<?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>International Appraisal Company</title>
	<atom:link href="http://intlappraisal.com/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://intlappraisal.com</link>
	<description>Property Tax Management &#38; Asset Valuation</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 29 Mar 2013 15:47:36 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>WA DOR Clarifies The Taxability of Software</title>
		<link>http://intlappraisal.com/personal-property/wa-dor-clarifies-the-taxability-of-software/</link>
		<comments>http://intlappraisal.com/personal-property/wa-dor-clarifies-the-taxability-of-software/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Jan 2012 14:43:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Brett Harrington</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Personal Property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Property Tax]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.intlappraisal.com/?p=1268</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In it&#39;s Q1 (January 2012) newsletter, Property Tax Review, The WA Department of Revenue discusses the taxability of software. More specifically, the newsletter clarifies the differences and taxability of canned, custom and embedded software. &#34;Canned&#34; software is software that is distributed &#34;as is&#34; for multiple users (think MS Office). Canned software is valued at 100%...]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://intlappraisal.com/personal-property/wa-dor-clarifies-the-taxability-of-software/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>FL &#8211; Taxes Must be Paid During Pending Property Tax Appeals</title>
		<link>http://intlappraisal.com/property-tax/fl-taxes-must-be-paid-during-pending-property-tax-appeals/</link>
		<comments>http://intlappraisal.com/property-tax/fl-taxes-must-be-paid-during-pending-property-tax-appeals/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Jul 2011 15:10:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Brett Harrington</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Property Tax]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tax Appeal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Florida Property Taxes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Property Tax Appeal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Property Tax Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Property Tax Legislation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Value Adjustment Board]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.intlappraisal.com/?p=1234</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[With the enrollment of HB 281 taxpayers challenging property tax assessments before the Value Adjustment Board must pay all non-ad valorem taxes and at least 75% of ad valorem taxes before they become delinquent (April 1st of the follow year). Failure to do so will result in a denial of the petition. Additionally, interest will...]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://intlappraisal.com/property-tax/fl-taxes-must-be-paid-during-pending-property-tax-appeals/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>TX &#8211; Penalties For Late Rendition Filings Modified</title>
		<link>http://intlappraisal.com/personal-property/tx-penalties-for-late-rendition-filings-modified/</link>
		<comments>http://intlappraisal.com/personal-property/tx-penalties-for-late-rendition-filings-modified/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Jul 2011 15:20:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Brett Harrington</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Personal Property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Property Tax]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tax Appeal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[late rendition penalties]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[personal property tax]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Property Tax Penalties]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[TX property tax]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.intlappraisal.com/?p=1230</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The enrollment of HB 533 has modified the penalty procedures for the late filing of personal property renditions. Prior to the enrollment of the HB 533 the 10% penalty for late filing was final and imposed when a taxpayer received their tax bill. Now, the chief appraiser must notify the taxpayer prior to the issuance...]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://intlappraisal.com/personal-property/tx-penalties-for-late-rendition-filings-modified/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>COST Releases Property Tax Administration Scorecard</title>
		<link>http://intlappraisal.com/property-tax/cost-releases-property-tax-administration-scorecard/</link>
		<comments>http://intlappraisal.com/property-tax/cost-releases-property-tax-administration-scorecard/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Jun 2011 14:14:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Brett Harrington</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Property Tax]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Property Tax Administration]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.intlappraisal.com/?p=1228</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[COST (Council On State Taxation) has released an interesting study grading state by state property tax administration. Definitely worth a read. Get it here]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://intlappraisal.com/property-tax/cost-releases-property-tax-administration-scorecard/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>MN Legislation Makes Changes To Income and Expense Submission Requirement</title>
		<link>http://intlappraisal.com/property-tax/mn-legislation-makes-changes-to-income-and-expense-submission-requirement/</link>
		<comments>http://intlappraisal.com/property-tax/mn-legislation-makes-changes-to-income-and-expense-submission-requirement/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Jun 2011 14:11:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Brett Harrington</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Property Tax]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tax Appeal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Minnesota 60 day rule]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Minnesota Income and Expense Requirement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Minnesota Property Tax]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Property Tax Appeal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Property Tax Appeals]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.intlappraisal.com/?p=1216</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Minnesota&#39;s &#34;60 Day Rule&#34; has always been a critical factor regarding property tax appeals in the state. Legislation has recently been enacted that makes some changes to the requirement. Section 278.05, subdivision 6, has been amended to read: Subd. 6.&#160;Dismissal of petition; exclusion of certain evidence.&#160;(a) In cases where&#160; the petitioner contests the valuation of...]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://intlappraisal.com/property-tax/mn-legislation-makes-changes-to-income-and-expense-submission-requirement/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Casino Wins Big With Functional Obsolescence Argument</title>
