<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Georgia’s “Property Tax Reform” Bill</title>
	<atom:link href="http://intlappraisal.com/blog/2010/georgia%e2%80%99s-%e2%80%9cproperty-tax-reform%e2%80%9d-bill/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://intlappraisal.com/blog/2010/georgia%e2%80%99s-%e2%80%9cproperty-tax-reform%e2%80%9d-bill/</link>
	<description>Property Tax Blog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 08 Apr 2010 13:27:17 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Russ Madison</title>
		<link>http://intlappraisal.com/blog/2010/georgia%e2%80%99s-%e2%80%9cproperty-tax-reform%e2%80%9d-bill/comment-page-1/#comment-2120</link>
		<dc:creator>Russ Madison</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Mar 2010 20:43:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://intlappraisal.com/blog/?p=294#comment-2120</guid>
		<description>Thanks, Brett, for that reply &amp; good insights.  Perhaps those points will be considered when the Georgia House of Representatives takes their crack at it.

Glad I found your blog!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks, Brett, for that reply &amp; good insights.  Perhaps those points will be considered when the Georgia House of Representatives takes their crack at it.</p>
<p>Glad I found your blog!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Brett Harrington</title>
		<link>http://intlappraisal.com/blog/2010/georgia%e2%80%99s-%e2%80%9cproperty-tax-reform%e2%80%9d-bill/comment-page-1/#comment-2115</link>
		<dc:creator>Brett Harrington</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Mar 2010 15:44:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://intlappraisal.com/blog/?p=294#comment-2115</guid>
		<description>Thanks for the comment, Russ. Regarding the purchase price requirement, I agree, it could be significant. However, I am not 100% sure it is entirely taxpayer friendly. In some respects it places an emphasis on the purchase price, which can be problematic. This has been the case in places like CA &amp; OH. When it comes to commercial/industrial transactions, the purchase price is not always the best indicator of market value for property tax purposes.

I believe the annual notice requirement is a favorable requirement. However, I think that changing/eliminating the &quot;annual return&quot; requirement would be much better. Taxpayers can file a return annually to initiate an appeal, but most taxpayers do not know this. What about eliminating the return requirement and allowing taxpayers to appeal after they receive their tax bills? Not only would it provide the opportunity to appeal, it would also be more cost and time effective for the municipalities.

As with any legislation, I think the proof will be in how it actually plays out in reality.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for the comment, Russ. Regarding the purchase price requirement, I agree, it could be significant. However, I am not 100% sure it is entirely taxpayer friendly. In some respects it places an emphasis on the purchase price, which can be problematic. This has been the case in places like CA &amp; OH. When it comes to commercial/industrial transactions, the purchase price is not always the best indicator of market value for property tax purposes.</p>
<p>I believe the annual notice requirement is a favorable requirement. However, I think that changing/eliminating the &#8220;annual return&#8221; requirement would be much better. Taxpayers can file a return annually to initiate an appeal, but most taxpayers do not know this. What about eliminating the return requirement and allowing taxpayers to appeal after they receive their tax bills? Not only would it provide the opportunity to appeal, it would also be more cost and time effective for the municipalities.</p>
<p>As with any legislation, I think the proof will be in how it actually plays out in reality.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Russ Madison</title>
		<link>http://intlappraisal.com/blog/2010/georgia%e2%80%99s-%e2%80%9cproperty-tax-reform%e2%80%9d-bill/comment-page-1/#comment-2112</link>
		<dc:creator>Russ Madison</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Mar 2010 12:05:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://intlappraisal.com/blog/?p=294#comment-2112</guid>
		<description>The bill&#039;s requirement that the purchase price of the property will be the set value of the property for tax purposes for one year after the sale seems significant to me.

Also, right now, you can only appeal your property value if you received an assessment notice.  Many Georgia counties currently send a notice every three years, which limits property owners&#039; opportunities to appeal, but this bill would mandate annual notices.

I read those as more important because Georgia appraisers have already been taking distressed sales into account.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The bill&#8217;s requirement that the purchase price of the property will be the set value of the property for tax purposes for one year after the sale seems significant to me.</p>
<p>Also, right now, you can only appeal your property value if you received an assessment notice.  Many Georgia counties currently send a notice every three years, which limits property owners&#8217; opportunities to appeal, but this bill would mandate annual notices.</p>
<p>I read those as more important because Georgia appraisers have already been taking distressed sales into account.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

