Assessment Review Board
Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière
ISSUE DATE:
August 10, 2018
FILE NO.:
WR 151996A
AMENDED DECISION ISSUED ON: August 31, 2018
Assessed Person(s):
Arnold Valdis Augspols; Rita Augspols
Appellant(s):
Arnold Valdis Augspols; Rita Augspols
Respondent(s):
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”)
Region 09
Respondent(s):
City of Toronto
Property Location(s):
16 Magwood Court
Municipality(ies):
City of Toronto
Roll Number(s):
1914-082-240-05200-0000
Appeal Number(s):
3251374 and 3300497 (deemed 2018 appeal)
Taxation Year(s):
2017 and 2018 (deemed appeal)
Hearing Event No.
696564
Legislative Authority:
Section 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31, as amended
Heard:
April 3, 2018 in Toronto, Ontario
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Representative
Arnold Augspols
Self-Represented
MPAC
Erin Comeau
City of Toronto
No one appeared
DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY DAN WEAGANT
Amended pursuant to Rule 114 of the Assessment Review Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, effective April 1, 2017
INTRODUCTION
1Arnold Augspols (the “Appellant”) appealed the 2017 assessment of the subject property at 16 Magwood Court (the “subject property”) because he believed the value returned by MPAC was too high. The Appellant also believes the property taxes on the subject property are too high owing to an improper assessment in 2012 that resulted from the application of value attributed to renovations that had not occurred. He asserted that this error has carried over to the 2016 current value assessment and as a result, the assessment for the 2017 taxation year is also too high.
2MPAC returned a value of $655,000 for the subject property. In preparation for the hearing, MPAC determined an estimate of current value, based on the sales of comparable properties, of $675,000. MPAC was not seeking an increase in the assessment; it only submitted this figure in support of the returned value, which it sought to have confirmed.
3The Assessment Review Board (the “Board”) must decide two things in this appeal. Firstly, the Board must determine, based on the evidence at the hearing, the current value of the subject property for the 2017 taxation year.
4Having reference to the assessments of similar properties in the vicinity, the Board must also decide if the current value determined needs to be reduced for the purpose of equitable assessment.
5Section 40.(26) of the Assessment Act, (“Act”) states 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 did not dispose of the 2017 appeal before March 31, 2018. For that reason, this decision also applies to the 2018 taxation year.
DECISION
6The Board finds that the current value of the subject property is $655,000. The Board also finds that no reduction in the current value is required for the assessment to be equitable with the assessments of similar properties in the vicinity.
7The Board finds that the assessment of the subject property, at PH 9 – 995 O’Connor Drive is confirmed at $655,000, in the Residential property class for the 2017 and deemed 2018 taxation years.
LEGISLATION
8In making its determination of these appeals, the Board must consider the relevant sections of the Assessment Act R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31.
current value” means, 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.
10Section 19.(1) of the Act states:
19.(1) Assessment based on current value. – The assessment of land shall be based on its current value.
11Section 40.(1) of the Act states:
40.(1) Appeal to Assessment Review Board. Any person, including a municipality, a school board or, in the case of land in non-municipal territory, the Minister, may appeal in writing to the Assessment Review Board,
(a) on the basis that,
(i) the current value of the person’s land or another person’s land is incorrect,
(ii) he person or another person was wrongly placed on or omitted from the assessment roll,
(iii) the person or another person was wrongly placed on or omitted from the roll in respect of school support,
(iv) the classification of the person’s land or another person’s land is incorrect, or
(v) or land, portions of which are in different classes of real property, the determination of the share of the value of the land that is attributable to each class is incorrect; or
(b) on such other basis as the Minister may prescribe.
12Section 44.(3) of the Act states:
44.(3) Same, 2009 and subsequent years. – For 2009 and subsequent taxation years, in determining the value at which any land shall be assessed, the Board shall,
(a) determine the current value of the land; and
(b) 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 the land.
What is the Current Value of the subject property?
MPAC’s Evidence
13MPAC provided a valuation report to show how it arrived at the subject property’s current value for 2017. The assessor undertook the direct comparison approach to value, which is the most common approach used by MPAC for single-family dwellings, like the subject property. The direct comparison approach compares the sale values of properties that are comparable to the subject property. The assessor testified that the comparison of these properties to the subject property allowed MPAC to arrive at a reasonable current value for the subject property.
