Meyer v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, 2016 CanLII 37480

Assessment Review Board / Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: June 14, 2016

FILE NO.: WR 140843

Assessed Person(s): Rudolf Josef Meyer, Marlise Althaus

Appellant(s): Rudolf Meyer

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region No. 01

Respondent(s): North Glengarry Township

Property Location(s): 20195 Keyon Conc. Rd. 1

Municipality(ies): North Glengarry Township

Roll Number(s): 0111-011-000-26400-0000

Appeal Number(s): 3116457 and 3143641

Taxation Year(s): 2015 and 2016

Hearing Event No. 629564

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

Heard: June 2, 2016 in Alexandria, Ontario

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Representative
Rudolf Meyer	Self-represented
Marlise Althaus	Rudolf Meyer
MPAC	Michelle Gravelle
Township of North Glengarry	Harold Bryan

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY SCOTT McANSH

INTRODUCTION

1This appeal concerns a farm property in North Glengarry (the “Property”). The site is 46.45 acres, of which approximately 20 acres can be farmed. There is a house on the site that was built in 1850 and renovated in the last five years. There are also five smaller structures on the site: a quonset, a greenhouse, an attached garage and two barns.

2MPAC returned an assessment of $248,000 for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years. That value is apportioned with $144,100 in the residential property class and $103,900 in the farmlands property class. Rudolf Meyer argues that the returned value is too high.

Legislation

3Section 44(3)(a) of the Assessment Act (“Act”) requires me to “determine the current value of the land.” Current value is defined in s. 1 as “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.” That is, I must determine what the Property would have sold for in an arms-length transaction on the relevant valuation day, set pursuant to s. 19.2 of the Act, as January 1, 2012 for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years.

4Once I have determined the current value, s. 44(3)(b) requires that I “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” if that adjustment would lower the assessment.

Decision

5For the reasons set out below, I find that the current value of the Property is $250,000 and that no adjustment is required to make that value equitable with other properties in the vicinity. As a result, I confirm the returned assessments of $248,000 for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years, with $144,100 in the residential property class and $103,900 in the farmlands property class.

Current Value

6In determining what the Property would have sold for on January 1, 2012 the best evidence is a sale of the Property on or near that date. When that evidence is unavailable, I will look to the sales of similar properties on or near January 1, 2012.

7Mr. Meyer testified that he accepted an offer of $225,000 for a five acre portion of the Property in 2012, but that the financing was not approved. An appraisal completed for that sale indicated a value of $225,000 for that five acre parcel and the house. He was then offered $250,000 for the same parcel, with an alternative financing arrangement, which he did not accept. This market evidence indicates that the value of the entire Property near the valuation day of January 1, 2012 was at least $250,000. Mr. Meyer’s evidence of those transactions is the best evidence of current value as it is an aborted sales transaction involving the Property at or near the valuation day, which provides a good indication of value. That value is amply supported by the sales of other properties.

8MPAC provided six proposed comparable sales in North Glengarry. Mr. Meyer did not present any sales of properties on or near January 1, 2012. Rather, Mr. Meyer provided real estate listing information for four other properties in the area, which I find to be too far removed in time from the valuation day to be of use in determining current value. I, therefore, only have the sales presented by MPAC in determining current value. I find that those sales amply support the evidence of Mr. Meyer that the current value is at least $250,000.

920202 6th Concession Road sold in April 2011 for $280,000. It is a much larger lot with more workable land, however, the house on the site is older and smaller than the house on the Property.

1020110 Kenyon Concession Road 8 sold in August 2012 for $312,000. It is also on a much larger lot with more workable land with a smaller house, though it is of a similar age to the house on the Property.

1119970 County Road 24 sold in July 2012 for $405,000. It is on a larger lot with much more workable land than the Property. The house on the site is smaller and older than the house on the Property.

122825 Hope Ouimet Road sold in January 2012 for $330,000. It is on a similarly sized parcel to the Property but all of the land on the parcel is workable, while less than half of the Property is workable. The house on the site is of a similar age but smaller than the house on the Property.

1321672 Glen Robertson Road sold in April 2013 for $290,000. It is a smaller parcel, but is all workable land. The house on the site is much smaller, but also much newer than the house on the Property.

1421080 Lochiel Road sold in July 2012 for $350,000. It is a larger parcel and has more workable land than the Property. The house on the site is older and smaller than the house on the Property.

15MPAC argues that the Property is most comparable to 20110 Kenyon Concession Rod 8 and 2825 Hope Ouimet Road. I agree that those are comparable, though both appear to be slightly superior in farmland and slightly inferior in housing. It is difficult to say which factor influences value more. However, all six sales were for more than $250,000 and, in fact, indicate a slightly higher value for the Property.

16Mr. Meyer argued that MPAC’s sales were too geographically removed from the Property and had better quality farmland. However, all of the sales are in the same county and Mr. Meyer did not provide any better sales evidence on which to base a current value. Mr. Meyer presented four current real estate listings. Two of those are residential homes in the town of Alexandria and are not comparable to the Property. The other two are farms, but are for sale in 2016 and have not sold. They do not show what the Property would have sold for on January 1, 2012. I put no weight on those listings.

17The best evidence of current value is the market evidence relating to five acres of the Property in 2012. I find that evidence supports a current value of the Property for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years of at least $250,000.

Equity

18Neither party put forward any evidence on the equity of the assessment. As such, I find no basis on which to make an adjustment pursuant to s. 44(3)(b) of the Act.

CONCLUSION

19I find that the proposed market transactions put forward by Mr. Meyer are the best evidence of current value and support the returned assessment of $248,000 with $144,100 in the residential property class and $103,900 in the farmlands property class. No adjustment is required to make that value equitable with the assessments of similar properties in the vicinity.

20I, therefore, confirm the assessment as returned for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years.