George v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, 2015 CanLII 26385

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: May 13, 2015

FILE NO.: WR 131086

Assessed Person(s): Elizabeth Nancy George

Appellant(s): Elizabeth Nancy George and Bill George

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 14

Respondent(s): Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville

Property Location(s): 231 Loretta Crescent

Municipality(ies): Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville

Roll Number(s): 1944-000-195-77348-0000

Appeal Number(s): 3044700 and 3080625 (deemed 2015)

Taxation Year(s): 2014 (and deemed 2015)

Hearing Event No. 574529

Legislative Authority: Section 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31, as amended

ARB Case Name: WR 131086

Heard: March 9, 2015 in Stouffville, Ontario

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel⁺/Representative

B. George

Self-represented

MPAC

S. Ladak

Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville

No one appeared

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY JOSEPH M. WYGER

INTRODUCTION

1The subject residential property had received a 15% adjustment in the previous assessment cycle based on a 2008 valuation. That adjustment was carried over to the 2012 base year valuation for 2013 taxation. The owners appealed the 2013 tax year assessment which was returned at $721,000. In its decision following the hearing of that appeal, the Assessment Review Board (“Board”) found that the current value was $835,000 based on three comparable properties, but it confirmed the assessed value at $721,000 as no party had given any notice of a request for a higher assessment. For the 2014 taxation year now before the Board, MPAC returned an assessed value of $814,000 based on an analysis of the same three comparable properties and the Board’s 2013 decision. The Appellant labelled MPAC vindictive and manipulative for removing the 15% adjustment that he argued reflected that is home was not custom built and had no finished basement. He requests that the 15% reduction be applied to the $814,000 value as returned.

DECISION

2The current value is determined to be $814,000, and I find this value to be equitable relative to similar properties in the vicinity

REASONS FOR DECISION

Facts

3The subject property is a 2,486 square foot brick bungalow, built in 1994 and situated on a 43,188 square foot lot at 231 Loretta Crescent in Stouffville. It has an attached three car garage, no finished basement and is serviced by municipal water and sewer. The returned assessment for the taxation year 2014 is $814,000 and is based on the market sales approach to value

Legislation

4Section 19 of the Assessment Act (“Act”) states:

19.(1) Assessment based on current value. – The assessment of land shall be based on its current value.

“current value” means, in relation to land, the amount of money the fee simple, if unencumbered, would realize if sold at arm’s length by a willing seller to a willing buyer.

5Section 44.(3) of the Act states:

44.(3) Same, 2009 and subsequent years. – For 2009 and subsequent taxation years, in determining the value at which any land shall be assessed, the Board shall,

(a) determine the current value of the land; and

(b) have reference to the value at which similar lands in the vicinity are assessed and adjust the assessment of the land to make it equitable with that of similar lands in the vicinity if such an adjustment would result in a reduction of the assessment of the land.

MPAC’s Position and Evidence

6The assessment corporation was represented by Sal Ladak as advocate and Julie Landon as valuation witness. Ms. Landon related how the Member at the hearing into the 2013 taxation year reviewed the same comparable properties as she was presenting today and arrived at a current value of $835,000. She indicated that MPAC does not know why the minus 15% adjustment designated “Market (not otherwise defined)” was in place for the 2009 through 2012 taxation years, or why it was carried through to the 2013 taxation year. She removed the 15% and returned the value for 2014, relying on the Board’s 2013 decision and her own analysis of four sales of the three very comparable properties on the same street as the subject.

7The time-adjusted sales ranged from $794,216 to $825,041. Ms. Landon adjusted downward the value of the most comparable property at 271 Loretta Crescent for being four years newer, and that resulted in her assessed value as returned of $814,000 for the subject property. She maintained that whether originally custom built or not, all of the comparables are well kept, of the same quality and condition, and are very similar to the subject property.

Appellant’s Position and Evidence

8The owner was represented by her husband Bill George. He requested the Board to re-instate the 15% adjustment to the $814,000, on the basis that his home was production built, not custom-built and was in original condition including no basement finish. He testified that the 15% adjustment dated back to 2005 and there was no reason to remove it.

9Mr. George catalogued his dealings with MPAC, including e-mails obtained through Freedom of Information requests. He characterized some assessors as being vindictive, manipulating his case and retaliating against him for appealing his assessment. Mr. George provided the Board with no independent evidence of what his home might have sold for in and around January 2012.