14The valuation report compared the subject property with five properties that sold between July 2015 and November 2016. Three of these are on the same street as the subject property and the other two are farther afield in the same general neighborhood. All five are semi-detached dwellings, the same as the subject property.
15When making comparisons to the subject property, MPAC applies a Time Adjustment Factor (“TAF”) to each sale value. The TAF is used to adjust the sale price so that it more closely reflects the value at which the properties would have sold on the valuation day of January 1, 2016. According to the Assessor, the TAFs used in this case were derived from a ‘time changes over time’ study that used 245 sales of residential properties in the area that took place in 2015 and 2016. The assessor explained this study creates a trend line to show how prices for residential sales in the area change over that time period. A TAF for each month in the time period is applied to sales in that month to arrive at a Time Adjusted Sale (“TAS”) value.
16Table A summarizes the characteristics of each of the five comparable properties used by MPAC along with the same characteristics of the subject property.
TABLE A
Subject Property – 16 Magwood Court
Sale 1 – 17 Magwood Court
Sale 2 – 26 Magwood Court
Sale 3 – 52 Magwood Court
Sale 4 – 32 Pasadena Gardens
Sale 5 – 161 Varsity Road
Living Area (sq. ft.)
1,036
1,036
1,036
1,034
1,060
1,020
Year Built
1955
1955
1955
1955
1955
1955
No. Storeys
2
2
2
2
2
2
Modifications
‘B’ reno 1990
‘B’ reno 1990
‘B’ reno 1990
‘B’ reno 1990
‘B’ reno 1990
‘B’ reno 1990
Sale Price ($)/Date
N/A
700,000 / July 2015
677,500 / July 2015
715,000 / November 2015
661,000 / November 2015
671,900/ November 2016
Sale Price / Sq. ft. ($)
N/A
675.68
653.96
691.49
623.58
658.73
TAS Price ($)
N/A
761,182
736,716
731,025
675,814
582,513
TAS/Sq. ft.($)
N/A
734.73
711.12
706.99
637.56
571.09
2016 CVA ($)
655,000
699,000
660,000
658,000
656,000
647,000
2016 CVA / sq. ft. ($)
632.24
674.71
637.07
636.36
618.87
634.31
17MPAC submitted that the per square foot, TAS values of the five comparable properties in evidence range from $571.09 to $734.73.Applying these values to the subject property’s 1,036 sq. ft. results in a current value range of $591,649 to $761,180. The Assessor submitted this is a reasonable range for the subject property, indicating MPAC’s opinion of value of $675,000 is within $1,000 of the midpoint indicated by the range.
Appellant’s Evidence
18The Appellant testified that it was his belief that a proposed inspection in 2012, when MPAC left behind a ‘door knocker’ tag has resulted in an unfair assessment and unfair taxation and increases in property insurance premiums. The Appellant submitted as part of his Exhibit 4, the subject ‘door knocker’ which the Board heard is the term used for the tag MPAC leaves at a property requesting contact when there is no answer at the door at the time of a proposed inspection.
19The Appellant interpreted this tag to mean MPAC was assuming, without an inspection, that renovations had been undertaken at the property. The tag is clear in its intended purpose. It states the day it was left, the roll number of the subject property and a request to contact MPAC to update information on ‘Renovations/Addition Details’.
20The Appellant was unable to provide any documentary evidence to make any connection between this visit in 2012 by MPAC and the current value of the property as of the statutory valuation day of January 1, 2016 for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.
21Under cross examination from MPAC, he simply reasserted his suspicions about MPAC’s role in his increased taxes and home insurance premiums.
22The Appellant’s Exhibit 5 includes an appraisal completed by D.L. Knowland and Company Inc., completed in July of 2017. The findings of that appraisal was a value of $810,000. The Board heard that the appraisal was completed as part of an application for re-financing and not for the purpose of determining current value as defined by the Act.
23While the appraisal did nothing to support a lower current value than the one returned, the Appellant used its findings to impugn MPAC’s findings, suggesting that the difference between MPAC’s opinion of $675,000 and the appraisal’s finding of $810,000 somehow revealed fraud on the part of MPAC. The Appellant was not able to provide any corroboration or documentary evidence to support his assertion of fraud.
24Lastly, the Appellant submitted the 2016 current value assessments for his two neighbours; 14 Magwood Court (“14 Magwood”) and 18 Magwood Court (“18 Magwood”). These two nearby properties are assessed at $662,000 and $706,000 respectively according to the Appellant. He further submitted that 18 Magwood has undergone some renovations which would account for its higher assessment.
