most recent disagreements flared up in the small town of Beattyville, the county seat of Lee County in east central Kentucky.

A developer had converted a former Beattyville school into 18 units of low-income housing apartments. In connection with that conversion, authorities placed a restrictive covenant on the land use, to remain in place for 30 years. Under the restrictions, the Beattyville School Apartments could only take in tenants with incomes equal to or less than 50 percent of the local median income.

The Lee County property valuation administrator valued the property for tax purposes at $662,700, or about $37,000 per unit, in 2011. This value appropriately excluded any value attributable to the issued tax credits. Nevertheless, it was still well above the value of $130,000, or about $7,200 per unit, that the taxpayer presented on appeal. What created such a dramatic gap between those opinions?

The Kentucky Constitution mandates that assessors must value all property for tax purposes at fair cash value, meaning the price that the property is likely to bring at a fair voluntary sale. In arriving at fair cash value, the assessor is not obligated to consider every characteristic of a particular property, but the law requires her to consider those factors that most impact the property's value. In the case of rent-restricted, low-income housing, this requires considering those property characteristics that differentiate the asset from market-rate housing.

Interestingly enough, Lee County's assessor and the taxpayer agreed on just about all of the steps in estimating the property's fair cash value. Specifically, they agreed that the income approach to value was the most appropriate valuation methodology for this property type. They further agreed that the property's actual restricted rents should be used in the development of the income approach. They even agreed that the income approach should use a 10 percent capitalization rate, which is surprising, considering that capitalization rate selection is often a subjective determination and a point of contention between opposing valuation professionals.

The consensus broke down on the issue of expenses. The county's assessor had obtained the property's actual audited expenses as reviewed and approved by both the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Kentucky Housing Corp. The assessor deemed those expenses to be excessive and decided to cap the expenses used in her valuation model at 35 percent of income. The assessor used the same expense ratio to value other businesses in Lee County. Using lower, capped expenses as opposed to actual expenses produced a value that was five times higher than the taxpayer thought it should be.

On appeal, the hearing officer for the Kentucky Board of Tax Appeals sided with the property owner on the expense issue. He concluded that it was inappropriate to cap the expenses used in the income approach since these expenses are to a certain extent a function of applicable state and federal law, which pushes them higher than those at market-rate apartments. To ignore the actual expenses is to overlook an important characteristic of the property that has a significant impact on its value.
If the assessor felt that the actual expenses were excessive for specific reasons, she could have provided evidence to that effect at the appeal hearing. Simply arguing that they were too high, however, was insufficient to convince the hearing officer to reject the use of audited and approved expenses.

The actual expenses, coupled with the rent restrictions, would cause a willing buyer to pay less for this type of a housing project as opposed to a market-rate apartment complex. Thus, the taxpayer carried its burden in proving that its property tax assessment was excessive.

In concluding that the complex should be valued at $150,000, the hearing officer and in turn the Board of Tax Appeals were mildly critical of the taxpayer's valuation presentation. The hearing officer noted that the taxpayer's appeal petition valued the property between $110,000 and $150,000. During the hearing, the taxpayer refined its value position to $130,000, but in a way that was not entirely clear from the record.

Citing an earlier Kentucky court ruling, the Board of Tax Appeals refused to put the taxpayer in a more advantageous position on appeal than the position it had staked out in its filing. This serves as yet another confirmation that a taxpayer should place the lowest supportable value on its appeal form, so as not to place a floor on its value position during the appeal process.

Gregory F. Servodidio, CRE, and Elliott B. Pollack represent clients in property tax appeals and eminent domain matters at the Connecticut law firm of Pullman & Comley, LLC, the Connecticut member of the American Property Tax Counsel, the national affiliation of property tax attorneys. Servodidio can be reached at gservodidio@pullcom.com and Pollack at ebpollack@pullcom.com.

"The replacement cost approach has enabled property owners to obtain reduced assessments for steel mills, hospitals and other property types. The same theory can apply to an enclosed mall..."

