Property Tax Appeal Board Decision 2006-02518-R-1 Turner

              (Continued on Next Page)
Based on the facts and exhibits presented, the Property Tax
Appeal Board hereby finds a reduction in the assessment of the
property as established by the Tazewell County Board of Review is
warranted. The correct assessed valuation of the property is:
LAND: $ 8,940
IMPR.: $ 33,607
TOTAL: $ 42,547
Subject only to the State multiplier as applicable.
PTAB/JUNE.09/BUL-7693
1 of 1
PROPERTY TAX APPEAL BOARD'S DECISION
APPELLANT: James and Katherine Turner
DOCKET NO.: 06-02518.001-R-1
PARCEL NO.: 05-05-09-305-003
The parties of record before the Property Tax Appeal Board are James and Katherine Turner, the appellants, and the Tazewell County Board of Review.
The subject property is a one-story frame dwelling containing 1,450 square feet of living area that was built in 2005. Features include a crawl space foundation, central air conditioning, and a 576 square foot attached garage. The dwelling is situated on a 10,000 square foot lot.
The appellants submitted evidence before the Property Tax Appeal Board claiming unequal treatment in the assessment process and overvaluation as the bases of the appeal. In support of these claims, the appellants submitted photographs, a settlement statement, an appraisal and three assessment comparables.
The assessment comparables consist of one-story frame dwellings that are two years old. The comparables are located from across the street to ½ of a block along the subject's street. The comparables have crawl space foundations, central air conditioning and 576 square foot garages. The dwellings contain 1,440 or 1,450 square feet of living area and have improvement assessments ranging from $35,900 to $36,870. The subject property has an improvement assessment of $34,710. The comparables are situated on lots that range in size range in size from 9,829 to 12,250 square feet of land area and have land assessments ranging from $6,760 to $8,940. The subject property has a land assessment of $8,940.
In support of the overvaluation argument, the appellants submitted a settlement statement indicating the subject property was purchased for $128,000 in November 2005. The appellant also submitted a limited appraisal estimating the subject property had a market value of $127,000 as of October 2005. Based on this evidence, the appellants requested a reduction in the subject's land assessment to $7,300, no change in the improvement Docket No. 06-02518.001-R-1
2 of 2
assessment of $34,710, for a total assessment of $42,010, which reflects an estimated market value of approximately $126,030.
The board of review submitted its "Board of Review Notes on Appeal" wherein the subject's assessment of $43,650 was disclosed. The subject's assessment reflects an estimated market value of $131,318 using Tazewell County's 2006 three-year median level of assessments of 33.24%.
In response to the appeal, the board of review noted the appellants requested a reduction in only the subject's land assessment. To demonstrate the subject's land assessment was uniform, the board of review submitted three land comparables located three consecutive lots from the subject. The comparables contain 10,000 square feet of land area with land assessments of $8,940, identical to the subject.
With respect to the overvaluation argument, the board of review agreed the subject's sale of $128,000 in November 2005 was a valid arm-length transaction. In fact, the board of review indicated the subject's assessed valuation was reduced in a 2005 assessment complaint before the board of review to reflect its sale price. However, the board of review indicated the subject's 2006 increased assessment was determined using the subject's 2005 sale price plus application of the township equalization factor. Based on this evidence, the board of review requested confirmation of the subject's assessment.
After reviewing the record and considering the evidence, the Property Tax Appeal Board finds that it has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this appeal. The Property Tax Appeal Board further finds a reduction in the subject property’s assessment is warranted.
The appellants first argued the subject's land was inequitably assessed. The Illinois Supreme Court has held that taxpayers who object to an assessment on the basis of lack of uniformity bear the burden of proving the disparity of assessment valuations by clear and convincing evidence. Kankakee County Board of Review v. Property Tax Appeal Board, 131 Ill.2d 1 (1989). The evidence must demonstrate a consistent pattern of assessment inequities within the assessment jurisdiction. After an analysis of the evidence, the Board finds no reduction in the subject's assessment is warranted on this basis.
The Property Tax Appeal Board finds the record contains six land comparables for consideration. All the comparables were located in close proximity to the subject. However, the comparables submitted by the appellant were slightly smaller or larger when compared to the subject. Thus, the appellants' suggested land comparables received reduced weight in the Board analysis. The Board further finds the land comparables submitted by the board of review are identical in size as the subject with 10,000 square feet of land area. Additionally, they have land assessments of Docket No. 06-02518.001-R-1
3 of 3
$8,940, identical to the subject's land assessment. Based on this analysis, the Board finds no reduction in the subject's land assessment is warranted.
