Bike Safety Tips for a Safe Ride
3 days ago
As a service from City Hall to Decatur’s taxpayers, Decatur Tax Blog provides fresh, non-partisan content about national & local tax and housing developments, timely reminders about tax deadlines for residents, special announcements, and educational posts about your tax bill.
Overview All states have laws that permit local governments to sell property through a tax lien foreclosure process if the owner falls behind on property taxes or other municipal charges.
A tax lien sale may be started over nonpayment of a tax bill of only a few hundred dollars. A $200,000 home may be sold at a tax lien sale for $1,200 and then quickly resold for a huge profit.
Homeowners may lose not only a homestead but also hundreds of thousands of dollars in equity. This equity may represent their sole savings and security for retirement. As a result, foreclosures related to tax lien sales may destabilize entire communities.
Scope of Problem
- $15 Billion and Counting: As homeowners navigate a difficult job market, declining home values, and high foreclosure rates, property tax delinquencies are increasing. Annual tax lien sales are now approximately $15 billion nationwide, according to the National Tax Lien Association.
- Outdated Laws: Very few states have enacted procedures to protect owners' equity interests or to avoid windfalls to purchasers, and states rarely update tax lien laws to reflect current economic conditions or to ensure that proper safeguards exist to avoid unnecessary loss of homeownership.
- Elderly and Disabled Most at Risk: Homeowners most at risk are those who have fallen into default because they are incapable of managing their financial affairs, such as individuals suffering from Alzheimer's, dementia, or other cognitive disorders. One government study also found that in 2011 property tax foreclosures in New York City were highly concentrated among low-income communities with large African American and Latino populations, groups also targeted by subprime lenders.
Key RecommendationsThe following recommendations reflect the goals of preserving homeownership and ensuring prompt payment of local taxes.
- Wall Street Reaps Huge Profits: Individual tax sale purchasers and some of the same companies (Bank of America and JPMorgan Chase) are ramping up lucrative profit centers. Why? Buying tax liens can yield an incredible rate of return, up to 50%. Many state laws also permit tax lien purchasers to charge homeowners extremely high interest rates and fees to redeem their property and avoid foreclosure.
State Recommendations
- Make redemption costs affordable by keeping investor profits reasonable. State laws should be reformed to limit the maximum interest or penalty rate on redemption amounts to reflect current economic conditions. The interest rate should seek to discourage speculation and promote redemption.
- Place reasonable limitations on additional fees and costs. States should not permit investors to pad their profits by charging homeowners unreasonable fees to redeem after the foreclosure process has been initiated. State law should establish a maximum fee schedule based on reasonable, market rates for title searches, attorneys' fees, and other fees.
Recommendations for Cities and Towns
- Establish a tax sale procedure, with court supervision. States should limit the initial tax sale to the sale of a tax lien certificate, rather than granting an entire interest in the property to a purchaser. If a homeowner fails to redeem the property, state law should require the purchaser to seek a court order authorizing final sale of the property. The court should confirm the final sale results and ensure that the sale price is fair and that any surplus funds are promptly paid to the homeowner.
- Implement redemption payment programs. Local tax offices should collect redemption payments to eliminate the possibility that an unscrupulous purchaser may thwart the owner's attempt to redeem. The local tax office should accept partial and installment payments.
- Adequate notice should be given at every stage of the tax sale process. Notifications should be used as a tool to avoid loss of homeownership Comprehensive notices should use plain language; include information about tax exemptions, abatements, and repayment plans; and note the consequences of each stage of the tax sale process.
- Provide detailed notice of redemption rights. The notice should give all of the essential details on how the redemption right can be exercised, including the name and address to which the homeowner can remit payment; itemized costs; and the deadline for the redemption payment.
Section 5 -permits taxpayer to opt-in for electronic notice and billing of taxes at the discretion of the tax commissioner;
Section 6 -further specifies obstruction language regarding levying officers;
Section 7 -requires levying (counties and cities) and recommending (e.g., school boards) authorities to post a on their website, if available, a report that has been required in the past; report must appear in newspaper of general circulation for one week (as opposed to two);
Section 8 -permits taxpayers to opt-in for electronic notices and billing of ad valorem taxes;
Section 9 -extends time for completing digest to September 1 (from August 1); -outlines requirements for penalties for incomplete or improper tax digests; -tax commissioners forfeit portions of commission depending on how long it take for proper submission;
Section 10 -outlines joint boards of assessors between counties and the process of an intergovernmental agreement for such purposes;
Section 11 -specifies the use of the Standard on Ratio Studies published by the International Association of Assessing Officers as tax digest in being prepared;
Section 12 -establishes 10% penalty on assessment of unreturned personal property; -outlines a two year assessment freeze and exceptions;
Section 13 -changes completion date for revision and assessment of returns from July 1 to July 15, except in counties where taxes collected in installments, where date remains June 1;
Section 14 -clarifies that hearing officer method of appeal available for non-homestead property with value in excess of $750k (reduced from 1M) and for wireless property with aggregate FMV in excess of $750k (new provision for wireless property); -clarifies that methodology information may be obtained from board of assessors by way of a document request; adds enforcement mechanism for failure to comply with document requests, including assessment of attorneys’ fees;
Section 15 -defines appeal administrator for board of equalization as clerk of superior court, with distinct budget unit for such duties; -establishes 12 month document retention period; -sets standards for board of equalization members; -outlines process for appeals; -board of equalization must decide each case at end of hearing prior to proceeding to next appeal, written decision hand delivered to parties;
Section 16 -outlines nonbinding arbitration process (replacing binding arbitration process) and process of appeals to superior court, including settlement conference; -establishes uniform superior court filing fee of $25.00; -lowers threshold for mandatory attorneys’ fees on commercial property from 80% to 85% (now the same for all real property)
Section 17-RESERVED
Section 18 -specifies that each digest shall be accompanied by all documents, statistics, and certifications relating to parcels under appeal; -removes penalty for deviation from assessment ratio appearing in subparagraph (b) for digests after 1/1/2016...
