Stewart Mandell, Esq.
We’ve all heard the old saw: “Denial ain’t just a river in Egypt.” Yet with property taxation, it is no laughing matter when assessors are in denial about the substantial decline in property values both during and even following the Great Recession. Fortunately, tax attorneys who presented appropriate evidence have succeeded in many recent cases.
A 2011 Michigan Tax Tribunal decision involving a grocery-anchored retail building is particularly telling. The tribunal reduced each assessment about 85 percent because the vacant building was worthless on each of the Dec. 31 valuation dates in 2007, 2008 and 2009. The evidence the owner’s tax appeal counsel submitted was compelling. Among the highlights:
• A contractor testified about the property’s significant structural problems, calculating that a partial demolition and reconstruction to restore the asset’s value would cost almost $1.7 million.
• An architect, who was qualified as an expert, corroborated the contractor’s cost estimate as reasonable.
• The broker who had tried to lease or sell the property testified about the lack of interest in the building. The only purchase offer received was well below the government’s position, and was withdrawn after the prospective buyer’s property inspection and due diligence.
• An appraiser testified that it would be more economical to demolish the building and use the parcel as a new site rather than renovate. Based on the foregoing, the appraiser valued the land using the sales comparison valuation method and deducted the cost of demolishing the existing structure.
• Pictures of the building supported the testimony of the property owner’s witnesses.
The tribunal found the taxpayer’s evidence convincing, even though the government’s parade of witnesses included its assessor, a professional planner, a building inspector, the city manager and an appraiser who supported the assessor’s assessments. None of the government’s witnesses, however, could disprove the property owner’s most important evidence — that the cost of renovating the building would have exceeded the value added.
In three other recent cases the tribunal also ruled for the taxpayer based on the sales-comparison-based valuations submitted by each taxpayer’s appraiser. One case involved a big-box retail store of more than 135,000 square feet and the property’s valuations for the tax years 2009 through 2011. The appraisers for both parties considered all three approaches to value, but the tribunal found the analysis of the property owner’s appraiser convincing.
This included the conclusion that the sale prices of leased big-box stores reflect the value of the leased fee interest, which in a property tax appeal is irrelevant to the valuation of an owner-occupied property’s fee simple interest. In summarizing the errors of the government’s appraiser, the tribunal concluded that “there is nothing so frightening as ignorance in action.”
Comparing apples to apples
Two other recent decisions show the importance of selecting truly comparable properties for sales comparisons of properties under appeal. In one case, the tribunal used the sales comparison approach to substantially reduce the value of the taxpayer’s industrial building of more than 200,000 square foot located in a small city well outside of the Detroit metropolitan area.
The key to the taxpayer’s victory was having documentation of sales of industrial properties whose size and location made them comparable. Properties in the Detroit metropolitan area, which were a key part of the appraisal the government submitted, were not comparable.
Similarly, in a case involving the Dec. 31, 2009 value of 36 acres of vacant land near Detroit Metropolitan Airport, the tribunal rejected all of the purported comparable sales cited by the government’s appraiser. The most important flaw of all of those sales was that they occurred before the Great Recession had ruined property values. Ultimately, the tribunal found most persuasive a recent listing of property that was relatively close to the subject property and of similar size.
To be sure, many taxpayers have not prevailed in their tax appeals in Michigan and across the country. Taxpayers typically bear the burden of proof and can easily lose without appropriate valuation evidence and an experienced tax appeal counsel. However, as the Michigan cases show, taxpayers are able to obtain tax justice with the right evidence and representation.
— Stewart Mandell is a partner in the law firm of Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn LLP, the Michigan member of American Property Tax Counsel (APTC). He can be reached at slmandell@honigman.com.