		<link>http://intlappraisal.com/appraisal/casino-wins-big-with-functional-obsolescence-argument/</link>
		<comments>http://intlappraisal.com/appraisal/casino-wins-big-with-functional-obsolescence-argument/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Feb 2011 14:05:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Brett Harrington</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Appraisal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Property Tax]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tax Appeal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[functional obsolescence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Property Tax Appeal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rhode Island Property Tax]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Special Purpose Properties]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.intlappraisal.com/?p=875</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Some of the most interesting and educational property tax cases often involve dealing with the complexities of special purpose properties. The recently decided case of UTGR v. Mandillo is no exception.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://intlappraisal.com/appraisal/casino-wins-big-with-functional-obsolescence-argument/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>WI Supreme Court Rejects Taxpayer&#039;s Obsolescence and Highest and Best Use Claims</title>
		<link>http://intlappraisal.com/property-tax/wi-supreme-court-rejects-taxpayers-obsolescence-and-highest-and-best-use-claims/</link>
		<comments>http://intlappraisal.com/property-tax/wi-supreme-court-rejects-taxpayers-obsolescence-and-highest-and-best-use-claims/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Feb 2011 21:11:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Brett Harrington</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Property Tax]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tax Appeal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[California Property Tax]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[functional obsolescence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[highest and best use]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Property Tax Appeal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Property Tax Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wisconsin Property Tax]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.intlappraisal.com/?p=870</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&#160; In it&#8217;s recent decision in the case of Nestle USA, Inc. v. Wisconsin Department of Revenue, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin affirmed The Court of Appeals decision denying Nestle&#8217;s property tax appeal regarding it&#8217;s Eau Claire, WI powdered infant formula facility. The two major issues were the highest and best use of the special...]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://intlappraisal.com/property-tax/wi-supreme-court-rejects-taxpayers-obsolescence-and-highest-and-best-use-claims/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Fixtures Used In Manufacturing Exempt From Property Taxes In Iowa</title>
		<link>http://intlappraisal.com/property-tax/fixtures-used-in-manufacturing-exempt-from-property-taxes-in-iowa/</link>
		<comments>http://intlappraisal.com/property-tax/fixtures-used-in-manufacturing-exempt-from-property-taxes-in-iowa/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Oct 2010 13:57:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Brett Harrington</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Property Tax]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tax Appeal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iowa property tax]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Property Tax Appeal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Property Tax Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[property tax exemption]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tax Assessment]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.intlappraisal.com/?p=808</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In&#160; the recently decided case of Griffin Pipe Products Co., Inc. v. The Board of Review of the County&#160; of Pottawattamie, the Supreme Court of Iowa found that fixtures used as machinery in manufacturing are exempt from property taxation. Central to the case was the proper interpretation of Iowa Code Section 427A.1(1) and how certain...]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://intlappraisal.com/property-tax/fixtures-used-in-manufacturing-exempt-from-property-taxes-in-iowa/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Michigan Property Tax Appeals Properly Dismissed For Failure to Comply</title>
		<link>http://intlappraisal.com/property-tax/michigan-property-tax-appeals-properly-dismissed-for-failure-to-comply/</link>
		<comments>http://intlappraisal.com/property-tax/michigan-property-tax-appeals-properly-dismissed-for-failure-to-comply/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Oct 2010 15:42:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Brett Harrington</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Property Tax]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tax Appeal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Michigan property tax]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Michigan Property Tax Appeal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Property Tax Appeal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Property Tax Appeals]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.intlappraisal.com/?p=801</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In the recently decided&#160; case of Sal-Mar Industrial Corp v. Township of Macomb the Michigan Court of Appeals found that the Michigan Tax Tribunal did not err in dismissing a taxpayer&#39;s property tax appeals for repeatedly failing to produce and exchange required information such as valuation disclosures, witness lists and exhibit lists. The Court of...]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://intlappraisal.com/property-tax/michigan-property-tax-appeals-properly-dismissed-for-failure-to-comply/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>October Property Tax Deadlines</title>
		<link>http://intlappraisal.com/property-tax/october-property-tax-deadlines/</link>
		<comments>http://intlappraisal.com/property-tax/october-property-tax-deadlines/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Sep 2010 16:15:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Brett Harrington</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Property Tax]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.intlappraisal.com/?p=797</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[table id=5 /]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://intlappraisal.com/property-tax/october-property-tax-deadlines/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
