Robert Gauthier v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, 2017 CanLII 36456

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE:

June 08, 2017

FILE NO.:

WR 146942

Assessed Person(s):

Robert Gauthier

Appellant(s):

Robert Gauthier

Respondent(s):

Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 28

Respondent(s):

Township of Bonfield

Property Location(s):

257 Maple Road

Municipality(ies):

Township of Bonfield

Roll Number(s):

4826-000-001-24005-0000

Appeal Number(s):

3121533 and 3160104

Taxation Year(s):

2015 and 2016

Hearing Event No.:

683469

Legislative Authority:

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

Heard:

May 18, 2017 by telephone conference call

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel+/Representative

Robert Gauthier

Self-represented

MPAC

Blair Adams

Township of Bonfield

No one appeared

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY SCOTT McANSH

1This in an appeal of the 2015 and 2016 assessments of the property located at 257 Maple Road in Bonfield Township. Robert Gauthier, the appellant, argues that the assessment is too high. He primarily claims that his property does not have the same finishes, including bricks, marble and landscaping, of other properties in the area that have sold for less.

2The property was assessed at $263,000 for the 2015 taxation year, and it was assessed at $247,000 for the 2016 taxation year. Before me Blair Adams, representing MPAC, recommends that the assessment be reduced to $242,000, which represents an 8% equity adjustment to a current value of $263,000. Mr. Gauthier argues that the assessment should be reduced to $200,000 for both taxation years.

DECISION

3For the reasons set out below, I find that the current value of the property for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years is $263,000. The evidence demonstrates, however, that an 8% reduction is required to make the assessment equitable with that of similar properties in the vicinity. I therefore reduce the assessment for the 2015 taxation year from $263,000 to $242,000. I also reduce the assessment for the 2016 taxation year from $247,000 to $242,000.

Legislation

4Section 44.(3)(a) of the Assessment Act (“Act”) requires the Assessment Review Board (“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, I must determine what the subject property would have sold for in an arm’s length transaction on the relevant valuation day, set pursuant to s. 19.3 of the Act, as January 1, 2012 for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years.

5Once 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 with that of similar lands in the vicinity” but only if that adjustment would result in a reduction of the assessment.

Current Value

6The best evidence of the current value of a residential property is the sale of similar properties at or near the valuation date. The further removed in time sales are from the valuation day, the less that sale is an indication of what the property would have sold for on the valuation day. Housing markets change over time. As such, the best evidence is sales that took place within one year of the January 1, 2012 valuation day.

7The best sales evidence in this matter is five of the sales provided by the two parties. MPAC submitted three properties that had sold, but only two of these occurred within one year of the valuation day of January 1, 2012. Mr. Gauthier provided me with 14 properties that had sold, but only three of those occurred within one year of that valuation day. Mr. Gauthier also submitted five current real estate listings in the area. List prices do not necessarily turn into sale prices, and are therefore of little assistance in determining what the property likely would have sold for on January 1, 2012.

8Mr. Gauthier also provided me with the opinion of a realtor, dated September 14, 2015, who stated that he “would estimate fair market value on your home at approx [sic] $199,900 to $204,900.” I put no weight on that opinion. It was given over three years after the valuation day, and is not supported by the evidence before me. I must determine current value on market evidence, and not blindly rely on the unsubstantiated hearsay opinions of others.

9The five properties that sold within a year of the valuation day, and their relevant characteristics, are set out in the table below:

Address

House Size (sq. ft.)

Lot Size (acres)

Built

Basement (sq. ft.) /(sq. ft. finished)

Sale Price

257 Maple Road

1,641

3.48

2013

none

A

332 Maple Road

1,280

3.97

1998

1,280/0

$237,000

B

147 Maple Road

1,180

2.18

1993

1,180/944

$228,000

C

108 Gagnon Road

970

6.13

1988

970/970

$180,000

D

9 Bluesea Road

1,200

1.03

1991

1,200/1,200

$180,000

E

426 Maple Road

1,100

0.81

1987

1,100/1,100

$186,000

10Mr. Gauthier puts a great deal of weight on the finishes of the other properties. I do not agree with him that landscaping or siding will have a significant impact on value. Mr. Gauthier also places a great deal of value on basements. While I agree that a basement, especially a finished basement, can add value to a property, it does not influence sale prices to the same degree as the size and age of the dwelling. In any event, I have no evidence on how differences in finishes, or finished basements, impact a property’s sale price.

11The size and age of the dwelling are generally accepted to be the factors most likely to drive the sale price. Mr. Gauthier’s property has by far the newest dwelling and it is the largest of any of the relevant comparable sales. Sale A is the best comparable, but it has a house that is 361 square feet smaller and 15 years older than Mr. Gauthier’s. While Mr. Gauthier’s property does not have a basement, it is still superior to all of the comparable sales in evidence.

12I can therefore only conclusively say that Mr. Gauthier’s property is worth something more than the $237,000 that Sale A sold for. MPAC argues that the level of superiority supports their suggested current value of $263,000, which is $28,000 more than Sale A. Given that Sale A sold for $47,000 more than Sale C, which is 310 square feet smaller, that difference in value does not seem unreasonable. I have no other evidence of values above $237,000, and I therefore accept MPAC’s opinion of the current value at $263,000.

Equity

13An 8% reduction to the current value of $263,000 is required to make the assessment equitable with that of similar properties in the vicinity. MPAC provided a report of the assessment to sales ratios of 30 properties in the vicinity of Mr. Gauthier’s property. That document showed that the median assessment in the vicinity is 92% of the sale price. That is, properties in the area are, on average, assessed 8% below their current value. It would be inequitable and unfair to assess Mr. Gauthier at the current value of $263,000 when others in the area are assessed below their current value.

14I therefore reduce the assessment of Mr. Gauthier’s property below its current value of $263,000 to $242,000 in order to achieve equity.

CONCLUSION

15The current value of 257 Maple Road is $263,000 for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years. However, an assessment at that amount would be inequitable with other properties in the vicinity. An equitable assessment would be 8% lower, or $242,000. I therefore reduce the 2015 assessment from $263,000 to $242,000 and I reduce the 2016 assessment from $247,000 to $242,000.