Resources

Client Alerts, News Articles, Blog Posts, & Multimedia

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

Property Owner Protection from Tax Valuation Challenges

Client Alert
April 29, 2022

New legislation provides significant new protections for commercial property owners against challenges to valuation primarily by local school boards and prohibiting side agreements to avoid tax valuation changes.  The Ohio Legislature has approved House Bill 126 which will go into effect July 2022 but will effectively apply to the 2023 tax valuation year. 

Prior to the legislation, a property owner or another party, normally the local school board, could file a complaint contesting a valuation for properties for the coming tax year.  The usual situation would be where a property has sold, the price exceeds the prior year’s tax valuation, and the school board seeks to have the real estate tax values be increased to the sale price.  The appeals are frequently filed seeking to increase the tax value on a retroactive basis.  For example, a property sold in mid-year at an increased price could be faced with a request to increase the rate of tax back to the first of the year.  Real Estate taxes in Ohio are assessed and paid in arrears such that taxes for year 2022 are paid in 2023. 

While valuation complaints are filed on behalf of the school board, in many counties, decisions whether or not to file tax appeals are handled administratively either by members of the board of education staff or in some cases by outside parties such as engaged consultants to review records and file complaints whenever a sale with an increase in price occurs.  In many circumstances, the elected representatives or members of the school board have no prior knowledge that a complaint was going to be filed or the impact that it may have on the property owner or businesses in their community.  In these instances, decisions regarding the dispute are in practice property owner versus staff as opposed to the elected representatives.  Further, the appeals are filed without prior notice to the property owner.  The owner in many jurisdictions in Ohio is not even provided with a copy of the complaint filed by the school board, but simply receives a notice that a hearing is going to be held on a contested valuation on short notice, leaving it up to the property owner to go exploring to obtain a copy of the complaint and prepare to defend their valuation. 

In some parts of Ohio, these processes became abusive, or were perceived as either abusive or lacked due process to the property owners and did not adequately balance the rights of property owners to contest taxation or provide for school boards to seek increased tax payments for the benefit of the school board in a fair and open manner.  

House Bill 126 significantly changes the procedural process for these types of complaints on valuation.  The new statute requires that decisions to challenge valuation by a “legislative authority”, which includes county commissioners, township trustees, boards of education,  mayors, or legislative authority of a city, are first required to actually give notice to a property owner that the legislative authority will consider at a public meeting a potential complaint regarding property valuation and the reason for that consideration.  The notice must be sent by certified mail to the tax mailing address of the record owner of the property.  There are some limited alternate address options, but the tax mailing address will generally be the place where notices are sent. 

Further, the legislative authority by resolution in public session are required to make a formal decision to file a complaint.  This means that the elected officials must be making decisions in public whether to file, not staff members or potential outside consultants engaged to do so.  

There are also new limitations placed on the values of properties against which complaints can be filed.  Currently, the legislative authority (primarily boards of education) can file on any increase in valuation however large or small it may be.  The statute expressly provides that the board cannot file a complaint unless the board claims that the property value has increased by at least 10% over the prior year’s tax value and the value of the property involved must be greater than $500,000.  The statute also provides that the $500,000 is to be adjusted annually and requires the Ohio Tax Commissioner to adjust that threshold based upon changes in certain indexes of the United States Department of Commerce for the prior year.  If the change in value is smaller than 10%, or the property value is less than $500,000, then there is prohibition against filing an original complaint to contest value. 

The rules are different however if a property owner initiates a valuation complaint.  If the property owner or their agent initiates a complaint seeking to reduce the value, the board of education may file a counterclaim, either in support of the change or requesting a different number, but even in those settings may do so if the amount in controversy exceeds $17,500 in taxable value. 

The statute also includes some provisions streamlining the obligation of time periods in which decisions must be made by the county board of revision or its equivalent and any failure to get complaints resolved within a year requires a business of the complaint.

The statute addresses and now prohibits “private payment agreements”.  In some jurisdictions, representatives of school boards would approach property owners indicating they will file a complaint seeking to challenge valuation on property, or would actually file a complaint, but then would agree either to not file or withdraw the complaint if the property owner made a private payment to the school board.  In these settings, the argument is that the school board says it will contest the value which might result in $30,000 of additional taxes, but if you pay the school board $20,000, they will not contest the difference.  In essence, the school board would get more money directly because the real estate taxes are not shared with other government agencies in the county. 