Georgia Supreme Court rejects challenge to property tax incentives
BlogSALT Shaker
Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP Michele Borens, Jonathan A. Feldman, Jeffrey A. Friedman, Todd A. Lard, Carley A. Roberts and Leah Robinson
April 1 2015
On March 27, 2015, the Georgia Supreme Court rejected a challenge to the legal validity of property tax incentives in Georgia, largely on procedural grounds. SJN Properties, LLC v. Fulton County Bd. of Tax Assessors, No. S14A1493, 2015 WL 1393398 (Ga. Mar. 27, 2015).
Background
The case began in 2009 when a citizen, John Sherman (later substituted with SNJ Properties, LLC), filed a class action suit against the Fulton County Board of Tax Assessors seeking to invalidate property tax incentives provided to companies investing and creating jobs in the area. The Georgia Constitution’s uniformity provision generally prohibits county tax assessors from directly abating a company’s property taxes. Property taxes can potentially be reduced, however, through bond transactions involving local development authorities.
The transactions at issue were structured such that title to private property is transferred to a local development authority in connection with the issuance of revenue bonds. The authority leases the property back to the private party and uses the lease stream to pay down the bonds. The fee estate held by the tax-exempt authority is generally exempt from property tax, while the private party pays property tax on its leasehold interest. For purposes of determining the amount of property tax due on the leasehold interest, the parties agreed to use a “50% ramp-up method,” under which the property is valued at 50% of the fair market value of the fee estate in the first year, ramping up by 5% each year over 10 years until the property is valued at 100%. Sherman sought a determination that the 50% ramp-up method was unlawful on the basis that it did not reflect the property’s fair market value. Op. at 2-3.
The trial court initially dismissed Sherman’s claims, but in 2010, the Georgia Supreme Court reversed, holding that dismissal at that stage was improper because Sherman should have had an opportunity to present evidence regarding whether the valuation method was valid. 701 S.E. 2d 472 (Ga. 2010). On remand, the parties filed cross motions for summary judgment supported by expert affidavits of real estate appraisers. The trial court granted summary judgment on the merits to the Fulton County Board of Tax Assessors, and Sherman appealed.
The Georgia Supreme Court’s Opinion
On Friday, the Georgia Supreme Court upheld the trial court’s judgment on the merits in favor of the county. The Court held that:
- Sherman (and his substitute, SJN Properties) had standing as citizens and taxpayers of Fulton County to seek mandamus relief, which would allow the claimant to seek to force a public official to perform an official duty (here, valuing property), Op. at 12;
- Sherman’s claims for injunctive relief were barred by sovereign immunity, Op. at 10-11;
- Sherman’s claims for forward-looking declaratory relief were barred because he “faces no uncertainty or insecurity as to any of [his] own future conduct, but rather seeks an adjudication only of issues that will impact the future conduct of the FCBOA,” Op. at 17-19; and
- On the merits, Sherman’s claims for mandamus relief failed, due in large part to a lack of proof. The Court reasoned that county tax assessors have broad discretion in valuing property, and the county’s two expert appraisers testified that the 50% ramp-up formula was analytically sound and reasonable. The Court also noted that Georgia courts had “previously endorsed” similar methods for valuing bond leasehold estates, citing DeKalb County Bd. of Tax Assessors v. W.C. Harris & Co., 282 S.E. 2d 880 (Ga. 1981). Sherman’s expert appraiser opined on the 50% ramp-up formula only in the abstract and did not actually appraise any particular property. Thus, the claims failed “for the simple reason that [Sherman] has adduced no evidence that any actual assessment of any particular property has been or is other than at fair market value.” Op. at 13-17.
Sutherland Observations: Citizen taxpayers often lack standing to challenge economic development incentives. See, e.g., DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332 (2006). Georgia, however, like some other states, grants citizen taxpayers standing to pursue mandamus relief, see O.C.G.A. § 9-6-24, and it was through the mandamus vehicle that Sherman was able to bring his challenge.
As this case and others like it illustrate, taxpayers negotiating credits and incentives must be mindful of the possibility that, at some future time, the legality of the incentives may be challenged. Care should be taken when negotiating and drafting the relevant agreements to anticipate and plan for these challenges and other potential risks (e.g., clawbacks, burdensome reporting obligations, etc.).