Assessment Appeal Board Changes Classification for Mixed Use
In 2012, Austin Real Estate Consultants recognized an anomaly in the system, whereby Gross Buildable Area (density), that could only be used for residential purposes, was being taxed at the higher 06 commercial rate. Townline’s property on Seymour and Davie Streets was appealed.
In Vancouver where zoning permits 3 FSR residential and 2 FSR commercial, all is assessed at 06 commercial mill rate. It should be:
3/5 residential @ 3.67794
2/5 commercial @ 15.09118
A significant tax saving.
Assessment regulations state that only land:
- Having no use;
- Not zoned or used for commercial
Austin advanced the theory that “land includes not only the surface of the earth but everything under and over it” (RJ Werners Real EstateLlaw). The area above the ground level would house the residential space. It is thus in a “part” of the “land” that is or has no use and is not zoned for commercial and thus should have a residential classification.
The Assessment Review Panel did not accept the concept and an appeal was lodged to the Assessment Appeal Board.
Due to the significance of this appeal, Austin Real Estate Consultants invited Burgess, Cawley, Sullivan and Altus Group and lawyers Farris Vaughan to work on the project.
The group concluded that Amacon’s property in the 1100 block of Seymour Street was the property of choice for the appeal.
BC Assessment believed the regulations meant that as the “land” (the ground or dirt) was in use as commercial, the property was not vacant EVEN THOUGH IT WAS PRIMARILY VALUED AS RESIDENTIAL LAND.
Purely residential zoned land was paying significantly less tax than a similar development site allowing some commercial use.
Appeal Board 0710223 BC Ltd et al v. Area 09 – 2014 PAABBC 20140014 to be found at www.assessmentappeal.bc.ca (search all decisions section).
If the taxable value of a site is $10 million of which 3/5 of the site is only residential, the taxpayer would save $68,000.
Where zoning permits part of a development site to have part of it limited to residential use only, then the value associated with that part should receive a residential classification.
If you have any questions please contact Peter Austin @ 604.733.3282 or email firstname.lastname@example.org.
- Burnaby Industrial Properties Appear to be Over-Assessed
- Have BC Assessment Over-assessed Retail Spaces
- 2021 Property Assessment Value Changes
- Assessment Of Residential Sites Under Construction
- Should Homebuilders Be Paying Additional School Tax?
- City of Vancouver Land Averaging 2020
- Government Assistance: Property Tax
- 2020 Assessment of Apartment Properties
- Development Sites: Is The Additional School Tax Applicable?
- 2020 Property Assessment Value Changes
- BC Lower Mainland Market Update 2020
- Taxes Affecting Real Estate In 2019
- Development of Sites Under Construction - 2020
- Land Averaging For 2019 Property Tax In Vancouver
- 2019 Property Assessment Value Changes
- Understanding B.C.'s Proportional Representation Referendum (PPTX)
- Amacon Update
- Vancouver Vacancy Tax
- 2018 Property Assessment Value Changes
- Misconceptions within the Property Assessment Process
- Mayor's Council Proposal for Funding Transit
- Resolving Disputes - A New Approach
- Mixed Use Properties - Potential reclassification for Property Taxation
- Classification of Mixed Use Properties September 2016 Update
- Possible Effects of FIT on Assessments
- BC Foreign Investors Tax
- NAIOP Industrial Panel
- Classification of Mixed Use Sites - Part 2
- Opportunities for Brokers
- Valuation of Properties Under Construction
- Is Assessed Value Equal to Market Value?
- Civil Resolution Tribunal Update - October 2014
- Assessment Appeal Board Changes Classification for Mixed Use Development Sites
- Strata Civil Resolution Tribunal Update
- Reviewing Appraisals - Download
- Resolving a Rental Dispute
- How are School Taxes Calculated? | doc