Natalya Kisenko v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, 2016 CanLII 45382

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE:

July 12, 2016

FILE NO.:

WR 138688

Assessed Person(s):

Natalya Kisenko

Appellant(s):

Natalya Kisenko

Respondent(s):

Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 19

Respondent(s):

City of Hamilton

Property Location(s):

369 Brookview Court

Municipality(ies):

City of Hamilton

Roll Number(s):

2518-140-230-25904-0000

Appeal Number(s):

3120310 and 3156481(deemed 2016 appeal)

Taxation Year(s):

2015 and 2016 (deemed appeal)

Hearing Event No.

611530

Legislative Authority:

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

ARB Case Name:

Heard:

January 11, 2016, in Dundas, Ontario

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel+/Representative

Natalya Kisenko

A. Tyutyunnik

MPAC

Tim Oberle

City of Hamilton

No one appeared

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY SUBUOLA AWOLERI

INTRODUCTION

1The appeal before the Assessment Review Board (“Board”) is filed by the Assessed Person and Appellant Natalya Kisenko in respect to the returned assessment of $574,000 for the subject property in Ancaster for the 2015 taxation year.

BACKGROUND

2The subject property is a single-family detached dwelling, built in 1985. It has a lot with 54.89 feet of frontage, 119.03 feet of depth, and a total building area of 2,297 square feet (“sq. ft.”). The basement area is 1,358 sq. ft. of which 1,154 sq. ft. is finished. The property is located on a cul-de-sac, to which MPAC has made the corresponding upward adjustment.

3For the 2015 taxation year, the assessment was returned at $574,000. The current value assessment was determined by the Direct Sales Comparison Approach.

ISSUE

4Tim Oberle, the assessor from MPAC, is of the view that the assessment of the subject property at $574,000 for the 2015 taxation year should be confirmed. He testified that this value is as a result of the five selected adjusted sales, which are relatively comparable to the subject property, which are within the range of $492,729 - $592,206; consequently, he asserts that the subject property falls within this range.

5Mr. Tyutyunnik, representing the Appellant, took the position that the assessment is too high and urged the Board to consider a current value assessment of $527,000 and $482,000 on the basis of equity for the subject property as of January 1, 2012.

6In addition to determining what the current value of the subject property is, the Board must determine if the assessment of the subject property is equitable with that of similar properties in the vicinity.

DECISION

7The Board finds the current value of the subject property for the 2015 taxation year to be $528,000 (rounded).

8The Board also finds that the assessment at current value is equitable with the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity; hence no further reduction is required to achieve equity.

9The Board orders that the assessment be reduced from $574,000 to $528,000 for the 2015 taxation year.

REASONS FOR DECISION

Legislation

10Section 44.(3)(a) of the Assessment Act (“Act”) requires the Board 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, for the 2015 taxation year, the Board must determine what the subject property would have sold for in an arm’s length transaction on the January 1, 2012 valuation day set by the Act.

11Section 44.(3)(b) of the Act requires that the Board “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 that of similar lands in the vicinity.”

Current Value - Evidence and Analysis

12The parties presented 12 comparable sales. Mr. Oberle presented 5 of these sales while the appellant presented 7 of these sales.

13Details of MPAC’s comparables are summarized in Table 1:

Table 1

Address

Sale Date

Year Built

Sale Amt.($)

Effective Site Area

Building Size (sq. ft.)

Adjusted Value for - Corner Lot -Cul De Sac -Inground pool -Central Air Conditioner

Time Adjusted Sale ($)

Subject Property

359 Brookview Court

N/A

1985

6,533.55

2,297

N/A

N/A

Sale A

1 Tinderlane Court

Aug 2011

1985

527,500

8,276.00

2,069

540,906

536,593

Sale B

203 Woodview Crescent

Sept. 2012

1958

545,000

12,750.00

1,886

514,297

528,096

Sale C

18 Summerdale Place

Dec. 2012

1985

520,000

6,600.00

2,218

492,729

498,416

Sale D

65 Summerdale Place

Nov. 2010

1984

489,900

6,969.60

2,499

527,847

515,761

Sale E

21 Summerdale Place

Oct. 2011

1986

578,000

6,600.00

2,421

592,206

583,493

14Mr. Oberle, further provided adjustments on the sale comparables for cul-de-sac, in ground pool and the lack of central air conditioner in order to make them relatively comparable to the subject property. The Appellant takes no issue with any of these adjustments. The details of these adjustments can be seen in Table 2 below:

Table 2

Address

Time Adjusted Sale ($)

Cul-De-Sac ($) 8,713

Corner lot 2%

In ground pool ($) (depends on size)

Central Air conditioner (Lacks)