By Brent A. Auberry, Esq., as published by REBusinessOnline.com, May 2013

This is not your mother's shopping experience. In the never-ceasing cycle of trying to stay hip and cool (or perhaps just relevant), mall owners in recent years have shifted away from the traditional, inward-facing enclosed mall to today's outward-facing lifestyle center. This change in design for new shopping centers brings with it a potential change in valuation techniques for older malls.

Assessors often apply a modified reproduction cost to malls, basing value on the cost of recreating the property's identical shape, size, design and layout. A more relevant value is replacement cost, or the cost to replace the asset with a modern shopping center with the same utility. In other words, in certain circumstances assessors should assess large enclosed malls as if they were the less costly, more efficient lifestyle centers that could be developed on the same site. The difference might result in property tax savings for the owner.

Lifestyle centers typically range between 150,000 and 500,000 square feet of leasable retail area and include at least 50,000 square feet devoted to upscale national chain stores, according to the International Council of Shopping Centers. Many rely on multiplex theaters or other entertainment components rather than traditional anchor stores.

Most importantly, lifestyle centers are open, with streets or outdoor pedestrian walkways rather than enclosed corridors, and are easily accessible from the parking area. There is no common entrance, no massive food court, no inline space or mezzanines — and none of the costs that go with those expensive construction items.

According to Sara Coers, managing director at Valbridge Property Advisors in Indianapolis, lifestyle centers reflect a pedestrian-centric, Main Street idea where customers can park near and access their favorite retail properties from the exterior. Shoppers avoid the extra time needed to find and enter a common entrance, traverse a long stretch of the mall's interior to find a particular store, and then reverse the process after making a purchase. For these reasons and others, lifestyle centers are the new, trendy kid on the shopping block.

Costs Are Key Consideration

Large interior spaces make enclosed malls bigger and more expensive to build and operate. That interior space must be heated and cooled, lit, cleaned, secured and insured. Those higher costs can translate into a lower property tax assessment, and here is how. Under the cost approach, the assessor should value the enclosed mall as a modern property of the same utility as the existing property, and the mall's modern equivalent may very well be a smaller and more efficient lifestyle center.

A penalty for the property's excess construction cost is only part of the equation. The assessor should also consider reducing the enclosed mall's assessment based on its excess operating costs, which penalize the existing mall's value. An assessment for property tax purposes should be adjusted downward to reflect that penalty.

However, not every enclosed mall should be replaced with a lifestyle center for assessment purposes. The demographics of the market served must support the case. Lifestyle centers will be sustained by a higher-income customer base. Consider the competition as well. Would customers flock to a lifestyle center, if another regional mall were nearby?

Is the climate compatible? A developer might replace an enclosed mall with a lifestyle center in Florida but not necessarily in Minnesota, where indoor shopping is a significant customer draw during severe winter weather.

The replacement property must have the same utility as the existing, assessed property. How utility is measured is open for discussion, and might be leasable square footage, the number of customers served, or something else. A utility measuring stick of some kind is a necessity, however.

How To Bolster Your Case

Sometimes property owners need to speak the language of the local assessor. That language is often cost, and applying cost means looking at replacement value. Enclosed mall owners must ask themselves, "What would a modern replacement for this property be?" If the answer is "a lifestyle center," then there may be an opportunity to negotiate a property tax reduction.

The replacement cost approach has enabled property owners to obtain reduced assessments for steel mills, hospitals and other property types. The same theory can apply to an enclosed mall. Even if the mall would not be "replaced" with a lifestyle center, a reduction is likely justified if the property is overbuilt or inefficiently configured and a smaller enclosed mall design would support the same utility.

Property owners shouldn't be afraid to ask themselves if a lifestyle choice might reduce their property tax assessment.

Brent A. Auberry is a partner in the Indianapolis office of the law firm Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, the Indiana member of American Property Tax Counsel (APTC). Brent A. Auberry can be reached at brent.auberry@FaegreBD.com.

"New York City has launched an all-out effort to deprive taxpayers of hard fought tax exemptions and find new ways to impose high penalties for late and defective filing. The measures are all calculated to bring in additional revenue..."

