Hoosein v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, 2016 CanLII 33712

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: June 03, 2016

FILE NO.: WR 135786

Assessed Person(s): Tajmool Hoosein and Bebe S. Hoosein

Appellant(s): Tajmool Hoosein and Bebe S. Hoosein

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 09

Respondent(s): City of Toronto

Property Location(s): 64 Bellwoods Avenue

Municipality(ies): City of Toronto

Roll Number(s): 1904-042-130-13000-0000

Appeal Number(s): 3102951 and 3146979 (deemed 2016 appeal)

Taxation Year(s): 2015 and 2016 (deemed appeal)

Hearing Event No. 597930

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

Heard: October 13, 2015 in Toronto, Ontario

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Representative
Tajmool Hoosein and Bebe S. Hoosein	Tajmool Hoosein
MPAC	Hassan Fereg
City of Toronto	No one appeared

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY MARK SPRAGGETT

INTRODUCTION

1The subject property, 64 Bellwoods Avenue, is a two-and-three quarter storey semi-detached house located on a 1,206 square foot lot with an effective frontage of 18 feet and an effective depth of 67 feet. Built in 1900 and renovated in 1988, the effective year built is 1938. The property has no parking. MPAC classifies the quality level of the property as 6.0. The house has a basement area of 755 square feet, of which 500 square feet is finished and considered a recreation room. Basement ceiling height is 7.5 feet. The property is assessed as returned at $510,000 for the 2015 taxation year.

2Hassan Fereg appearing on behalf of MPAC, stated that the subject property has been assessed based on the evidence of the sales of similar properties in the vicinity of the subject property. In evidence Mr. Fereg provided the sales of five suggested comparable properties.

3Tajmool Hoosein, (“Appellant”) appeared on his own behalf. The Appellant argues that MPAC’s methods are not realistic and believes other factors play a more significant role in determining how to value his property, such as the age and interior condition of the property. The Appellant disagrees with all the evidence put forth by MPAC including the suggested comparables. The Appellant is asking the Assessment Review Board (“Board”) to confirm $400,000 as the current value assessment (“CVA”) for the taxation year 2015. No credible evidence was provided by the Appellant to support his position.

4The Board must determine both the correct current value of the subject property and whether the assessment of the subject property so determined is equitable with the assessments of similar properties in the vicinity of the subject property.

DECISION

5For the reasons stated below and as directed by s. 44.(3)(a) of the Assessment Act (“Act”), the Board finds that the current value of the subject property, as at the valuation day January 1, 2012, is between $626,919 and $651,693. The Board notes that the current value range determined by the Board is higher than the CVA as returned by MPAC. As no party has requested an increase in the assessment of the subject property and MPAC’s position is to recommend to the Board to confirm the assessment as returned, the Board therefore confirms the CVA as returned of $510,000 for the year 2015 as at the valuation date of January 1, 2012.

6The Board finds that there is no evidence before it leading to the conclusion that the current value of the subject property, as determined below, requires a further adjustment in accordance with s. 44.(3)(b) of the Act.

7Accordingly the assessment of the subject property as at the valuation day, January 1, 2012, is confirmed at $510,000.

REASONS FOR DECISION

Current Value Analysis

8The initial task for the Board is to determine the current value of the subject property as required by s. 44.(3)(a) of the Act “… the Board shall determine the current value of the land…”

9Section 19.(1) of the Act states that “… the assessment of land shall be based on its current value…” and s. 1 of the Act defines current value as “…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…”

10The best test of current value is an arm’s length and market tested sale of the subject property on the valuation day, January 1, 2012 or close to it. If no such transaction took place, the next best measure of current value would be arm’s length and market tested sales of comparable properties in the same vicinity and market, on or close to the valuation day. This measure acts as a benchmark and a gauge of the accuracy for the assessed value of the subject property and comparable properties.

11To enable an estimate of value for the subject property to be derived from a comparable property, there must be sufficient elements of similarity, in terms of physical factors such as total building area, land area, land frontage, age of construction, physical condition, etc.; and in terms of neighbourhood characteristics such as access to amenities, type and nature of housing etc., so as to enable a direct comparison to be made between the comparable property and the subject property.

12Furthermore, to be indicative of both the market and values on the valuation day, a sale of a suggested comparable property should occur close to the valuation day. Generally, the Board prefers the sale of properties that occur within six months on either side of the valuation day. When such evidence is either limited or not available, the Board has accepted sales of properties up to 18 months on either side of the valuation day, or in exceptional circumstances, greater time periods.

13Mr. Fereg provided the Board with five sales of suggested comparable properties, of which one sale, Sale E located at 39 Robinson Street, he testified is the most comparable property to the subject property. The Appellant provided no suggested comparable properties as evidence.

