To contact us Click HERE
Here, Mr. Korpacz developed specific values for the subjectproperty for each assessment year under appeal. His sales comparison analysis was based on timely sales of regional mallsdeemed comparable to the subject property that were qualitatively adjusted toWashington determine the likely sale price in terms of a price per square footfor the Washington Square Mall. Mr.Korpacz further refined his sales comparable values by graphing each property’ssale price with its net operating income per square foot of gross leasablearea. And despite the fact that Mr.Korpacz rejected the value he determined for 2008 and regraphed the data usingonly Class D malls, the Board finds this to be a reasonable method fordetermining the value of the mall.
Conversely, Mr. Stump used sales of retail properties thatwere not regional malls. Mr. Stump used grocery store-anchored retail centersand community centers that are not comparable to enclosed regional malls andfailed to make any adjustments for differences in the properties. Further, Mr.Stump did not determine a specific value for any year but simply contends thatthe range of values from the five sales from 2005 through 2008 supports hisincome approach to value for each year. Thus, the Board gives little weight to the Respondent’s sales comparisonapproach.
The income approach analysis, however, is more difficult. The Petitioners’ appraiser usedcapitalization rates that were not supported by his evidence and he made incomeand expense assumptions that seemed designed to value the property at thelowest possible rate.
The Respondent’sappraiser, however, made no attempt to account for the prevalence of long termleases at rents that no longer represented the market rate at the property. In addition, the Respondent’s approach reliedupon the sale of properties that were not comparable to the subject property todevelop a capitalization rate. Because of the lengthy and detailed explanationsthat Mr. Korpacz provided for each of his assumptions and the lack ofexplanation that Mr. Stump gave for his analysis, the Board therefore givesmore weight to the Petitioners’ appraiser’s income analysis. Moreover, the Board notes that the Respondent’s appraisermade no attempt to value the property for the March 1, 2010, assessmentdate. The Respondent’s witness, Ms. Beckman,provided an “income approach analysis” for the 2009 and 2010 assessment years. In her analysis, Ms. Beckman argued that shedisagreed with Mr. Korpacz’s value conclusions for 2009 and 2010 primarilybecause of the gross lease assumption and the high capitalization rates Mr.Korpacz used. Despite her arguments,however, Ms. Beckman used the same capitalization rate as Mr. Korpacz; she justdid not add the effective tax rate. Ms.Beckman contends it was not necessary to add the tax rate because she accountedfor the reimbursement of the taxes. However, even considering the leases in place during the relevant timeperiod, the taxes were not reimbursed 100% for any assessment year. Forexample, in 2008 the property’s income and expense statement shows an actualreal estate tax expense of $1,646,554,but a reimbursement of only $446,548.
Further, while Ms. Beckman’s analysis may not differsignificantly from the calculations made by a certified appraiser in anappraisal report, the appraiser’s assumptions are backed by his education,training, and experience. The appraiseralso typically certifies that he complied with the uniform standards ofprofessional appraisal practice. Thus,the Board, as the trier-of-fact, can infer that the appraiser used objectivedata, where available, to quantify his adjustments. And where objective data was not available,the Board can infer that the appraiser relied on his education, training andexperience to estimate a reliable quantification. Here, however, there is no evidence that Ms.Beckman is a certified appraiser; she did not establish that she has anyparticular expertise in applying generally accepted appraisal principles; andshe did not certify that she complied with USPAP in performing her valuationanalysis. Consequently, the Board places greater weight upon Mr. Korpacz’stestimony and analysis as to this issue.
http://www.in.gov/ibtr/files/Washington_Square_Mall_49-700-06-1-4-01861_et_al_-_REDACTED_VERSION.pdf
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder