cost containment definition Archives | Page 3 of 3

May 2014 Newsletter

May 1, 2014 | appeal to tax court, asset management, commercial property tax reduction, commercial property taxes, corporate property tax savings, Cost Containment, cost containment definition, Department of Revenue, forfeit right to appeal, how to apply for property tax reduction, Increase Assets, methods of cost containment, Newsletter, power plant property tax, Property Tax Code, property tax reduction, property tax reduction consultants

CALIFORNIA – Petroleum refinery property, unlike most other industrial property where fixtures and land are separately assessed, may be taxed as a unit.
CALIFORNIA – Underutilization adjustment based on economic obsolescence requires proof of causation by external factors, as opposed to taxpayer’s own actions.
COLORADO – Country club memberships are not the equivalent of “rental income” and should not be used in an income-approach valuation of club property.
NEW JERSEY – Tax Court rejects municipality’s argument that impact of environmental contamination and the cost of remediation on true market value is limited to contaminated portions of an industrial site.
MONTANA – Telecommunications service company which provides cable, voice and internet services should be centrally assessed; cannot report voice and internet services locally.

June 2013 Newsletter

June 1, 2013 | appeal to tax court, asset management, commercial property tax reduction, commercial property taxes, corporate property tax savings, Cost Containment, cost containment definition, Department of Revenue, forfeit right to appeal, how to apply for property tax reduction, Increase Assets, methods of cost containment, Newsletter, power plant property tax, Property Tax Code, property tax reduction, property tax reduction consultants

WEST VIRGINIA – Steel company’s cutting of steel coils into smaller sizes does not render them a “product of different utility” and thus ineligible for the Freeport Exemption.
COLORADO – Airport concessionaires’ possessory interests in City property is taxable despite extensive operational controls imposed on the concessions by the City and the shared seating and other customer areas.
NORTH CAROLINA – Court of Appeals rejects use of standard depreciation schedules of leased computer equipment for failure to adequately account for functional and economic obsolescence.
OHIO – Tax Commissioner cannot mandate taxpayer’s use of “first in, first out” method of valuing inventory for tax purposes absent administrative rule or showing that taxpayer’s accounting method was arbitrary.
OKLAHOMA – Failure to comply with statute requiring notice to county assessor of filing of tax appeal and payment under protest deprives reviewing court of jurisdiction.
OREGON – County representatives under no obligation to advise taxpayer of its rights to appeal tax assessment and failure to do so does not excuse untimely appeal.
MASSACHUSETTS – Appellate Tax Board may consider evidence of the regulatory features of rate regulated utility property in deciding to use actual property taxes as an expense, rather than a tax factor, in its income capitalization approach as market reference to estimate economic obsolescence.

October 2012 Newsletter

October 1, 2012 | appeal to tax court, asset management, commercial property tax reduction, commercial property taxes, corporate property tax savings, Cost Containment, cost containment definition, Department of Revenue, forfeit right to appeal, how to apply for property tax reduction, Increase Assets, methods of cost containment, Newsletter, power plant property tax, Property Tax Code, property tax reduction, property tax reduction consultants

TEXAS – Misapplication of statutory allocation formula costs Southwest Airlines $25 million.
CONNECTICUT – Charitable exemption claim may not be raised in defense of action to foreclose municipal tax lien.
ARKANSAS – Supreme Court rejects claim that the ad valorem tax on oil and gas royalties is an illegal exaction prohibited by the Arkansas Constitution.
TEXAS – Taxpayer who forgot to deduct depreciation in valuation rendered to appraisal district was not entitled to correction as “clerical error” under Tex. Tax Code Ann. § 1.04 (18).
CALIFORNIA – Court of Appeals rules that State Board of Equalization regulation combining petroleum refineries’ fixtures with their land and improvements as a single appraisal unit (Rule 474) violates statute requiring separate appraisals (Cal. Rev. and Tax. Code Section 51 (d)).
UTAH – “Non-exclusive possession” exemption to Utah privilege tax (U.C.A. § 59–4–101) applies unless possession is exclusive against all parties, including the property owner.
NEBRASKA – Placing personal property tax return in office “outgoing mail” box not sufficient to avoid late penalty if return does not arrive on time.
OREGON – Tax court finds equipment retailer’s efforts to establish real market value of his equipment using Craigslist and eBay unconvincing.
GEORGIA – Change in valuation pending final determination of appeal is not correction of “clerical error” authorized by OCGA § 48-5-299 (a).