Adjusted Value

Sale A

1 Tinderlane Court

536,593

(+) 8,713

(+) 10,000

(-) 14,400

N/A

540,906

Sale B

203 Woodview Crescent

528,096

(+) 8,713

N/A

(-) 22,512

N/A

514,297

Sale C

18 Summerdale Place

498,416

(+) 8,713

N/A

(-) 14,400

N/A

492,729

Sale D

65 Summerdale Place

515,761

(+) 8,713

N/A

N/A

(+)3,373

527,847

Sale E

21 Summerdale Place

583,493

(+) 8,713

N/A

N/A

N/A

592,206

15Mr. Tyutyunnik accepts Sales A - D presented by MPAC and their corresponding adjusted values. However, he disagrees with the adjustment for Sale E. He argues that Sale E sold again in May 2014 for $685,000, two months before the sale of the subject property. He deducted his own account of the sale price for the subject property at $640,000 from $685,000 (sale price of Sale E in 2014) and arrived at (-) $45,000. He argues that (-) $45,000 represents gross adjustments between the subject property and Sale E. He then deducted (-) $45,000 from $583,493 (Time Adjusted Sale price for Sale E) and submits that the adjusted value for Sale E should be $538,493. MPAC disagrees with this analysis and states that the 2014 sale for Sale E is not relevant to the 2012 valuation date.

16Mr. Tyutyunnik’s summary of sales for current value is as provided in Table 3:

Table 3

Comparable Sale

Adjusted Sale Price($)

1

1 Tinderlane Court

540,906

2

203 Woodview Crescent

514,297

3

18 Summerdale Place

492,729

4

65 Summerdale Place

527,847

5

21 Summerdale Place

538,493

6

Subject property

541,455

7

337 Brookview Court

462,326

Average $516,865

Median $527,847

17In reviewing the sales evidence by MPAC and the Appellant, the Board accepts Sales A, C, D and E presented by MPAC for being relatively similar to the subject property in so far as age, building size, effective site area, frontage and depth and are suitable in establishing the range of current value of assessment of the subject property. Sale B is older than the subject property, has the largest effective site area with a smaller building size, a lower construction quality of 6.0 and it is the only sale that is not within the same homogenous neighbourhood as the subject property. The four sales have on average an effective site area of 7,111.4 sq. ft., a total building area of 2,301.75 sq. ft., an average year built of 1985 and they are all located within the same homogenous neighbourhood with the same construction quality of 6.5 as the subject property. This is compared to the subject with an effective site area of 6,533.55 sq. ft., a building area of 2,297 sq. ft., with construction quality of 6.5, built in 1985.

18The Board accepts Sales I, 3, 4 and 5, from the Appellant, which are the same as MPAC’s Sales A, C, D and E and rejects Sale 2 (MPAC’s Sale B) for the same reasons noted above. However, in accepting Sale 5, which is MPAC’s Sale E, the Board does not accept the adjusted value of $538,493 provided by the Appellant. This property sold twice in October 2011 and May 2014. MPAC relies on the 2011 sale for being close to the valuation date of January 1, 2012, while the Appellant relies on the second sale of 2014 and made the necessary adjustment. The Board agrees with MPAC that the 2014 sale for this property is irrelevant to the valuation date of January 1, 2012. The Appellant also relies on the sale of the subject property in July 2014 and also made the necessary adjustment for time to arrive at an adjusted sale value. The Board rejects this sale for the same reason of it being irrelevant to the valuation date of January 1, 2012.

19The Board also accepts Sale 7, however notes that this property also sold twice; in March 2011 and August 2014. The Appellant conveniently utilized the 2011 sale with necessary adjustment to arrive at the adjusted sale value. Although the Board accepts the sale of this property in March 2011 for being relatively comparable to the subject property, the Appellant cannot select sale dates to suit assessment purposes.

20In reviewing all the evidence from both parties, the Board finds that:

• The best market evidence before the Board is Sales A, C, D, E with adjusted values from MPAC and Sale 7 from the Appellant.

• These five comparable properties have on average a total effective site area of 7,039.66 sq. ft., a total building area of 2,336.8 sq. ft., and an average year built of 1985. This is compared to the subject property with a total lot size of 6,533.55 sq. ft., a total building area of 2,297 sq. ft., built in 1985. The Board finds that on average these five comparable properties are reasonably comparable to the subject property in terms of location, structure, building size, lot size and age. The adjusted sale values for these sales range from $462,326 to $592,206. The subject property falls within this range. The median of these five sales is $527,847.

21The Board finds that the current value of the subject property is $528,000 (rounded).

Equity Analysis

22Section 44.(3)(b) mandates and directs that after determining current value, the Board shall have reference to the value at which similar lands in the vicinity are assessed. The Assessment to Sale Ratio (“ASR”) is a tool often used to determine if a reduction in the assessment below current value is required to make an assessment equitable with the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity.

23MPAC provided no evidence for equity.

24The Appellant provided 8 sales of property along Brookview Court, between January 1, 2011 and December 31, 2013.

25The properties provided by Mr. Tyutyunnik are too small a sample in order for the Board to make any determination on equity. He basically used only one sale to establish equity. Only one sale does not make a market but numerous sales. The evidence does not lead the Board to the conclusion that the assessment of the property should be reduced below its current value to make it equitable with the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity.

CONCLUSION

26Based on all of the evidence, the Board determines the current value to be $528,000 (rounded) and finds this value to be fair and equitable. Therefore, the Board reduces the returned assessment from $574,000 to $528,000 for the 2015 taxation year.

2016 DEEMED APPEAL

27An 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.

28Section 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.