Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: January 26, 2016

FILE NO.: WR 133737

Assessed Person(s): Emilio Loschiavo, Maria Loschiavo

Appellant(s): Emilio Loschiavo, Maria Loschiavo

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

Respondent(s): Town of Richmond Hill

Property Location(s): 91 Arten Avenue

Municipality(ies): Town of Richmond Hill

Roll Number(s): 1938-060-110-59064-0000

Appeal Number(s): 3061630, 3081127, 3110845, 3110846 and 3110847 (deemed 2013 and 2014 s.33 appeals)

Taxation Year(s): 2013, 2014 (and deemed 2015)

Hearing Event No.: 581846

Legislative Authority: Sections 33 and 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31, as amended

Heard: July 8, 2015 in Richmond Hill, Ontario

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Representative
Maria Loschiavo	Self-represented
MPAC	Julie Landon
Town of Richmond Hill	No one appeared

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY MARK SPRAGGETT

INTRODUCTION

1The subject property, 91 Arten Avenue, is a two storey, four bedroom detached house with a built-in double garage, situated on a 8,600.72 square foot lot with a frontage of 51.48 feet and a depth of 167.07 feet. Purchased pre-construction directly from the builder in April 2011 and completed in July 2013. The property is assessed at $1,151,000 as of January 1, 2012, for 2014 and deemed 2015 taxation years. For the taxation years 2013 and 2014, the property returned at the vacant land value of $356,000 and a subsequent property assessment change notice was issued effective the date of occupancy of July 8, 2013.

2Julie Landon, 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. Ms. Landon provided in evidence the sales of three suggested comparable properties.

3Maria Loschiavo, appearing on her own behalf and behalf of Emilio Loschiavo, stated the subject property is over-assessed. Ms. Loschiavo provided in evidence the sales of two suggested comparable properties in addition to builder sales information on her property, arguing that her property should be assessed at $1,016,000.

4The Board’s mandate is to determine both, the correct current value of the subject property and whether the assessment as 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 $1,151,000.

6The Board finds that there is no evidence before it leading to the conclusion that the current value of the subject property, as determined above, 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 $1,151,000. Neither party submitted evidence to support any finding by the Board with respect to whether assessment is equitable with respect to similar properties in the vicinity.

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 section 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.

13Ms. Landon provided the Board with three sales of which one suggested comparable property she submitted to be the most similar property to the subject. Ms. Loschiavo offered two suggested comparable properties in addition to her own property, arguing that it sold near the valuation date and should be seen as reflecting fair market value, in spite of it being a builder sale.

14The Board finds Sale A to be the best evidence from MPAC for a suggested comparable to that of the subject property. Although built two years earlier, it offers the best similarity in lot frontage, building total area, and a sale date close to the valuation date. The site area of Sale A is significantly larger than the subject, probably accounting for the higher sale price of $1,286,091 (Time Adjusted). Taking this difference into account, MPAC estimates the market value of the subject property at $1,240,000, well above the current value assessment of $1,151,000 and concludes the latter valuation to be reasonable.

15The Board places no weight on the sales of the remaining MPAC suggested comparable properties B and C. The Board agrees with MPAC’s analysis of their inferior condition to that of the subject property, in terms of age, smaller lot size, building area and finds none to be directly comparable to the subject property.

Appellant’s Arguments

16Ms. Loschiavo presented as evidence two suggested comparables that sold on the same street as the subject property, namely 123 Arten Avenue and 131 Arten Avenue (see Exhibit 6 “Geowarehouse Report”). The Board places no weight on the evidence as submitted as it is lacking clarity of detailed information on the properties as well as handwritten details that indicate both properties were built in 1991 and 1997 respectively, suggesting they are too old and therefore too dissimilar to the subject property for the purposes of this analysis.

17Ms. Loschiavo submits that the Board should consider the sale of the subject property by the builder as an arm’s length sale between a willing seller and a willing buyer. Submissions in evidence by the Appellant were made to demonstrate the transparent nature of the transaction as that of a fair market sale.

18The Board finds the use of builder sales not reflecting an unencumbered arm’s length sales transaction process between a willing seller and willing buyer. The protracted time interval between the time of negotiating and actual date of purchase suggests such sales are not the best indicator of current value. The Board will not use builder sales in considering the subject property’s current value.

19Ms. Loschiavo submitted that the December 9, 2011 “Price List”, see Exhibit 5, provided by the builder best reflects the value for the subject property (less the HST) and is near the January 1, 2012 valuation date. The Board gives no weight to this evidence for the reason stated above, as well as the fact the evidence has no bearing on value as it is merely a price list by a third party author not present at this hearing to answer questions the Board may wish to ask.

20The Board finds no evidence before it leading to the conclusion that the current value of the subject property requires a further adjustment.

Equity Analysis

21The 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.

22Section 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.”

23During the hearing the Board asked Ms. Landon to provide the assessment values for the three suggested sales comparables. As only Sale A proved to be the best evidence as a comparable to the subject property, only its assessment value was useful. At first glance it would appear inequitable that the Appellant’s property be assessed higher than the best comparable (Sale A). However, the Board does not accept that equity is achieved by reducing a correct current value to an incorrect level on the basis of comparison with a single neighboring property. The Board requires evidence that many similar properties are assessed at a lower level than the subject for no apparent good reason, in order to warrant an equity adjustment under s. 44.(3)(b).

24As neither party submitted equity evidence, the Board is unable to make a finding that the subject property’s current value would need to be reduced in order to make it equitable with the assessed values of similar properties in the vicinity.

25Accordingly, the Board finds that there is no evidence before it leading to the conclusion that the current value of the subject property, as determined above, requires a further adjustment in accordance with s. 44.(3)(b) of the Act.