January 2012 Newsletter

January 1, 2012 | appeal to tax court, asset management, commercial property tax reduction, commercial property taxes, corporate property tax savings, Cost Containment, cost containment definition, Department of Revenue, forfeit right to appeal, how to apply for property tax reduction, Increase Assets, methods of cost containment, Newsletter, power plant property tax, Property Tax Code, property tax reduction, property tax reduction consultants

WISCONSIN – Wisconsin Supreme Court holds 2007 Wis. Act 86 unconstitutional – all Wisconsin taxpayers entitled to de novo review.
NORTH CAROLINA – Property Tax Commission acted reasonably in making downward adjustment to capitalization rate in mall valuation.
CALIFORNIA – For purposes of capitalization of income approach determination of taxable value, originally negotiated term of each local cable franchise, rather than the stated term, was the “reasonably anticipated term of possession.”
CONNECTICUT – Failure to follow USPAP does not require exclusion of appraiser’s testimony.
KANSAS – Court of Appeals rejects Court of Tax Appeals valuation of oil and gas leaseholds in flush production.
WEST VIRGINIA – Poultry manufacturer contracting with independent farmers to provide facilities and labor to raise its chickens is not producer of agricultural products” entitled to exemption.
INDIANA – County Assessor improperly relied on sale-leaseback transaction in establishing “market value in use” of movie theater.
SOUTH DAKOTA – Use tax imposed on railcar repair company’s tangible personal property does not violate Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act.

September 2011 Newsletter

September 1, 2011 | appeal to tax court, asset management, commercial property tax reduction, commercial property taxes, corporate property tax savings, Cost Containment, cost containment definition, Department of Revenue, forfeit right to appeal, how to apply for property tax reduction, Increase Assets, methods of cost containment, Newsletter, power plant property tax, Property Tax Code, property tax reduction, property tax reduction consultants

CALIFORNIA – Emission reduction credits properly included in income approach valuation of electric power plant.
WISCONSIN – Evidence of actual sales not necessary to satisfy “marketable” requirement of “highest and best use” determination.
DELAWARE – Chancery Court rejects use of Ibbotson Historical Equity Risk Premium in Capital Asset Pricing Model, using instead lower supply side ERP in statutory appraisal action.
CONNECTICUT – Stipulated judgment settling tax appeal with one store does not require city assessor to equalize assessments of other stores in shopping mall.
COLORADO – Appellate Court rejects claim that assessing cable service providers differently than public utilities violates state constitution.
ILLINOIS – Sales comparison approach need not be utilized where it would yield an unreliable estimate of value.
UTAH – Tax court correctly excluded accounting goodwill from T-Mobile’s taxable property.

July 2011 Newsletter

July 1, 2011 | appeal to tax court, asset management, commercial property tax reduction, commercial property taxes, corporate property tax savings, Cost Containment, cost containment definition, Department of Revenue, forfeit right to appeal, how to apply for property tax reduction, Increase Assets, methods of cost containment, Newsletter, power plant property tax, Property Tax Code, property tax reduction, property tax reduction consultants

TEXAS – Untimely rendition results in implied waiver of right to interstate allocation.
NEW JERSEY – Think ahead when drafting abatement agreements with municipalities.
LOUISIANA – Reduction for obsolescence requires “extraordinary showing.”
MINNESOTA – Delay in using property for intended charitable purpose costs taxpayer exemption.
NEW HAMPSHIRE – Sign your assessment appeal or forfeit your rights.
MICHIGAN – Keep the Cap.
NORTH CAROLINA – Not expert enough.
MASSACHUSETTS – Income capitalization approach used to “adjust” RCNLD appraisal of utility property.
FLORIDA – Leasehold interests in government property subject to Florida intangible personal property tax.