By Joel R. Marcus, Esq., as published by National Real Estate Investor - online, May 10th, 2013

The New York City Department of Finance has generated millions of dollars in additional revenue for the city coffers by directing new and greater efforts to serve penalties and remove tax exemptions from property owners who fail to make complete and timely filings of routine information statements. In the process, however, the city has deprived many property owners of valuable tax exemptions that they were entitled to, or charged stiff penalties for what amount to minor infractions and late or incomplete returns.

Late last year, property owners received notices to file a certificate of continuing use for commercial tax exemptions like the Industrial and Commercial Incentive Program and the Industrial and Commercial Abatement Program. The notices warned that even though a property owner may qualify for continued benefits on these multi-year, legislative as-of-right incentive programs, failure to timely file the renewal form would result in the exemption's cancellation.

This form only asked a few routine questions, requiring the property owner to list the square footage of commercial or industrial space, the number of permanent employees at the building, and report the number of employees who were New York City residents. In fact, the city had discontinued the form for the past 10 years.

Many owners were either unfamiliar with the form or failed to receive notices that were mailed to the wrong address, in many cases because the city failed to note a change in ownership that occurred during the past decade. To complicate matters, only a form specifically generated by the Department of Finance for each property could be used, requiring those who did not receive it to request a duplicate. So where a property owner had multiple parcels and lacked the correct form for one or more of its properties, the city refused to accept a standard form that did not carry its barcode.

The city allowed no margins for error. If the property owner left even one question blank, as in the number of permanent city residents that worked in a shopping center or office building, this was grounds to declare the form incomplete and invalid.

Not-for-profits received a similar request to renew Educational, Charitable and Religious exemptions by returning a different renewal form on a timely basis. Many houses of worship and schools that failed to receive the notice or were negligent in completely filling out and returning the form on time saw their exemptions removed.

Many not-for-profit organizations had enjoyed an exemption for decades, if not longer, and considered the exemptions to be granted by the State Constitution and state legislation. Some of those organizations were unfamiliar with this new policy and ill-equipped to delineate details of tax exempt uses and purposes. After all, this information previously was only required on the initial exemption application, filed long ago by people long since departed.

In the process, a great many of these venerable institutions lost an exemption for which they were absolutely qualified. In many instances they were forced to engage counsel and file appeals at the tax commission, which found that the removals were unjustified.

The most severe of the form-failure penalties fell on Real Property Income and Expense (RPIE) filers. The RPIE is a mandatory report of income and expenses, but some properties fall into one of several filing exemptions, such as those with new owners. Although exempt from filling out the entire form, new owners had to check a box on the form affirming that they were exempt from filing. Therefore a failure to report back to the city that they weren't required to file the form became a reason to charge a penalty for failing to file a form on time. Here the penalties, rarely if ever experienced before, became commonplace.

Last year the city collected fines of $100,000 or more for minor infractions of the filing deadlines. To make matters worse, the city imposed many penalties a year or more after the alleged infractions, with the unfortunate result of saddling new owners with penalties because the previous owners failed to file two years earlier. Filing errors not being of record, title companies are unable to insure against such losses.

Notwithstanding that for more than 20 years RPIE compliance has been greater than 99 percent and only three examples of fraud are on record, the Department of Finance now is proposing legislation to tighten the screws again. The department refuses to trust taxpayers to file these returns themselves, and has asked the City Council to move the annual due date up from Sept. 1 to June 1, with a new requirement that the form be completed and certified by a certified public accountant (CPA).

Property owners who submitted RPIE statements digitally on the Department of Finance website each September previously will now have to file using a CPA ertificate by June 1 each year. That means owners will incur certification fees for all commercial properties with an assessed valuation of $1 million or more (a CPA fee is usually $10,000 or more depending on the property). This burden never existed before.

Since the Department of Finance online entry system doesn't adhere to generally accepted accounting principles, and because it excludes large categories of income and expense, it may prove impossible for many CPA's to comply. Also, by excluding these categories, the report doesn't mirror the owner's actual operating information, making it impossible for anyone to sign or attest to it.

These policies elevate "form over substance" to an entirely new — and sinister — level.

