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

Property Tax Appeal Denied For Failure To Prove The Valuation Of Intangibles

Author: Brett Harrington Category: Property Tax, Tax Appeal Tags: BEV, BEV and property taxes, Oregon Property Taxes, Property Tax, Property Tax Appeal, Property Tax Appeals, Property Tax Protest, Tax Assessment, Valuation of Intangibles

Friday
Aug 14, 2009

In the recent decision of Huang v. Department of Revenue The Oregon Tax Court denied a taxpayer’s request for a reduction in the property tax valuation of a motel due to the taxpayer’s failure to prove the valuation of intangible business property. 

The taxpayer purchased a motel and the sales agreement allocated a portion of the purchase price to “land and buildings” and a portion to “Trade Name and Goodwill”. The taxpayer sought to have the ”Trade Name and Goodwill”  portion excluded from the purchase price in order to arrive at the value for property tax purposes. The Tax Court found that: 

“Taxpayers’ actions and Huang’s testimony fail to provide an explanation for why the Sales Agreement allocated the sales price among ‘Land and Buildings’ and ‘Trade [N]ame and Goodwill’” 

In fact, the actions of the taxpayer both prior to the sale and subsequently seem to indicate the trade name had minimal, if any, value (they changed the name of the hotel after the sale) or that goodwill was properly valued (Haung testified that he did not know the manner in which the seller operated the business prior to the sale).

  • Share/Bookmark

Click here to cancel reply.

Comment Form

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

Wordpress theme by: WPUnlimited