14MPAC’s property, 85 Robinson Street, while inferior in building size (only two-storey), offers the same quality class as the subject property, with similarities in lot size. The single car parking tends to offset the smaller building size, suggesting the current value of the subject property should be higher than this comparable. Sale B, 61 Gore Vale Avenue, also a two-storey structure, has a superior site area, whereas the subject property has a superior house area. The subject property is likely to have a higher current value than this comparable as it is a 2 and ¾ storey structure. Sale C, 160 Bellwoods Avenue, is very similar to the subject property in terms of site area and building size. It too is a 2 and ¾ storey structure, with the same quality class as the subject property. Its more recent renovation is offset by the subject property’s proximity to commercial influences and lack of parking. The Board concurs with MPAC’s conclusion that this comparable’s sale price better reflects where the subject property’s current value should be as of the January 1, 2012 valuation date. The Board agrees with MPAC’s assessment of Sale D (106 Bellwoods Avenue) as an unsuitable comparable, although a 2 and ¾ storey structure, and places no weight on this sale as a suggested comparable. The Board agrees with MPAC’s valuation of Sale E (39 Robinson Street) as being relatively comparable, although only a 2 storey structure. Both properties have similar negative influences, suggesting the current value of the subject property should be near the value of this comparable.

15The Board finds that the best evidence of the current value of the subject property is with the sales of 160 Bellwoods Avenue and 39 Robinson Street, giving a time adjusted sale range between $626,919 and $651,693, suitable as evidence for the value of the subject property.

16The Board concurs with MPAC that the subject property’s CVA as returned is significantly under assessed in comparison to similar properties in the vicinity. The comparables provided by MPAC including other properties on the same street, (see Exhibit 5), illustrate this consistent pattern of being under assessed relative to similar properties.

Appellant’s Arguments

17The Appellant argued that the age and the deteriorating condition of his hundred year old property have not been factored into MPAC’s valuation of the subject property. The Appellant argues that the market valuation process is not working and believes MPAC’s methods to be unrealistic. The Board does not agree and accepts the Direct Sales Comparison Approach as most appropriate for this property. The comparable properties provided by MPAC suggest similarities to the subject property, not just in terms of age, but location, lot size, building size, negative externalities, etc. No argument was made that the subject property was anything other than in a deteriorating condition.

18The Appellant’s testimony consisted of unsubstantiated evidence based on his own views accompanied by photocopied hand written and mostly indecipherable notes taken by the Appellant on periodic walks in his neighbourhood, intending to illustrate property features, building and lot dimensions and other structures. The Board gives no weight to the other documents included in the evidence addressing tax computations, as it is not the mandate of the Board to deal with specific issues on property tax matters. The Board also gives no weight to documents dealing with earlier valuation periods, as the Act gives no direction on determining current value based on previous valuation periods.

19The Board finds the hand-written submission evidence provided by the Appellant, referring to quantitative units of measure such as “Bigger”; “Bit Bigger”; “Bit Smaller”; “Bigger House”, of no use to the Board. The Board cannot speculate on the substance of the evidence provided by the Appellant without quantifiable and corroborated information.

20The Appellant recommended a more appropriate current value range for the subject property between $400,000 to $430,000 with preference towards the lower end of the range.

21The Board finds no basis to support such a conclusion.

Equity Analysis

22The Act was amended for taxation years beginning with 2009, to require the Board to lower an assessment below current value if required to make the assessment equitable with the assessments of similar properties in the vicinity.

23Section 44.(3)(b) of the Act states that “…the Board shall…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 land.”

24For the purposes of establishing equity, properties do not need to be comparable, they only need to be of a similar nature and within reasonable proximity. MPAC presented the sales of 71 residential properties within 0.37 kilometres of the subject property which occurred between May 2010 and December 2012. The median Assessment to Sale Ratio (“ASR”) of the 71 valid sales is 0.96. A value within five percentage points is usually considered an acceptable value. In this case the average ASR of 0.96 falls within an acceptable range and suggests that MPAC’s methodology may be producing assessments in line with sales.

25Mr. Fereg calculated the subject property’s assessment estimated as $652,693 to be equitable with similar properties in the vicinity. Mr. Fereg noted that the CVA as returned of $510,000 which is the assessed value MPAC is seeking the Board to confirm, is significantly under assessed in comparison to neighbouring properties. Mr. Fereg also provided Exhibit 5, demonstrating that the subject property in comparison to properties on the same street as being considerably under assessed.

26Section 44.(3)(b) of the Act mandates the Board to adjust the assessment only if such an adjustment would result in a reduction of the assessment of land and make the property equitable with similar properties in the vicinity. In this case, the subject property is under assessed and while inequitable, cannot be increased to reach equity with similar properties, as it would contravene the Act.

27The Board therefore finds that no adjustment is required for equity in accordance with s. 44.(3)(b) of the Act.

CONCLUSION

28Based on all of the evidence, the Board determined the current value to be between $626,919 and $651,693, and finds this range to be equitable. However, there is no appeal before the Board to increase the returned assessment of $510,000. Therefore, the Board confirms the returned assessment of the subject property at $510,000 for the 2015 taxation year as at January 1, 2012.

2016 DEEMED APPEAL

29An appeal for the 2015 taxation year is presently before the Board. Section 40.(26) of the Assessment Act 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 2015 appeal before March 31, 2016. For that reason, this decision also applies to the 2016 taxation year.

30Section 40.(26) of the Act directs:

Deemed appeals, 2009 and subsequent years

(26) 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.