<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	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/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Taxing Issues - Property Tax Blog &#187; big box retail</title>
	<atom:link href="http://intlappraisal.com/blog/tag/big-box-retail/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://intlappraisal.com/blog</link>
	<description>Property Tax Blog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 May 2010 18:40:31 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>A Not So Good Big Box Property Tax Appeal Case</title>
		<link>http://intlappraisal.com/blog/2009/a-not-so-good-big-box-property-tax-appeal-case/</link>
		<comments>http://intlappraisal.com/blog/2009/a-not-so-good-big-box-property-tax-appeal-case/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 Jul 2009 14:45:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Brett Harrington</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Property Tax]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tax Appeal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[big box retail]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fee simple]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[leased fee]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ohio Property Taxes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Property Tax Appeal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Property Tax Appeals]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://intlappraisal.com/blog/?p=176</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[So much for OH being taxpayer friendly when it comes to valuing big box retail properites for property tax purposes.<hr />]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In the recent post <a href="http://intlappraisal.com/blog/2009/a-good-big-box-property-tax-appeal-case/">A Good Big Box Property Tax Appeal Case</a> 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, &#8220;not so fast&#8221; with the decision of <a href="http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/2009/2009-ohio-3479.pdf">Meijer Stores Ltd. V. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision</a>, in which an almost complete reversal of position was taken regarding obsolescence and the market for big box retail stores. </p>
<p>It is interesting to note that the BTA decided both the <a href="https://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/2009/2009-ohio-2492.pdf">Target</a> 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&#8217;s expert. </p>
<p>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.</p>
<a class="a2a_dd addtoany_share_save" href="http://www.addtoany.com/share_save?linkurl=http%3A%2F%2Fintlappraisal.com%2Fblog%2F2009%2Fa-not-so-good-big-box-property-tax-appeal-case%2F&amp;linkname=A%20Not%20So%20Good%20Big%20Box%20Property%20Tax%20Appeal%20Case"><img src="http://intlappraisal.com/blog/wp-content/plugins/add-to-any/share_save_171_16.png" width="171" height="16" alt="Share/Bookmark"/></a>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://intlappraisal.com/blog/2009/a-not-so-good-big-box-property-tax-appeal-case/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
