Kansas offers property tax exemptions relating to “commercial/industrial machinery and equipment” that could be very beneficial to taxpayers owning or leasing personal property. They are as follows: 

Commercial/Industrial Machinery and Equipment Exemption:

Any qualified purchase or lease of machinery and equipment made after June 30, 2006 is exempt from property taxation in Kansas. Of course, there are a few clarifications to keep in mind. The term “Acquired” does not include stock purchases, mergers, reorganizations or other internal transfers. However, it does include transfers of property into Kansas after June 30^th for the purposes of expansion, replacement or creation of a new business. 

Qualified Purchase is defined as: 

a purchase of commercial and industrial machinery and equipment for fair and valuable consideration where such machinery and equipment is physically transferred to the purchaser to be used in the purchaser’s business or trade.

Qualified Lease is defined as: 

a lease of commercial and industrial machinery and equipment for not less than 30 days for fair and valuable consideration where such machinery and equipment is physically transferred to the lessee to be used in the lessee’s business or trade.

$1,500 Exemption for Commercial Equipment:

Commercial/Industrial equipment “items” with a “retail cost when new” (RCWN) of $1,500 or less are exempt from property taxation. Again, there are two things to pay close attention to when determining whether or not the equipment is eligible for the exemption:

Retail cost when new:

Retail cost when new (RCWN): The Kansas Constitution requires the valuation process for machinery and equipment in the “Commercial” subclass begin with the “retail cost when new”. For purposes of personal property taxation, RCWN is the total amount a consumer would pay to acquire new property in order to use it to produce income over a period of years in a commercial or industrial setting. Retail cost when new is not the used sale price, and it is not the wholesale or manufacturer’s cost. It is the dollar amount an item would cost a consumer when the item is purchased new at the retail level of trade. For purposes of personal property taxation, the term “retail cost when new” does not include sales tax or freight and installation charges that are separate and readily discernible from the set retail price.

 What is considered an “Item”:

For purposes of the $1500 exemption an “item” is generally going to be a single line item as it is reported on a rendition. Exceptions to this general rule are: 

1. If the line item represents a group of like goods that can be used independently and they have the same or similar cost, the line item is actually several “items”. The RCWN of each “item” may qualify for the exemption. 

2. In that an “item” is the smallest quantity that may be used independently, one pen, one sheet of paper or one rubber band represents a material and supply “item”. The RCWN of each “item” that can be independently used may qualify for the exemption. Materials and supplies are classified under the “Other” subclass of personal property. Personal property in the “Other” subclass is listed on schedule 6 of the rendition. See the “Other Personal Property Not Elsewhere Classified” section in this guide for information on valuing materials and supplies.

More information on these exemptions can be found in the 2010 Personal Property Valuation Guide,  K.S.A. 201 and K.S.A. 79-223.

Following up on our post Texas Property Tax Appeal Pilot Program, the State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH) has proposed new Chapter 165 (165.1 – 165.29) that clarifies the types and number of appeals that may be filed and establishes procedures for hearings on such appeals. For the first five-year period the new chapter is in effect there will be no fiscal implications for state or local governments as a result of enforcing it and no anticipated economic cost to individuals who are required to comply.

“Bottom-feeding” investors a sign of stabilization? Foreign banks and US private equity firms are stimulating the U.S. commercial real estate sector. But rising interest rates may pose a threat.

The Wisconsin circuit court review of a board of review’s decision is limited to the record made before the board, and the court may not conduct its own factual inquiry or admit any new evidence.

Sager v. Board of Review of Town of Taycheedah, Wisconsin Court of Appeals, No. 2009AP972, December 30, 2009, ¶401-273

Senate Bill 816, effective January 1, 2010, could result in the imposition of significant penalties on unwary taxpayers for failing to report changes in control or ownership of legal entities in California. It imposes a new, automatic 10% penalty for failure to file a change-in-ownership statement to the State Board of Equalization (SBE) within 45 days. The penalty will be 10% of the taxes applicable to the new base year reflecting the change in ownership. Previously, the acquiring entity was required to file a change-in-ownership statement with the SBE. However, no penalty was imposed for not filing, unless the SBE specifically requested such a statement. SB816 changes all that. Now taxpayers will incur the penalty if they do not file within 45 days, regardless if the SBE requests the statement or not. If the SBE requests the statement, taxpayers must respond within 45 days, even if no change took place, to avoid incurring the penalty.