Joel R. Marcus is a partner in the New York City law firm Marcus & Pollack, LLP, the New York City member of American Property Tax Counsel(APTC), the national affiliation of property tax attorneys. He may be reached at jmarcus@marcuspollack.com.

"Washington is unique in its reliance on property taxes, and in particular commercial property taxes, for a disproportionate share of its revenue. This is due in large part to factors outside of the council's control, such as the large amount of federally owned, tax-exempt property in the district, and to Congress' decision to prevent the district from taxing income earned in the district by non-residents..."

By Scott B. Cryder, Esq., as published by National Real Estate Investor - online, April 9th, 2013

Most property owners in the District of Columbia would welcome a plan to increase the accuracy of tax assessments by providing assessors with the most up-to-date information available. But if that plan also reduced the time D.C. assessors have to conduct their assessments to two months, rather than the current six months, many of those same taxpayers might reconsider. And if this plan would also reduce the time for assessors to handle initial administrative appeals, which has been an efficient mechanism to pare down the number of formal appeals, to six weeks instead of the current four-month window, most reasonable people would likely balk at the entire notion.

The truth is, legislation mandating these exact changes is pending before the Council of the District Columbia. And if statements from key councilmembers and District officials are any indication, this legislation has a good chance of becoming law in the next few months. How did we get here?

First, understand that Washington is unique in its reliance on property taxes, and in particular commercial property taxes, for a disproportionate share of its revenue. This is due in large part to factors outside of the council's control, such as the large amount of federally owned, tax-exempt property in the district, and to Congress' decision to prevent the district from taxing income earned in the district by non-residents.

Nonetheless, this heavy reliance on property taxes has created the public perception that Washington's assessment division is a revenue-generating department. Misplaced as this view may be—and it is misplaced—it has resulted in the assessment division being subject to frequent charges of "giving away" taxpayer dollars.

The most recent iteration of this line of criticism came to a head last year when the Washington Post published a series of articles suggesting that the Real Property Assessment Division was improperly settling commercial assessment appeals. To pile on, the Washington D.C. Office of the Inspector General issued a report shortly thereafter roundly criticizing many key practices and policies in the Assessment Division.

Although many of the criticisms levied at the Assessment Division were unmerited, the top staff of the Assessment Division determined that action needed to be taken. Naturally, one would anticipate that a working committee of stakeholders was convened and suggestions of the assessors sought, since they would be implementing any changes.

One would also expect such a committee, or someone in authority, to thoroughly review implications of any proposed changes. Unfortunately, though not unsurprisingly, none of this occurred. Instead of engaging in an "all—of-the-above" type of conversation, district officials quickly rolled out a wholesale overhaul of the assessment process without anything resembling the thorough vetting needed.

Good intentioned as those public servants proposing these changes may be, most professionals involved in the assessment and appeal process (including every assessor the author has queried) agree that the recommended changes will have a negative impact on the quality of assessments, and will ultimately increase both the number of appeals and the average time required to resolve an appeal. While this is surely not the outcome that district officials desire, it will likely be the one they achieve.

Scott B. Cryder is an associate in the law firm of Wilkes Artis Chartered, the District of Columbia member of American Property Tax Counsel, the national affiliation of property tax attorneys.

"...as in the United States, local counsel is essential to understanding the tax system and use best means of pursuing a positive outcome..."

By Bradford Nixon, as published by Real Estate Forum, March 2013

The key to understanding ad valorem property assessment and taxation in Canada is to recognize that each province has its own unique system adhering to me basic principles of market value and equity. Each of the J 0 provinces has established a distinct regime of municipal assessment and property taxation. Although each province has different terminology, the general principle of market value derived from a value in exchange is consistently applied.

A second, crucially important principle which applies in nine of the 10 provinces (except Quebec) requires an equitable distribution of assessments and property taxes amongst similar properties. In the United States, this concept is known as uniformity.

Most provinces limit real estate tax levies to the assessed value of real property. Personal property is generally non-taxable in Canada except in Alberta, which taxes personal property in the oil and gas industry.

