Property Tax Appeal Board Decision 2006-01953-R-1 Muzzarelli

              (Continued on Next Page)
Based on the facts and exhibits presented, the Property Tax
Appeal Board hereby finds no change in the assessment of the
property as established by the DuPage County Board of Review is
warranted. The correct assessed valuation of the property is:
LAND: $ 81,930
IMPR.: $ 237,530
TOTAL: $ 319,460
Subject only to the State multiplier as applicable.
PTAB/eeb/May.09/2006-01953
1 of 5
PROPERTY TAX APPEAL BOARD'S DECISION
APPELLANT: Arnold and Stephanie Muzzarelli
DOCKET NO.: 06-01953.001-R-1
PARCEL NO.: 10-01-102-005
The parties of record before the Property Tax Appeal Board are Arnold and Stephanie Muzzarelli, the appellants, and the DuPage County Board of Review.
The subject property consists of a part one and part two-story style frame and stucco dwelling with stone trim that was built from approximately 1994 to 2005. The subject contains 6,305 square feet of living area. There is also 887 square feet of unfinished area above the garage. Features of the home include central air-conditioning, a central vacuum system, four fireplaces, a 1,276 square foot garage and a full unfinished basement.
Appellant, Stephanie Muzzarelli, appeared before the Property Tax Appeal Board, on behalf of the appellants, claiming unequal treatment in the assessment process as the basis of the appeal. The appellants do not dispute the subject's land assessment. In support of their equity argument, the appellants submitted photographs of the subject and a grid analysis of four comparable properties located in close proximity to the subject. The comparables consist of brick and frame, brick and stucco or brick and stone dwellings that were built from 1996 to 2004 and range in size from 4,200 to 4,641 square feet of living area. The comparables have features that include two or three fireplaces, central air-conditioning, garages that contain from 735 to 1,097 square feet of building area and partial or full unfinished basements. These properties have improvement assessments ranging from $175,050 to $204,740 or from $41.67 to $44.92 per square foot of living area. The subject has an improvement assessment of $237,530 or $33.03 per square foot of living area based on the subject having 7,192 square feet of living area.
The appellants argued that the subject is assessed as a finished home, however, the home remains in an unfinished condition. The area above the garage is unfinished; the home lacks trim around the windows; baseboards are missing; and door knobs along with Docket No.: 06-01953.001-R-1
2 of 5
various plumbing fixtures are missing. Based on this evidence, the appellants requested a reduction in the subject's improvement assessment.
The board of review submitted its "Board of Review Notes on Appeal" wherein the subject's total assessment of $319,460 was disclosed. In support of the subject's improvement assessment, the board of review submitted a summary argument, property record cards and a spreadsheet analysis of the same four comparable properties used by the appellants in their argument. The board of review's evidence depicts that construction of the residence began in 1995 and was assessed at 50% partial through 2004. An occupancy permit was issued in 2003. The residence was considered complete in 2005, however, the board of review reduced the subject's assessment to 60% for 2005, after which in 2006 the dwelling was assessed at 100% complete and subsequently reduced to 75% partial based on its unfinished condition. Further, in 2006 the dwelling was re-measured wherein it was determined the subject contained a total of 7,192 square feet of living area with 887 square feet above the garage being unfinished.
During cross-examination, the board of review revealed that the subject's is assessed as containing 7,192 square feet of living area, with a credit back for the 887 square feet of unfinished living area above the garage. In addition, the subject's unfinished bathrooms are assessed, however, the 75% partial assessment takes their condition into account. The Township Assessor testified that the subject has received over $8,000 credited back because of the subject's condition. Based on this evidence the board of review requested the subject's total assessment be confirmed.
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 that a reduction in the subject's assessment is not warranted. The appellants' argument was unequal treatment in the assessment process. 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 assessment data, the Board finds the appellants have not overcome this burden.
Initially the Property Tax Appeal Board finds the subject contains 6,305 square feet of living area for purposes of this decision. The photographs clearly depict an unfinished area above the garage. The board of review does not dispute this area (887 square feet) is unfinished. The only dispute is the method of assessing the unfinished area. Further, the Board finds the parties submitted the same four comparables for its consideration. The Board finds all of the comparables are Docket No.: 06-01953.001-R-1
3 of 5
substantially smaller when compared to the subject. These comparable properties, submitted by both parties, had improvement assessments ranging from $175,050 to $204,740 or from $41.67 to $44.92 per square foot of living area. The subject improvement is assessed at $237,530 or $37.67 per square foot of living area, based on the subject containing 6,305 square feet of living area. The subject, which is much larger than the comparables submitted, has an improvement assessment that is lower than the comparables submitted into this record. In general, as the size of property increases, its cost price to build decreases on a per square foot basis, which should be reflected in the assessed value. Clearly the subject is larger than the comparables, however, its assessment, on a per square foot basis, is lower. Based on this economies of scale theory the Property Tax Appeal finds the subject's assessment is correct.
The appellant also argued that the condition of the home was unfinished because it lacked trim, baseboards, fixtures and other features. However, the Property Tax Appeal Board finds the evidence depicts the subject was assessed at 75% partial for the 2006 assessment year, which takes into account the subject's condition. Further, the appellants failed to provide supporting evidence of a diminution in value to the subject parcel as a result of its unfinished condition. The Board finds the appellants failed to submit market data or any evidence of properties in similar condition. The only evidence provided into the record is of the aforementioned comparables, which were much smaller in size than the subject and were fully finished. The Board finds the appellants failed to demonstrate with market data that there would be a direct correlation or dollar for dollar difference in value between finished comparable properties and the subject property in its unfinished condition.
The constitutional provision for uniformity of taxation and valuation does not require mathematical equality. The requirement is satisfied if the intent is evident to adjust the burden with a reasonable degree of uniformity and if such is the effect of the statute enacted by the General Assembly establishing the method of assessing real property in its general operation. A practical uniformity, rather than an absolute one, is the test. Apex Motor Fuel Co. v. Barrett, 20 Ill.2d 395 (1960). Although the comparables presented by the parties disclosed that properties located in the same area are not assessed at identical levels, all that the constitution requires is a practical uniformity, which appears to exist on the basis of the evidence.
In conclusion, the Board finds the appellants failed to establish unequal treatment in the assessment process by clear and convincing evidence and the subject improvement assessment as established by the board of review is correct.
Docket No.: 06-01953.001-R-1
4 of 5
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:
"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 Docket No.: 06-01953.001-R-1
5 of 5
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.