Acharya v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 9, 2018 CanLII 86692

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l'évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: September 12, 2018

FILE NO.: WR 154444

Assessed Person(s): Allan M. Acharya and Shantha Acharya

Appellant(s): Allan M. Acharya and Shantha Acharya

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 9

Respondent(s): City of Toronto

Property Location(s): 30 Garden Place

Municipality(ies): City of Toronto

Roll Number(s): 1919-053-460-02900-0000

Appeal Number(s): 3214556 and 3300510

Taxation Year(s): 2017 and 2018

Hearing Event No.: 701793

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

Heard: July 20, 2018 in Toronto, Ontario

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Representative
Allan M. Acharya and Shantha Acharya	Self-represented
MPAC	Edward Mui
City of Toronto	No one appeared

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY JENNIFER GRIFFITH

REASONS

Background

1Allan M. Acharya and Shantha Acharya (the "Appellants") are the owners of 30 Garden Place (the "Subject Property"), which is located in the City of Toronto.

2Pursuant to the provisions of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31 (the "Act"), the assessment of land shall be based on its current value. The Act also provides that, for the 2017 to 2020 taxation years, the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation ("MPAC") is required to assess this value as of the valuation date, January 1, 2016. ("current value").

3MPAC has assessed the current value of the Subject Property at $887,000 for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

4The Appellants have filed appeals for the taxation years 2017 and 2018 with the Assessment Review Board (the "Board"), pursuant to s. 40 of the Act. It is their position that MPAC's assessment of current value is too high and that the correct current value should be $780,000. At this hearing, MPAC takes the position that its assessed value should be confirmed at $887,000 for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

5Pursuant to s. 40(11) of the Act, the Municipality, (City of Toronto) is a party to this proceeding. However, no one appeared at the hearing on the Municipality's behalf.

6Section 44(3)(b) of the Act, directs the Board to reduce the current value of the Subject Property if similar lands in the vicinity have been assessed at a lower value ("equitable reduction"). The purpose of this provision is to fairly distribute the municipal tax burden according to the value of the property possessed by each ratepayer. MPAC takes the position that an equitable reduction is not required. The Appellant asserts no position on equity. Therefore, equity is not at issue at this hearing.

7At the completion of the hearing, the Board reserved its decision. For the reasons that follow, the Board finds that the current value for 2017 and 2018 tax years is $887,000. Pursuant to s. 44(3)(b) of the Act, an equitable reduction of this value is not required.

RELEVANT LEGISLATION

8The relevant sections of the Act are as follows:

1. "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.

19.(1) Assessment based on current value. – The assessment of land shall be based on its current value.

19.2(1) Valuation days – Subject to subsection (5), the day as of which land is valued for a taxation year is determined as follows:

4. For the period consisting of the four taxation years from 2017 to 2020, land is valued as of January 1, 2016.

40.(17) For 2009 and subsequent taxation years, where value is a ground of appeal, the burden of proof as to the correctness of the current value of the land rests with the assessment corporation.

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.

ISSUE

9The issue to be determined on this appeal is:

• What is the correct current value of the Subject Property for the taxation years 2017 and 2018?

Description of the Subject Property

10The Subject Property is described as a one-storey, single-family detached dwelling, located at 30 Garden Place, in the City of Toronto. The Subject Property was built in 1982 and undergone a minor renovation (renovation Code B) in 2001, making the effective year built 1994. The Subject Property has a total lot size of 4,920 square feet ("sq. ft."), a total building area of 1,538 sq. ft., and a finished basement area of 1,119 sq. ft.

Discussion, Analysis and Findings

What is the correct current value of the Subject Property for the taxation years 2017 to 2018?

MPAC'S Evidence

11Edward Mui represented MPAC. Mr. Mui presents a Valuation Report, dated April 26, 2018, which he prepared and testifies to the information contained in the report.

12Mr. Mui has stated that he inspected the Subject Property on March 23, 2018. He stated that during the inspection he reviewed and confirmed the Subject Property measurements, data and classification are correct.

