logo
  • Home

Subscribe to Articles

Subscribe

 RSS

Email Alerts

Email Brett

Visit Our Website

http://www.intlappraisal.com

Twitter Updates

  • U.S. Commercial Property Deals May Slow. http://goo.gl/XjNv 6 hrs ago
  • Retail Leasing Continues to Strengthen, But Investment Activity Remains Sluggish. http://goo.gl/K8qm 1 day ago
  • Cook County - Debate continues over progress of property tax bills. http://goo.gl/pCvp 3 days ago
  • Slow Dealing Continues as Retail Investment Sales Volume Slides http://goo.gl/m7SO 3 days ago
  • More updates...
http://www.twitterbuttons.com

Recent Posts

  • Ohio Property Tax Appeals & Purchase Price Presumption
  • Virginia Property Tax Procedural Changes
  • Indiana Property Tax Assessment and Valuation Rules Amended
  • Persuasive Obsolescence Arguments Win Property Tax Appeals
  • Georgia’s “Property Tax Reform” Bill

Archives

  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009

Blogroll

  • 2009 Property Tax Calendar
  • IAC Website

Meta

  • Log in
  • Entries RSS
  • Comments RSS
  • WordPress.org

A Not So Good Big Box Property Tax Appeal Case

Author: Brett Harrington Category: Property Tax, Tax Appeal Tags: big box retail, fee simple, leased fee, Ohio Property Taxes, Property Tax, Property Tax Appeal, Property Tax Appeals

Monday
Jul 27, 2009

In the recent post A Good Big Box Property Tax Appeal Case I discussed a decision by the Supreme Court of Ohio that I thought was a taxpayer friendly opinion that accurately reflected the realities of the big box retail market. Well, it appears as though the Supreme Court has said, “not so fast” with the decision of Meijer Stores Ltd. V. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, in which an almost complete reversal of position was taken regarding obsolescence and the market for big box retail stores. 

It is interesting to note that the BTA decided both the Target case and the Meijer case on the same day. The major difference being that in the Target case the school board did not appear and the county did not present any evidence to counter the appraisal and testimony of the taxpayer’s expert. 

So, I guess what the BTA and Supreme Court are saying is that if you want to make this argument you better hope that no one shows up to rebut the evidence.

  • Share/Bookmark

Click here to cancel reply.

Comment Form

Copyright 2010 Taxing Issues – Property Tax Blog - All Rights reserved.

Wordpress theme by: WPUnlimited