While the goal of the assessment is to obtain a correct current value as a conclusion, every individual taxpayer is entitled to an assessment that is equitable with comparable properties. As in the individual stales in the US, provincial legislation dictates how to properly determine the correctness and fairness of a property assessment. In a few provinces such as Ontario, the property tax system is complicated by tax caps and clawbacks, or legislative phase-ins of assessment increases or decreases.

Generally, each province provides taxpayers with a level of administrative appeal to a quasi-judicial tribunal, which is in turn subject to appeal on questions of law to the superior court of the province. The tribunals are independently appointed and usually separate from the local municipality. The assessment function may be performed by a provincial corporation in some cases, as it is in Ontario and British Columbia; or alternatively, the assessment roll may be prepared and defended by public or private sector agents of the local municipalities, as in Alberta, Manitoba and Quebec.

Each province has established its own set of exemptions from property taxation, which will include property owned by the federal and provincial governments or by churches, universities, schools and various nonprofit organizations.

Representatives performing assessment and tax services on behalf of taxpayers are coming under increasing scrutiny and regulation. For instance, in Quebec, only licensed appraisers may give opinion of value evidence before the assessment appeal tribunals.

In Ontario, only lawyers or paralegals licensed to provide legal services by the Law Society of Ontario may file and prosecute appeals.

Deadlines for assessment appeals will vary from province to province. For instance, in Ontario, there is an annual right of appeal and an appeal in the initial year of the four-year cycle will be deemed in effect for the subsequent 3 years, whereas in Quebec an appeal of the tri-annual assessment can only be made in the first year of the cycle. Knowing the local laws and practices are critical Thus, as in the United States, local counsel is essential to understanding the tax system and use best means of pursuing a positive outcome.

Brad Nixon is a partner in the Toronto law firm Walker Poole Nixon LLP, the Canadian member of American Property Tax Counsel, the national affiliation of properly tax attorneys. He may be contacted at bnixon@Wpnlaw.com. The views expressed here are the author's own.

"It was not of constitutional moment, the court decided, that the Indianapolis lump-sum payers were stuck for the full amount of their assessments while the installment payers received forgiveness reductions. Terminating the installment payers' obligations to make their remaining installments, the court observed, permitted the city to avoid "maintaining an administrative system for years ..."

By Elliott B. Pollack, Esq., Commercial Property Executive, January 2013

Property owners frequently raise legitimate questions about hard-to-fathom differences between assessments of similar properties, as well as the failure of municipal and county assessors to equalize values. Property owners may question the constitutionality of such unreasonable governmental actions in court. Attorneys, however, have long counseled clients that attempting to toss out an assessment, or a valuation system, on constitutional grounds is a very steep hill to climb. The U.S. Supreme Court underscored the accuracy of this advice last June in a rather prosaic piece of litigation involving sewer assessments.

The city of Indianapolis' policy to pay for sewer construction and line extensions was to apportion the cost among abutting lots. After assessing the initial project, the city divided the cost among the number of affected lots. The city also made adjustments to reflect differences in lot size and configuration. Upon completion of the project, each lot received a final assessment. So far, so good.

Once in receipt of the proposed assessment, a lot owner could choose to pay the amount due in a lump sum or in installments, a choice typically given to property owners facing capital assessments in most U.S. jurisdictions. One particular sewer extension project affected 180 Indianapolis homeowners; 38 chose to pay their obligations at once, and the remainder opted for installments.

Just one year later, the city abandoned the lot apportionment assessment methodology, instead adopting a complicated payment plan based on project bond financing, which need not be discussed here. The key to the new system was that it reduced the liability of the individual lot owners affected by this project.

This was good news for the 142 homeowners who had opted for the installment payment plan, but it went over like a lead balloon for the 38 homeowners who had paid in full. Why? Because in the course of adopting the new financing plan, the city forgave all remaining installments owed under the old format but did not attempt to make refunds to those homeowners who had paid in full.