13In support of current value, Mr. Mui presents an analysis of six sales of one-storey dwellings, located very close to the Subject Property and in the same homogeneous neighbourhood. The analysis contained both actual and time adjusted sale prices. These suggested comparable properties are located at 72 Thirty Fifth Street, sold in 2015; at 16 Forty First Street, sold in 2016; at 32 Park Boulevard, sold in 2016; at 21 Thirty Seventh Street, sold in 2016; at 33 Forty Second Street, sold in 2016; and at 85 Thirty Seventh Street, sold in 2015.

14The analysis shows that these sales have an average adjusted sale price of $902,740 and a median adjusted sale price of $891,455, an average total building area of 1,287 sq. ft., an average lot size of 0.13 acre, and an effective year built of 1987. As these suggested comparable properties are on average smaller in total building area, older and sold at an average and/or median sale price higher than the returned assessed value of the Subject Property, Mr. Mui concludes that the returned assessed value is correct and that the current value should be $887,000.

MPAC's Submissions

15In response to questions as to the reasons why eight suggested comparable properties are assessed higher and/or lower than the Subject Property, Mr. Mui provided at this hearing, detailed written answers for each suggested properties to the Appellants. As these eight suggested comparable properties are not sold, the Board is satisfied that a detailed response was provided in writing by MPAC.

16Relying on its evidence, MPAC submits that the correct current value for the taxation years 2017 and 2018 is $887,000.

Appellants' Evidence

17The Appellants present their evidence package and testify that they appealed their 2008 and 2012 assessments, and that the assessments were reduced. Since then they have been comparing the Subject Property's assessment with the suggested comparable property located at 45 Forty First Street.

18The Appellants state that the 2016 assessed value for the Subject Property increased by 45.9 per cent over the 2012 assessment, whereas, the suggested comparable at 45 Forty First Street increased by 30.49 per cent.

19The Appellants testify that bungalows are always valued much lower than semi-detached and two-storey detached houses. In support of this argument, they present a copy of the First Quarter Statistics for South Etobicoke, Spring 2016, Volume 1, which showed that 38 detached bungalows were sold at an average sales price of $633,000; that seven semi-detached homes sold at an average price of $689,000; and the detached two-storey sold at an average sale price of $864,000.

20The Appellants also present a copy of the www.newtorontolongbranch.com real estate recent sales report for the period October 2016 to March 2017, again to show that semi-detached and two-storey detached homes sold for less than bungalows. The report showed that 19 two-storey homes sold at an average sale price of $1,021,837 and six semi-detached sold at an average sale price of $723,167, whereas, 12 bungalows sold at an average price of $729,075.

21The Appellants present eight suggested comparable properties in support of the current value. However, there are no recent sales of these eight suggested comparable on or close to the valuation date of January 1, 2016. The most recent sales for five of the suggested comparable properties occurred in 2012.

22These suggested comparable properties are located close to the Subject Property and in the same homogeneous neighbourhood. They are located at 20 Twenty Third Street; 45 Forty First Street; 117 Fortieth Street; 49 Forty First Street; 51 Forty First Street; 49 Fortieth Street; 2 Thirty Eighth Street; and 32 Garden Street.

Appellants' Submissions

23The Appellants are of the view that bungalows are always valued much lower than semi-detached and two-storey detached homes and that the Subject Property is assessed too high.

24Relying on their evidence, the Appellants submit that the correct current value for taxation years 2017 and 2018 should be $780,000.

Findings on Issue

25Under s. 44.(3)(a) of the Act, the Board must first determine "the current value of the land." The best evidence the Board can receive of current value is an arm's length and market-tested sale of the property on the valuation date or close to it.

26Based on the evidence presented in support of current value, the Board accepts MPAC's recommendation of $887,000, based on the six sales presented into evidence which support the returned assessed value.

27On the contrary, the Appellants present no sales evidence in support of current value.

28The Board also rejects the Appellants view that bungalows are sold in the open market for less than semi-detached and two-storey homes. The Board finds that home sales reported in the First Quarter Statistics for South Etobicoke, Spring 2016, Volume 1; and home sales reported in www.newtorontolongbranch.com for the period October 2016 to March 2017, are general in nature for South Etobicoke and Toronto Long Branch areas and not specific to the homogeneous area of the Subject Property.

DECISION

29The Board confirms the current value of the Subject Property at $887,000 for the 2017 to 2018 taxation years.