These days I find myself having a plethora of conversations with clients regarding the status of property tax appeals. Everyone wants reductions and refunds NOW! Although I can understand the urgency, it is also important to realize that pursuing property tax reductions can take time.

There are many things to consider when estimating the timeframe of a property tax appeal. Can appeals be resolved informally? Does the local/administrative board typically grant reasonable reductions? How big is the reduction being sought? What is the appeal volume/backlog in the jurisdiction? Is it likely that the case will go to court? Is there no chance of the case going to court? These are just a few of the myriad factors that are important to consider regarding the timeframe of an appeal.

I understand that, in the current economy, companies are attempting to achieve savings as fast as possible. However, speed should not be such a driving force that it negatively impacts the result of the appeal.

In the recently decided case of Ace Hardware Corp. v. Little, the State of New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division agreed with the Supreme Court’s dismissal of the taxpayer’s petitions for failing to meet it’s burden by a preponderance of evidence. The trial court found the taxpayer’s appraisal inappropriate, in large part, due to the fact that the taxpayer’s appraiser utilized a “reconstruction cost approach” which was “not included in the treaties traditionally relied upon by real estate appraisers”. I was hoping there would be more details describing the “reconstruction” approach, but the decision does not offer an explanation.

In the case of Aida Renta Trust v. Maricopa County the Arizona Court of Appeals recently affirmed a trial court decision finding that Maricopa County engaged in unconstitutional, discriminatory property tax valuation procedures. It appears as though Maricopa County decided to value properties within the same class (apartments) differently. The Decision states: 

“The County did not merely make an appraisal error; it applied a wholly different valuation procedure to properties within the same class. The County acted purposefully. The multiple incidences reaffirm the belief that they are systematic and intentional. We do not believe repeated taxation conduct is a random mistake.”

This past weekend I came across two interesting articles: 

Programs across county at risk if GM wins tax appeal focuses on the potential impact of Genesee County municipalities if GM wins it’s tax appeals seeking a cumulative reduction of it’s assessments from $140.5 million to $36.1 million. 

Mercer rocked by tax appeals; corporate giants contest their bills provides opinions on tax appeals by Bristol-Myers, Merrill Lynch, J.C. Penny, Macy’s and other “corporate giants”. 

It’s interesting how two articles that were published a day apart, focusing on different areas of the country with very different tax systems and pertaining to different property types are actually quite similar. 

Call it a glimpse into the current property tax appeal environment.