Analysis – Current Value

10I have considered Mr. George’s submissions on his difficulties dealing with MPAC and his accusations regarding the intentions and motivations of assessors working on his file. I discern nothing in the evidence presented to suggest that Mr. Ladak or Ms. Landon or any other MPAC representatives were anything less than professional in their dealings with Mr. George.

11An adjustment that is put in place for whatever reason at a particular time is not necessarily forever. MPAC is duty-bound to review and support their assessments for each taxation year. In particular, on a general re-assessment for a new base year, all values must be re-established. In Mr. George’s case, the 15 % adjustment survived the 2012 base year general re-assessment. His new assessment at $721,000 was clearly at a substantially lower level than similar properties on his street, all selling for over $800,000, yet as Mr. Ladak pointed out, Mr. George appealed the assessment anyway. This understandably caused MPAC to review the assessment and return it for 2014 at a level reflected by the sales data in the area and as supported by a decision of this Board. That same evidence is now before the Board again, and I have come to the similar conclusion that the current value should reside over the $800,000 threshold.

12The photographs of the subject and the three properties on Loretta Crescent could not look more similar, unless they were identical. All are brick bungalows, built in the mid 1990’s, of similar size with attached garages, on maturely treed and nicely landscaped estate type lots of approximately one acre. All three properties sold in the base year 2012 for $835,000, $840,000 and $880,000. Time adjustments reduced that to a range from $794,000 to $825,000 as of January 2012.

13The most comparable property is at 271 Loretta Crescent. It is only 21 square feet smaller and only four years newer than the subject property, and it also does not have a finished basement. It sold one month before the valuation day for $809,000 and then sold again in June of 2012 for $835,000. Time adjustments are not required to infer that the subject property could have sold for an amount between those two numbers. The returned value of $814,000 is close to the low end of that range and is well supported by the time-adjusted sales of $804,000 and $825,000 for the two smaller structures at 286 and 278 Loretta Crescent respectively.

14Mr. George urged me to apply the 15% reduction the property enjoyed in the previous cycle to the $814,000. There was no evidence to show its origin and the market evidence does not support the proposition that Mr. George’s property would have sold for over $100,000 less than these very similar neighbouring properties. I am not persuaded that the custom home versus production home argument supports such a substantial discount.

Analysis – Equity

15The assessment to sale ratios of the four sales in evidence range from 1.00 to 1.08. While four sales is not statistically significant to draw any broad inferences, it seems that assessed values are either at or higher than time adjusted sale values on Loretta Crescent. There is no evidence that similar properties are assessed at a level below the level of sales, warranting a possible equity adjustment. Perhaps more importantly, the subject property current value at $814,000 is still below the assessments of the two smaller structures at 278 and 286 Loretta Crescent, and considerably below the $857,000 assessed value of the most comparable property at 271 Loretta Crescent. While this circumstance may be inequitable to those property owners, it is not inequitable for the subject property which still appears to enjoy a slightly discounted assessment relative to those neighbours.

CONCLUSION

16The current value of the subject home is determined to be $814,000, and there is no evidence to support an adjustment on account of equity. The assessment is confirmed at $814,000.

2015 DEEMED APPEAL

17An appeal for the 2014 taxation year is presently before the Board. Section 40.(26) provides that the appellant is deemed to have made the same appeal for the subsequent taxation year if the appeal is not finally disposed of before March 31 of the subsequent taxation year. The Board has not disposed of the 2014 appeal before March 31, 2015. For that reason, this decision also applies to the 2015 taxation year.

18Section 40.(26) of the Act directs:

Deemed appeals, 2009 and subsequent years

For 2009 and subsequent taxation years, an appellant shall be deemed to have brought the same appeal in respect of a property,

(a) in relation to the assessments under sections 32, 33 and 34 for the year; and

(b) in relation to the assessment, including assessments under sections 32, 33 and 34, for a subsequent taxation year to which the same general reassessment applies, if the appeal is not finally disposed of before March 31 of the subsequent taxation year or, if an assessment has been made under section 32, 33 or 34, before the 90th day after the notice of assessment was mailed.

Joseph M. Wyger”