Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: December 21, 2018

FILE NO.: WR 154300

Assessed Person(s): Jacob Edward Keck

Appellant(s): Jacob Edward Keck

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”), Region 27

Respondent(s): City of Windsor

Property Location(s): 1784 Pillette Road

Municipality(ies): City of Windsor

Roll Number(s): 3739-010-440-08100-0000

Appeal Number(s): 3242781 and 3313734

Taxation Year(s): 2017 and 2018

Hearing Event No.: 701074

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

Heard: June 28, 2018 by telephone conference call

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel+/Representative
Jacob Edward Keck	Self-represented
MPAC	Simon Wicks
City of Windsor	No one appeared

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY CAROLINE KING

INTRODUCTION

1Jacob Edward Keck, the “Appellant”, has appealed the 2017 assessment of his property, located at 1784 Pillette Road, Windsor Ontario. This property is a residential single family detached 1½ storey dwelling, not on water, with an effective year built of 1949, a construction quality of 6.0, and a total building area of 1,148 square feet.

2MPAC assessed the property for the 2017 and deemed 2018 appeals at $117,000. The Appellant argues that the current value of the property for the 2017 and 2018 deemed appeal is $91,200 in part because the property was valued at $76,000 in 2014. Neither the Appellant, nor MPAC, introduced any evidence or made any submissions at the hearing regarding whether the assessment was equitable with similar lands in the vicinity.

ISSUE

3The issue to be determined is what is the correct current value of the subject property for the 2017 and 2018 tax years?

DECISION

4The correct current value of the subject property for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years is $115,914.

REASONS FOR DECISION

Legislation

5Clause 44.(3)(a) of the Assessment Act R.S.O. 1990 c. A. 31 (“Act”) requires the Assessment Review Board (“Board”) to “determine the current value of the land.” Current value is defined in section 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, the Board must determine what the subject property would have sold for in an arm’s length transaction on the relevant valuation day, set pursuant to section 19.3 of the Act, as January 1, 2016 for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

6Once the Board has determined the current value, clause 44.(3)(b) 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 with that of similar lands in the vicinity” but only if that adjustment would result in a reduction of the assessment.

7In addition to the 2017 taxation year appeal filed by the Appellant, there is a 2018 taxation year appeal before the Board. This is because, pursuant to subsection 44.(26), a 2018 appeal is deemed to have been filed if the 2017 taxation year appeal was “not finally disposed of before March 31, 2018.”

Current Value

8It was not disputed that the property subject to this appeal is a 1½ storey detached 1,148 square foot, four bedroom, one bathroom home, built in 1949. The Appellant uses this property as a rental property.

MPAC Evidence and Submissions

9Simon Wicks, (”MPAC’s Assessor”), submitted a valuation report dated January 17, 2018 in support of MPAC’s current value assessment of $117,000 on the valuation date of January 1, 2016. The valuation report sets out the sales of six properties on the same street as the subject property, all within 0.5 km of the subject property, which sold between October 31, 2014 and March 31, 2017. The properties for these six sales all were 1½ storey, one bathroom, no finished basements, and had the same property depth. They were built between 1920 and 1949, the frontage varied between 40 feet to 49 feet. MPAC’s Assessor argued that these six sale properties are very homogeneous and are comparable to the subject property.

10MPAC’s Assessor stated that the last sale of the subject property in October 2013 was an estate sale. He stated that the 2012 current value assessment (“CVA”) was $105,000 but that after a site inspection in 2014 he reduced the current value to $76,000 related to its status as a rental property.

11MPAC argued that based on these six comparable sale properties the current value of the subject property on the January 1, 2016 valuation date is $117,000.

Appellant’s Evidence and Submissions

12The Appellant did not submit any properties sold for the purpose of a direct comparison approach. The Appellant stated that he purchased the property in an arm’s length transaction in 2013 and that there have been no changes to his property since the time MPAC’s Assessor had viewed it in 2014. The Appellant stated that he purchased and uses the property as a rental property, and that it does not have granite countertops. He stated that he has no knowledge about what the internal condition of the six sale properties MPAC proposed for the direct comparison valuation analysis.

13The Appellant submitted that the assessed value of the property has increased from $76,000 in 2014 to $117,000 in the new taxation cycle which represents an 80% increase in assessed value. The Appellant submits that the correct current value of the property is $91,200 which is the $76,000 2014 valuation multiplied by 20% for Time Adjusted Sales.

Board Analysis

14In accordance with section 44(3)(a) the first mandate of the Board is to determine “the current value of the land.” Section 1 of the Act defines current value 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 2017 taxation year, the Board must determine what the subject property would have sold for in an arm’s length transaction on the January 1, 2016 valuation day set by the Act.

15For residential properties the current value is most often determined by the sales comparison method which looks at sales of similar properties on or near that valuation day. Section 44.(3) of the Act limits our review to what the property likely would have sold for on the January 1, 2016 valuation day. The assessments on that valuation day reflect the market, as it existed at that point in time. In other words, each valuation day must be addressed on its own market evidence, not based on value in previous tax year cycles.

16Therefore, the best evidence of the current value of a residential property is the sale of that property on or near the valuation day applicable to the taxation year under appeal. When that evidence is not available, the sales of similar properties on or near the valuation day are the next best evidence. If no sales are available on the valuation date, sales one year prior and one year post valuation date provide the most reliable evidence.

17The Appellant did not propose any other property sales, nor did he provide any information which contested the sale and property data submitted by MPAC. He did not contest the Time Adjusted Sales Prices proposed by MPAC. Whether or not the Appellant acquired the property in a 2013 estate sale, is not relevant for the purpose of establishing the current value of the property on January 1, 2016 because the market conditions in 2013 when he bought the property are not the same as the market conditions on the valuation date of January 1, 2016.

18To determine the current value of the property on January 1, 2016, the Board will consider the sale of similar properties within the shoulder years of this January 1, 2016 valuation date.

19MPAC proposed the sales of six properties which it submitted were comparable to the subject property. The Board excluded the sales for MPAC’s Properties # 1, 5, and 6 as they were sold on October 31, 2014, March 11, 2013, and March 3, 2017 respectively, and are all outside the one year shoulder period of the January 1, 2016 valuation date. The properties are similar but not exactly the same as the subject property. Therefore, the Board has taken the Time Adjusted Sales prices of MPAC’s Property 2, 3, and 4 and determined the price per square foot of the buildings located on each of three property sales which is $92.82, $82.53, and $127.55 respectively.

20As each of these properties have some features which are superior and some which are inferior to the subject property, the Board has determined that the average price per square feet is the most appropriate way to calculate the current value of the subject property. The average per square foot price of the building on each sale Property 2, 3, and 4 is $110.97. Expressed mathematically: ($92.82 + $82.53 + $127.55)/3 = $100.97 (rounded). The $100.97 square foot price (sq. ft.) multiplied by the 1,148 sq. ft. area of the subject property results in a current value of $115,914 (rounded). Expressed mathematically: $100.97 x 1,148 sq. ft. = $115,914 (rounded). The Board, therefore, finds that the current value of the subject property is $115,914.

CONCLUSION

21The Board finds that the current value of the subject property on the January 1, 2016 valuation date is $115,914 and the current value for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years is $115,914.