Understandably upset that they did not receive the same financial consideration that the installment payers received, the lump sum payers initiated refund litigation. The property owners met with initial success but lost the case in the Indiana Supreme Court, which ruled that the city had a rational basis for forgiving the remaining installment payments. Among the reasons the city offered, and the court approved, was a reduction in the city's administrative costs because the cost of calculating refunds to the lump sum payers and making refunds did not warrant doing so. The city also indicated an interest in providing financial relief to the installment payment homeowners. The homeowners took their case to the U.S. Supreme Court, which agreed to hear their appeals.

The Supreme Court concluded that as long as "there is any reasonably conceivable state of facts which could provide a rational basis for the decision" made by Indianapolis, it was constitutional. This thinking is in keeping with a long line of rulings that make it clear the justices are almost always unwilling to wade into the tax-fairness swamp. Commentators suggest that this reluctance is based on the court's perception that once it starts deciding whether a particular tax or tax refund plan is constitutional, it will be deluged with hundreds of cases from all over the country. As a result, the court has developed a jurisprudence that requires it to defer broadly to the judgment of local taxing authorities, except in extreme circumstances.

It was not of constitutional moment, the court decided, that the Indianapolis lump-sum payers were stuck for the full amount of their assessments while the installment payers received forgiveness reductions. Terminating the installment payers' obligations to make their remaining installments, the court observed, permitted the city to avoid "maintaining an administrative system for years ... to collect debts arising out of (many different construction) projects involving monthly payments as low as $25 per household."

The fact that Indianapolis authorities were concerned about potential financial hardships that might be suffered by certain installment payers if their remaining obligations were not forgiven stuck in the craw of the lump sum payers and probably made them wonder why the city did not think of their potential financial hardship, as well. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court ruled that the "city's administrative concerns are sufficient to show a rational basis" for its action. Once the court discerned a rational basis, it refused to take its fairness and constitutional analysis any further.

The June 4, 2012, ruling was signed by Justices Breyer, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan. Justices Scalia and Alito joined Chief Justice Roberts' vigorous dissenting opinion.

Elliott B. Pollack is chair of the Property Valuation Department of the Connecticut law firm Pullman & Comley L.L.C. The firm is the Connecticut member of American Property Tax Counsel, the national affiliation of property tax attorneys. He can be reached at ebpollack@pullcom.com.

"The first step toward making a tax-informed decision on a real estate purchase is to consult with a property tax professional knowledgeable in the market..."

By Sharon DiPaolo, Esq., as published by rebusinessonline.com, January 2013

Someone buys a commercial property after months of research and negotiation, and soon afterward the property's real estate taxes skyrocket. The pattern — or at least the degree of the tax increase — often catches even sophisticated buyers unaware because rules that govern real estate assessments vary from state to state and town to town.

Investors who blindly assume that real estate taxes will remain flat after a sale risk disastrous consequences. Tax increases of 50 percent or more are not uncommon following a sale. A clear understanding of how the taxes could change can significantly influence what a buyer is willing to pay for real estate.

"It happens every day," says J. Kieran Jennings, managing partner of Cleveland-based law firm Siegel Jennings, which specializes in commercial property tax. "The phone rings and it's the new owner of a property who has just been hit with a huge tax increase, wanting to know what happened. Sometimes we can fight the tax increase after the fact, but it's always better to know what to expect before you buy. We prefer to get the phone call before the purchase, when we can help plan."

Know the market

Real estate taxes are based on a property's assessment, but tax rules vary widely by location. Some states ban the assessor from changing a property's assessment to match the sale price. Other states automatically raise the assessment to the sale price. Some states have a hybrid system in which a taxing district can file an appeal to increase the assessment after a sale. Knowing the rules of the particular jurisdiction is critical to proper tax planning.

Pennsylvania, for example, has a hybrid system. Pennsylvania law prohibits the county assessor from spot assessing, or independently changing the assessment of only one property. Under another Pennsylvania statute, however, taxing districts can file appeals to increase specific assessments, and many districts use sales to cherry-pick which properties to appeal.

Within Pennsylvania, and even within a particular county, school districts diverge in their practices of filing appeals. In Pittsburgh alone, one district might file appeals on all properties with sales greater than a certain percentage of the assessment, while another district might not file any appeals where the sale price is less than $1 million. A few districts have decided not to file any appeals.

