In the recently decided case of  Stinson v. Trimas Fasteners, Inc. the Tax Court of Indiana affirmed the decision of the Indiana Board of Tax Review finding in favor of the taxpayer’s claim of overvaluation for property tax purposes. 

Trimas initially challenged the 2002 assessment of their manufacturing facility. The PTABOA reduced the original assessment of $7,762,600 to $7,212,300. Trimas appealed the decision to the Indiana Board. 

Before the Indiana Board Trimas offered an appraisal estimating the value at $2,960,000. The assessor, on the other hand, offered an appraisal estimating the value at $8,000,000.  The large discrepancy in values resulted from, you guessed it, obsolescence. 

The Indiana Board found in favor of Trimas and reduced the assessment to $2,960,000. The assessor appealed to the Tax Court. 

At the heart of the case was the selection of the comparable sales used to value the subject property. Trimas’s expert relied on sales of vacant manufacturing properties, whereas the assessor relied on sales of occupied, owner/user manufacturing facilities. Then came the testimony. Trimas’s expert testified that: 

Trimas’s property suffered from external obsolescence because a loss of manufacturing jobs and companies within Indiana during the relevant time period saturated the market with manufacturing facilities for sale; that market, however, lacked buyers. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 273-74, 305, 827-28.) As a result, the sales prices for these facilities were low, particularly when compared to their respective replacement costs (i.e., the amount it would cost to construct facilities with similar utility). That market trend, noted Mitchell, affected what Trimas’s property would itself garner on the market: “[w]hen there’s an oversupply and a lack of demand, to remain competitive, if your neighbor drops their price, you have to drop your price.” (Cert. Admin. R. at 828.) 

The assessor claimed that vacant properties are not comparable to occupied properties and that the claim of external obsolescence was “absurd” because the comps relied upon were vacant and the Trimas property was occupied.  

In it’s decision the Tax Court stated: 

the Assessor misunderstands the concept of market value-in-use on its most basic level. Generally speaking, market value-in-use, as determined by objectively verifiable market data, is the value of a property for its use, not the value of its use. 

And there you have it. The taxpayer’s team was able to convince the deciding bodies that obsolescence existed. The assessor’s arguments, obviously, didn’t go over so well.

The Kansas Court of Appeals recently reversed a decision by the District Court that set aside the opinion of the Kansas Board of Tax Appeals. At the center of the case was the valuation methodology employed by the taxing jurisdiction’s appraiser. The Court of Appeals found that the jurisdiction’s expert witness not only erred, but also violated USPAP by valuing the various segments of the property and summing the individual values to arrive at an overall valuation conclusion. The court relied upon USPAP Standard Rule 1-4(e):

“Pursuant to USPAP Standard Rule 1-4(e) (2001), an appraiser must analyze the effect on value, if any, of the assemblage of the various estates or component parts of a property and refrain from valuing the whole solely by adding together the individual values of the various estates or component parts. Although the value of the whole may be equal to the sum of the separate estates or parts, it also may be greater or less than the sum of such estates or parts. Therefore, the value of the whole must be tested by reference to appropriate data and supported by an appropriate analysis of such data.”

The Court goes on to state:

“There is no question that Kubert violated USPAP Rule 1-4(e). In executing each of his approaches to value, Kubert segmented the property, valued each segment individually, and then added the values to get his final valuation.”

The case can be found here.

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).

The Texas Legislature has enacted H.B. 3612, establishing a three year pilot program which allows taxpayers an alternative to appealing Appraisal Review Board determinations to district court. The program applies to properties with an appraised value of $1 million or more in Bexar, Cameron, Dallas, El Paso, Harris, Tarrant and Travis counties. The program is effective January 1, 2010.

According to section 39-10-114(1)(a)(I)(A) of the Colorado Revised Statutes a taxpayer may file for an abatement of all or part of property taxes that have been levied “erroneously or illegally” within two years after January 1 of the year following the year in which the taxes were levied. The abatement provides for a refund of taxes due to “erroneous valuation for assessment”, “irregularity in levying”, “clerical error” or “overvaluation” and is different and separate from the “normal” property tax appeal process. 

In the recent case of HealthSouth Corporation v. Boulder County Board of Commissioners and Colorado State Board of Assessment Appeals, HealthSouth put this abatement provision to the test. 

HealthSouth filed two abatement petitions seeking to reduce the valuation of its personal property assets at two of its Colorado locations for the 2002 tax year. Now for the twist… 

In 2002 HealthSouth was found to be cooking its books and inflating earnings. In order to balance these cooked books HealthSouth created fictitious assets. The case reads: 

“The factual basis for the taxpayer’s abatement and refund claims is that in 2002, as part of a broader fraudulent scheme to increase the company’s stock price, taxpayer included fabricated valuations for fictitious assets in the personal property declaration schedules it filed.” 