We certainly expect there will be litigation concerning the implementation of the statutory revisions, but at least this is a good step to provide those decisions on valuation complaints have to be made by elected officials, that complaints are to be limited to properties with larger values, and that increases have to be material in order to file a complaint.  This new legislation does not impact the triannual valuation process of the County Auditor. 

Please call should you have any questions or would like a copy of the statute.  If we could be of any assistance if you have tax valuation issues, please contact Scott Sandrock at 330-253-4367, spsandrock@bmdllc.com.

Scott P. Sandrockhouse bill 126property taxReal Estate
Client Alert

UPDATE - Vaccine Policy Considerations for Employers

January 4, 2021If you read our post from November, you’re already an informed employer. This first post of 2021 is to share good news, give a few updates, and answer some other common questions. Q: What’s the Good News? First, the EEOC confirmed that employers may require employees receive the COVID-19 vaccine. Second, polling indicates that the number of Americans who said they will receive a vaccine has increased from around 63% to over 71%. The number of Americans who are strongly opposed to a vaccine is about 27%. Third, initial returns show that the efficacy rate for certain vaccines is as high as 95% for some at-risk recipients.Client Alert

Changes to FFCRA Paid Leave: Congress’ Revisions to Employment COVID-19 Leave Benefits Signals the Light is at the End of the Tunnel

December 28, 2020Late in the evening on December 27th, President Trump signed into law the government’s $900 billion COVID-19 relief package (the “Stimulus Bill”). Among other economic stimulus benefits, the Stimulus Bill contains the $600 stimulus checks that will be issued to eligible individuals as well as, relevantly, changes to the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (“FFCRA”). The FFCRA was implemented in April 2020 and provided benefits to individuals who missed work as a result of an actual or suspected COVID-19 illness or to care for a child when their school or childcare service was closed because of COVID-19. Importantly, the Stimulus Bill extends eligibility for employer payroll tax refunds for leave payments made to employees on or before March 31, 2021 under the FFCRA, signaling to the American people that Congress believes many of the employed public will be vaccinated by this time, the light at the end of the tunnel. However, the Stimulus Bill does contain a caveat that employers are no longer required to provide FFCRA leave benefits after December 31, 2020, but if they do, they will receive the payroll tax credits, up to the maximums provided in the FFCRA, for payments made prior to April 1, 2021. Below we provide a list of questions and answers we received to date following the passage of the Stimulus Bill. We expect the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) to issue additional questions and answers as the Stimulus Bill is implemented, and we will update this Client Alert as these are received.Client Alert

Healthcare Speaker Programs: New OIG Alert

December 11, 2020In a rare Special Fraud Alert issued on November 16, 2020 (the “Alert”), the Office of Inspector General (“OIG”) urged companies who host speaker programs to reassess their programs in light of the “inherent risks” associated with these activities. The Alert reports that, in the last three years, drug and device companies have reported paying nearly $2 billion to health care professionals for speaker-related services.Client Alert

Value-Based Care Advances – CMS Issues New Final Rules for Stark and Anti-Kickback Statutes

December 11, 2020The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) and the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) Office of the Inspector General (“OIG”) issued two highly anticipated (and quite extensive) Final Rules to reform the Stark Law and Anti-Kickback Statute (“AKS”) regulations. The Final Rules generally take effect on January 19, 2021. The Final Rules include new safe harbors for the AKS and new exemptions to the Stark Law to allow for greater flexibility. According to the HHS, the goal of updating both laws is to make it easier for providers to engage in care coordination and value-based care programs without running afoul of the statutes. Please note that this client alert could not cover the full extent of the Final Rule changes so please contact your BMD Healthcare attorney with questions.Client Alert

Mandatory Filings Under CFIUS New Rules

December 11, 2020On September 15, 2020, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (“CFIUS”) promulgated a final rule modifying its mandatory declaration requirements for certain foreign investment transactions involving “TID US businesses” (sensitive U.S. businesses dealing in critical technologies, critical infrastructure and sensitive personal data) dealing in “critical technologies” – i.e., U.S. businesses that produce, design, test, manufacture, fabricate, or develop one or more critical technologies. The new rule also makes amendments to the definition of the term “substantial interest” (used to determine whether a foreign government has a substantial interest in an entity). The final rule became effective on October 15, 2020.
Older posts
Newer posts