The Board’s Analysis
25MPAC’s report cites the time adjusted sale values of five very comparable properties in the area. All five of these comparables were constructed in the same year as the subject property and by all accounts in evidence are very similar in their characteristics; most notably their size and the fact that they are all semi-detached dwellings.
26MPAC’s report indicates a reasonable current value for 16 Magwood in the $697,000 to $732,000 range. In contrast, the Appellant submitted an appraisal indicating a value of $810,000, and the 2016 CVA of 14 Magwood and 18 Magwood The Board disregards the appraisal submitted by the Appellant. The introduction to that document indicates its purpose as support for financing or re-financing of the subject property, and not to deternine its current value as defined by the Act.
27MPAC was clear that they were not seeking an increase in assessment, nor did they serve the Appellant with a notice of higher assessment as required by the Rule 40(b) Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure . Rather MPAC submitted the value in evidence all show that the returned value, while lower than what the evidence indicated, is reasonable.
28The Appellant submitted the 2016 current value assessments of the two neighbors immediately adjacent to the subject property. 14 Magwood has a 2016 CVA of $662,000, and 18 Magwood has a 2016 CVA of $706,000. The subject property has a 2016 CVA of $655,000. The Appellant submitted that the assessment of the subject property should be lower than 18 Magwood because 18 Magwood had undergone significant renovations prior to the 2016 CVA. According to the Appellant, no known renovations occurred at 14 Magwood.
29As part of the documentary evidence submitted at the hearing , the Board had an opportunity to review photographs of the subject property and other properties nearby. It is apparent from these photographs that the subject neighborhood is stable and has a number of similar properties near to the subject property.
30The Board finds that the evidence of both parties point to a range of value between approximately $592,000 and $761,000, based on sales, with a narrower range $662,000 to $706,000 when the assessments of the immediate neighbors are considered.
31MPAC determined a value, in support of the returned assessment, of $675,000. It did not seek an increase in the returned assessment on this basis. The Appellant’s own evidence would suggest an assessment of at least $662,000; equivalent to the assessment of 14 Magwood.
32The Board finds that the evidence of the Parties taken as a whole support the returned value as a reasonable assessment for the subject property. The Board finds the assessment for the subject property is $655,000 as returned.
When reference is made to the assessments of similar properties in the vicinity, should the current value determined be reduced to make it equitable?
33MPAC submitted an equity analysis that compared the TAS values of 30 residential properties in the vicinity of the subject property to their respective assessments.
34In order to reduce the amount of the current value for the purposes of equity or fairness, the Board has to reduce a correct finding to one that is incorrect. In order to so, the Board must have sufficient evidence to suggest the current value determined should be reduced to be fair.
35The concept of similarity as it applies to the consideration of sales in determining equity is less burdensome than the same comparison for the purpose of determining current value. The concept of equitable assessment is intended to reflect that, on a balance of probabilities, it is reasonable to infer that properties in the same classification are generally sharing the assessment and tax burden fairly.
36The Board finds that the best evidence of whether or not the current value determined represents equitable assessment is that of MPAC. Mr. Comeau’s equity analysis includes the assessments and sales of 30 semi-detached residential dwellings, with a resulting median assessment to sale ratio of 1.001. This means that, for similar properties in the vicinity, assessments are generally just over their TAS values.
37As the Board has no ability to increase assessments for the purpose of equity, the Board finds that no adjustment is necessary to the returned value for it to be equitable when compared to the assessments of similar properties in the vicinity.
CONCLUSION
38The Board finds that the current value of the subject property is $655,000. The Board also finds that no reduction in the current value is necessary for the assessment to be equitable with the assessments of similar properties in the vicinity.
39The Board finds that the assessment of the subject property, at 16 Magwood Court is confirmed at $655,000, in the Residential property class for the 2017 and deemed 2018 taxation years.
2018 DEEMED APPEAL
40An appeal for the 2017 taxation year is presently before the Board. Section 40.(26) of the 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 2017 appeal before March 31, 2018. For that reason, this decision also applies to the 2018 taxation year.
41Section 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.
“Dan Weagant”
DAN WEAGANT
MEMBER
Amended pursuant to Rule 114 of the Assessment Review Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, effective April 1, 2017
Assessment Review Board
A constituent tribunal of Environment and Land Tribunals Ontario
Website: www.elto.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248```