Across the state line, in Ohio, the situation is a little different. Ohio has 88 counties and county auditors set assessments. "It boils down to knowing the county," says Jennings. Ohio has a six-year reappraisal cycle when every property gets a new assessment, and a three-year update cycle when the assessment can be modified.

Owners should expect the sale to be taken into account in a reappraisal year. Mid-cycle, the county auditor also can change an assessment to reflect a sale price. Just as in Pennsylvania, districts can file increase appeals, and many do. Generally, Pennsylvania and Ohio see more increase appeals by taxing districts than do other nearby states.

In New Jersey, the law is similar to Pennsylvania's, but the practical effect is different. "It's a trap for the unwary," says Philip J. Giannuario, a property tax lawyer with Garippa Lotz & Giannuario in New Jersey.

Giannuario cautions property owners to investigate the tax climate carefully before buying. Under New Jersey law, assessments are set by towns. A town's assessor cannot use a recent sale as a reason to change a property's assessment.

Just as in Pennsylvania, such spot assessments are banned. The towns can, however, opt to file assessment appeals to increase the assessments of properties that sell. With more than 650 towns in the state, Giannuario says that whether a particular town actually files increase assessment appeals depends on the town. The key is to know each town's practice.

Budget for worst-case scenario

The first step toward making a tax-informed decision on a real estate purchase is to consult with a property tax professional knowledgeable in the market. Based on the nuances of the particular jurisdiction, if an increase in an assessment is a possibility the tax professional can help the buyer to project a budget as if the assessment were raised to the potential sale price. That analysis could reduce the sum that the potential buyer is willing to offer for the property.

Knowing the worst-case scenario also can help the buyer notify tenants about potential outcomes so that they, in turn, can budget or even escrow funds. A little preparation goes a long way and is an easy step to avoid surprises down the road.

Sharon F. DiPaolo is a partner in the law firm of Siegel Jennings Co., L.P.A., the Ohio and Western Pennsylvania member of American Property Tax Counsel, the national affiliation of property tax attorneys. She can be reached at sdipaolo@siegeltax.com.

How to Save Money by Allocating Prices in Real Estate Transactions

"Federal regulators recognize operations account for a significant component of hotel income and value..."

By Morris A. Ellison, Esq., as published by Commercial Property Executive, December 2012

Commercial real estate investors generally acquire properties based on total cash flow, rather than on the perceived value of the property's individual components generating that cash flow. Increasingly, however, lenders are attempting to underwrite real estate loans through component analyses by breaking down a property into income-generating elements under the theory that separately valuing components reduces risk.

Taxing authorities already generate separate tax bills, often at different rates, for real property, personal property and business licensing fees. A similar approach from lenders, which are under increasing regulatory pressure to reduce risk, may impinge on commercial real estate financing and slow the industry's recovery.

A purchaser often analyzes components of cash flow when evaluating how to improve a property's operational performance and the impact of taxes on potential returns. Common considerations include real estate transfer taxes, allocation of basis for income tax purposes, real and personal property tax assessments, and segregation of readily depreciable or amortizable assets from non-depreciable or non-amortizable assets. Allocation generally involves four components: (i) land (non-depreciable); (ii) buildings or improvements (generally depreciable); (iii) tangible personal property (generally depreciable); and (iv) goodwill or ongoing business value represented by intangible personal property or business enterprise value (BEV).

Hotel properties are prime examples of component analysis, as the analysis is often a major negotiating point. Hotels are generally sold as going concerns—that is, operating businesses with a value distinct the underlying real estate. Integrating a well thought- out allocation into a purchase agreement potentially simplifies recordkeeping yields significant savings on income, property and transfer taxes, sometimes worth tens millions of dollars. The federal Internal Revenue Code applies different depreciation rates and tax calculations to different property types. Commercial businesses with substantial goodwill associated with operations (such as hotels, shopping centers, healthcare facilities and marinas) can significantly benefit from a comprehensive allocation analysis.