The Kansas Court of Appeals recently reversed a decision by the District Court that set aside the opinion of the Kansas Board of Tax Appeals. At the center of the case was the valuation methodology employed by the taxing jurisdiction’s appraiser. The Court of Appeals found that the jurisdiction’s expert witness not only erred, but also violated USPAP by valuing the various segments of the property and summing the individual values to arrive at an overall valuation conclusion. The court relied upon USPAP Standard Rule 1-4(e):

“Pursuant to USPAP Standard Rule 1-4(e) (2001), an appraiser must analyze the effect on value, if any, of the assemblage of the various estates or component parts of a property and refrain from valuing the whole solely by adding together the individual values of the various estates or component parts. Although the value of the whole may be equal to the sum of the separate estates or parts, it also may be greater or less than the sum of such estates or parts. Therefore, the value of the whole must be tested by reference to appropriate data and supported by an appropriate analysis of such data.”

The Court goes on to state:

“There is no question that Kubert violated USPAP Rule 1-4(e). In executing each of his approaches to value, Kubert segmented the property, valued each segment individually, and then added the values to get his final valuation.”

The case can be found here.

As property tax professionals we rely on market information to support our cases for reducing assessments. Of course, all information is not created equal. Now, more than ever, it is extremely important to dig deep when it comes to the information gathering process.

We are starting to see a trickle of transactions (both sales and leases) after the severe drought we have been experiencing. However, many property owners are being creative (or desperate) in order to sell or lease their properties. This is where the necessity of proper research comes into play. Knowing as much about a transaction as possible will paint a more accurate picture of the market and ultimately valuations.

When researching sales it is important to keep in mind that many property owners have found themselves in a bind, to say the least. Almost $165 billion in commercial loans are coming due this year as landlords struggle with rental rate and occupancy declines and higher cap rates. This is creating problems with refinancing and/or keeping current on loans. Defaults, foreclosures and bankruptcies are plentiful right now and in the opinion of many industry professionals this trend will continue into 2010. So, when researching sales it is very important to know the conditions of the sale and the motivations of the participants.

When it comes to leases, landlords are getting creative in order to maintain occupancies or fill vacancies. Free rent periods, reduced rent and significant tenant improvement allowances are just a few of the many concessions being offered to tenants. These concessions are important because they affect effective rent.

The point being that what appears to be the deal on the surface may be something quite different underneath.

Illinois recently enacted HB 4120 regarding the abatement of taxes for businesses that occupy a previously vacant property. The Act states:

“Upon a majority vote of its governing body, any taxing district  may, after the determination of the assessed valuation of its property, order the county clerk to abate any portion of its taxes on any property if (i) a new business first occupies a facility located on the property during the taxable year, and (ii) the facility was vacant for a period of at least 24 continuous months prior to being occupied by the business. The abatement shall not exceed a period of 2 years and the aggregate amount of abated taxes for all taxing districts combined shall not exceed $4,000,000.”

Given the amount of vacant property on the market, this should prove to be an effective tax savings tool for Illinois businesses.

The California State Board of Equalization recently released a draft of the proposed Guidelines for Substantiating Additional Obsolescence for Personal Property and Fixtures as part of a project to assist county assessors’ staff in identifying and quantifying obsolescence for personal property tax valuation.

Although the proposed guidelines do not offer anything that can be considered groundbreaking, they do serve as an overview of the process for identifying and calculating extraordinary obsolescence.

1^st installment tax bills in Cook County have historically been computed at 50% of the property taxes paid for the preceding year. With the passage of S.B. 2125, 1^st installment tax bills will be computed at 55% of the preceding year’s tax bills. Taxpayers in Cook County will want to accrue accordingly.