So, HealthSouth’s new management filed abatement petitions with the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) seeking to reduce the personal property taxes it “overpaid” due to the reporting of nonexistent assets. The BOCC denied the petitions. Appeals were then filed to the Board of Assessment Appeals and were dismissed. HealthSouth appealed to the Court of Appeals. In a nutshell, the Court of Appeals determined: 

“Contrary to the BAA’s ruling, we conclude that, under the statutory scheme, taxpayer has the right to proceed with its abatement and refund claims on the ground of overvaluation, notwithstanding the fraudulent overstatement of its assets and valuations in its initial tax filings. Consequently, the BAA erred in dismissing taxpayer’s appeals without affording an evidentiary hearing, and on remand it must consider the merits of the taxpayer’s overvaluation claims concerning its personal property for the 2002 tax year.” 

I am looking forward to seeing how this will ultimately turn out. It will be interesting to see what HealthSouth provides as evidence to prove that the valuation of nonexistent assets was incorrect.

Don’t be surprised if the assessor’s office doesn’t welcome you with open arms when you file an appeal this year. Times are tough all around and taxing jurisdictions are no exception. Sales and income tax revenues are down and everyone knows that property taxes are in for a beating. When exactly the beating will take place seems to be a point of contention. If the volume of appeals being filed is any indication, taxpayers are claiming that the decline in values should be recognized now. Whereas, it appears as though assessor’s offices are claiming that value declines have not yet been reflected in the market. In other words, they seem to be taking the position that taxpayers will need to prove a decline in value. I discussed this issue in my earlier post Quantification Is King. 

So, what can we expect for 2009 appeals? 

• Due to assessor’s offices throughout the country receiving appeals near or at record numbers, large backlogs will be the norm. 
• Taxing jurisdictions may be reluctant or unwilling to settle cases due to budgetary concerns or time constraints.
• Assessor’s offices will, most likely, rely on the fact that a taxpayer carries the burden of proof in an appeal and proving values may be difficult due to the lack of recent transactions. 

For these and other reasons diligence and creativity will, no doubt, prove to play a very important role in 2009 property tax appeals.

Why we need to be diligent in conducting property tax assessment reviews. 

There are situations where, because of the ridiculous run up on property values over the past few years, a property’s assessment may have lagged behind the market and may have been under assessed. Even with the recent dramatic declines in property values the property may still be equitably or under assessed. 

Let’s say that you receive your 2009 assessment notice indicating the assessment of a property to be $1,000,000. The property was assessed at $1,000,000 for the 2008 tax year as well. Some might immediately say that there is no way the property is worth the same amount in 2009 as it was in 2008 and an appeal needs to be filed. However, let’s say that in 2008 the actual market value of the property was closer to $1,500,000, not the $1,000,000 that it was assessed at. If the value of the property has decreased by 30% between 2008 and now, the property might still be fairly assessed at $1,000,000. 

Without a proper review of the current and past market values of the property you might find yourself trapped into an unwarranted appeal. At best, money and resources are dedicated to an appeal with no savings potential and, at worst, you could find yourself fighting an increase. 

There are many savings opportunities out there and, of course, we need to be aggressive in discovering and pursuing them. However, we also must maintain a rational and diligent approach.

This is the first of a few posts I will make over the next few days to share my thoughts on a few issues that I think are worth consideration as we work our way through the 2009 appeal season. 

The 2009 property tax appeal frenzy is well underway. It’s sure to be one of busiest years in recent memory. There’s also no reason why it shouldn’t prove to be one of the most productive years in a long time. However, I think that there may be some misconceptions about what to expect and, perhaps as important, what not to expect.

 I think we all agree that values have declined. It’s close to impossible to argue otherwise. That said, we are not going to find ourselves ”shooting fish in a barrel”. 

There’s more to it than simply raising our arms and saying, “we all read the papers, we all watch the news…” Of course values have declined in virtually every sector. Companies and entire industries are facing double-digit loses. Closures and layoffs are rampant. Need I go on? 

So, why isn’t it as simple as filing an appeal and waiting for a refund check?

Quantification is king! 

Probably the most important issue that must be taken into consideration for tax appeals in 2009 can be summed up in one word: 

PROOF

Taxpayers carry the burden of proof in a tax appeal. They must prove that the assessment is excessive and in order to do that they must present evidence. However, thanks to the chaos in the capital markets and the resulting credit freeze, transactions are scarce, to say the least. An excerpt from a recent CoStar article reads:

“with the capital markets in disarray and few comparable transactions upon which to build a foundation, buyers and sellers can’t agree on pricing. 

In fact, one widely watched transaction-based index published at the MIT Center for Real Estate couldn’t even produce a retail index for the fourth quarter due to the dearth of transactions. The overall sample size for various other property markets was “scarily low,” acknowledged David Geltner, director of research at the MIT Center for Real Estate. ”

So, although we may all agree that values have declined, proving values for the 2009 tax year becomes more challenging due to the lack of reliable market information. 

2009 presents a great opportunity for companies to significantly reduce their property tax liabilities. However, It is not realistic to think that appeals will be a walk in the park simply because of the current economic conditions. If anything, 2009 tax appeals will require more work, diligence and creativity than in the past. The good news is that it will be worth it.