For example, much of the value of healthcare facilities rests in operating licenses. These and other intangible assets are generally not subject to ad valorem taxation, and accurately reflecting value will prevent overpaying property taxes due to an incorrect allocation of value. In states where the federal income tax basis is used to calculate property taxes for purchased assets, an allocation analysis is critical. For federal income tax purposes, the tax basis of purchased assets is allocated according to the residual method, which generally allocates a purchase price into classes of assets. Except for land, certain tangible assets are depreciable for federal income tax purposes.

Valuing such assets typically involves obtaining a real estate appraisal, extracting improvement values from land value and valuing tangible personal property such as furniture using the most appropriate methodology for that asset type. Because the federal income tax basis of property is determined at the time of acquisition, allocating the purchase price should be part of due diligence and not put off until after closing. Closing is a great opportunity to establish the various business assets' tax basis, and separate conveyance documents should be prepared for each major asset to document allocated value.

Property Tax Implications

After closing, governments generally separately assess taxes against the real property, tangible personal property and intangible personal property (usually in the form of a business licensing fee).

Tangible personal property, which is subject to a faster depreciation schedule, includes furniture, fixtures, equipment and supplies. Business enterprise value might include startup costs, an assembled workforce, a reservation system and residual intangible assets. The Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP), promulgated by the Appraisal Standards Board of the Appraisal Foundation, require separation of a hotel's business value from other components. However, there is no consensus on the method for calculating BEV.

Some taxing authorities contend BEV is an illusion conjured by disreputable appraisers and property owners seeking to reduce ad valorem taxes, but the Appraisal Institute and federal regulators recognize that the operating business of a hotel, for example, accounts for a significant component of its income and overall value.

Since Oct. 1, 2011, the Small Business Administration has required affiliated lenders to obtain a going-concern appraisal for any real estate involving an ongoing business. Affected property types include hospitality, healthcare facilities, restaurants and nightclubs, entertainment venues, manufacturing firms, office buildings, shopping centers and apartment complexes. SBA lenders must obtain an appraisal valuing the separate components from an appraiser who has taken specified courses in valuing going concerns.

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, which regulates commercial banks, simply requires lenders to use a competent appraiser and does not specify course requirements for the appraiser. While OCC appraisals need only comply with USPAP, stricter standards may apply if required by what the OCC calls "principles of safe and sound banking."

USPAP does not specifically require appraisers to value component elements when appraising going-concern properties. Although USPAP Rule 1-4(g) states, "(w)hen personal property, trade fixtures or intangible items are included in the appraisal, the appraiser must analyze the effect on value of such non-real property items," the Appraisal Foundation has made it clear that this standard does not mandate an appraisal of the property's individual components of value. However, "the appraiser may be required to value the individual components because of what the analysis produces and/or the manner in which the analysis was applied." Thus, USPAP implicitly require an appraiser to allocate values under certain circumstances.

The OCC appears to be seeking to require more. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Improvement Act of 1991 imposed additional requirements on institutions subject to OCC regulations, which require each institution to adopt and maintain written real estate lending policies "consistent with principles of safety and soundness and that reflect consideration of the real estate lending guidelines." Exactly what this means is unclear.

A recent article published by the Appraisal Institute contends that appraisals of going concern properties must allocate values. Although not attributable to USPAP requirements, the FDIC, as well as the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989, may require allocation in order to ensure "safety and soundness." Whether these principles require different interest rates for different components of value remains an open question.

Component analysis makes sense in analyzing operations and in calculating taxes. The ongoing debate over how to calculate BEV, however, illustrates the difficulty of transporting component analysis into transactions and real estate lending. For example, large hotel loans are typically made by a lender's corporate loan department, not the real estate department, and with good reason. Furthermore, incorporating the concept of component analysis into real estate lending seems likely to increase interest rates at a time when available credit is already scarce. That debate is just beginning.

Morris A. Ellison is a member of the Charleston, S.C., office of the law firm Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice L.L.P., and is the South Carolina member of American Property Tax Counsel, the national affiliation of property tax attorneys. He can be reached at ellison@wcsr.com.