The appellants also argued the subject property is overvalued. When market value is the basis of the appeal, the value must be proved by a preponderance of the evidence. Winnebago County Board of Review v. Property Tax Appeal Board, 313 Ill.App.3d 179, 183, 728 N.E.2d 1256 (2nd Dist. 2000). The Board finds the appellants have overcome this burden.
The appellants submitted a settlement statement indicating the subject property was purchased for $128,000 in November 2005, less than sixty days prior to the subject's January 1, 2006, assessment date at issue in this appeal. The Illinois Supreme Court has defined fair cash value as what the property would bring at a voluntary sale where the seller is ready, willing, and able to sell but not compelled to do so, and the buyer is ready, willing and able to buy but not forced to do so. Springfield Marine Bank v. Property Tax Appeal Board, 44 Ill.2d. 428 (1970). A contemporaneous sale of property between parties dealing at arm's-length is a relevant factor in determining the correctness of an assessment and may be practically conclusive on the issue of whether an assessment is reflective of market value. Rosewell v. 2626 Lakeview Limited Partnership, 120 Ill.App.3d 369 (1st Dist. 1983), People ex rel. Munson v. Morningside Heights, Inc., 45 Ill.2d 338 (1970), People ex rel. Korzen v. Belt Railway Co. of Chicago, 37 Ill.2d 158 (1967); and People ex rel. Rhodes v. Turk, 391 Ill. 424 (1945).
Furthermore, section 1-50 of the Property Tax Code defines fair cash value as:
The amount for which a property can be sold in the due course of business and trade, not under duress, between a willing buyer and a willing seller. (35 ILCS 200/1-50)
The Property Tax Appeal Board finds there is no evidence contained in this record showing the subject transaction was not an arm's-length transaction. In fact, the board of review agreed the subject's sale was an arm's-length transaction. Furthermore, the Board finds the board of review did not submit any market evidence, such as similar comparable sales from 2006 that would refute the subject's 2005 sale price or show the subject's market value increased by approximately $3,309 from its date of sale to the January 1, 2006 assessment date. Based on this record, the Board finds the best evidence of the subject's fair market value is its November 2005 sale price of $128,000. The subject's assessment reflects an estimated market value of $131,318, which slightly higher than its sale price. Therefore a reduction is warranted. Since fair market value has been established Tazewell County's 2006 three-year median level of assessments of 33.24% shall apply. Docket No. 06-02518.001-R-1
4 of 4
This is a final administrative decision of the Property Tax Appeal Board which is subject to review in the Circuit Court or Appellate Court under the provisions of the Administrative Review Law (735 ILCS 5/3-101 et seq.) and section 16-195 of the Property Tax Code.
Chairman
Member
Member
Member
Member
DISSENTING:
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
As Clerk of the Illinois Property Tax Appeal Board and the keeper of the Records thereof, I do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true, full and complete Final Administrative Decision of the Illinois Property Tax Appeal Board issued this date in the above entitled appeal, now of record in this said office.
Date:
June 19, 2009
Clerk of the Property Tax Appeal Board
IMPORTANT NOTICE
Section 16-185 of the Property Tax Code provides in part:
Docket No. 06-02518.001-R-1
5 of 5
"If the Property Tax Appeal Board renders a decision lowering the assessment of a particular parcel after the deadline for filing complaints with the Board of Review or after adjournment of the session of the Board of Review at which assessments for the subsequent year are being considered, the taxpayer may, within 30 days after the date of written notice of the Property Tax Appeal Board’s decision, appeal the assessment for the subsequent year directly to the Property Tax Appeal Board."
In order to comply with the above provision, YOU MUST FILE A PETITION AND EVIDENCE WITH THE PROPERTY TAX APPEAL BOARD WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DATE OF THE ENCLOSED DECISION IN ORDER TO APPEAL THE ASSESSMENT OF THE PROPERTY FOR THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR.
Based upon the issuance of a lowered assessment by the Property Tax Appeal Board, the refund of paid property taxes is the responsibility of your County Treasurer. Please contact that office with any questions you may have regarding the refund of paid property taxes.