Docket LT92001
Order LT92-1IN THE MATTER of the Real Property Assessment Act, R.S.P.E.I. 1988 Cap. R-4;
and
IN THE MATTER of an appeal to The Island Regulatory and Appeals Commission (the Commission), under Section 22 of the Real Property Assessment Act (Act), by Ron Jenkins (the Appellant) of Charlottetown, against a decision of the Minister of Finance (the Minister) with respect to the 1991 assessment of residential property. The property (Provincial Property Number 408245-000) is known municipally as 27 Sunset Drive, Charlottetown, P.E.I.
DATED at Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island this 7th day of December, 1992.
Linda Webber, Chairman
John L. Blakney, Vice Chairman
Mike Ryan, Commissioner
Order
Appearances
1. For the Appellant
Ron Jenkins the Appellant,
2. For the Minister
Kevin Dingwell Manager, Residential and Farm Assessments
Paul Davey Supervisor
Decision
I. BACKGROUND
The appellant owns and occupies Parcel No. 408245-000 located in Charlottetown, P.E.I. This property can be generally described as a single storey bungalow situated on a corner lot (27 Sunset Drive, Charlottetown, P.E.I.).
The house was built by the appellant in 1972 and has undergone some improvements over the years, but has also been subject to some deterioration over the years.
The evidence presented at the hearing shows that the appellant has, on numerous occasions, vigorously pursued his right of appeal with respect to his property assessment and has succeeded in bringing down the level of assessment on many occasions.
The 1991 assessment for the property was $79,900.00. On April 25, 1991 the appellant referred this assessment to the Minister for reconsideration. On November 27, 1991 the assessment was confirmed by the Minister. The appellant appealed this assessment on December 4, 1991.
The Commission heard the appeal on June 4, 1992.
II. EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENTS
A. Appellant
Arguments for the Appellant can be summarized as follows:
The appellant argues that "market value" should be a determination made primarily upon a consideration of the money put into the property and should be fundamentally independent of location. He argues that the value should be no different whether the property is located in Charlottetown or in rural Prince Edward Island.
B. The Minister
Arguments for the Minister can be summarized as follows:
The current assessment of $79,900.00 is not in excess of market value for the property. Market value was determined by a consideration of sales of comparable properties and a cost analysis with a market factor adjustment. The specific area in which the property is located, in this case an area of Charlottetown not far from the North River shoreline, was considered of primary importance in determining appropriate sales comparisons and in making an overall assessment of value.
Using the direct sales comparison approach, the assessors presented five (5) properties to the Commission which they considered comparable to the appellant's property. In their analysis, they considered such factors as location, design, age, and quality of construction. The assessors concluded that, "This analysis indicates that the subject property is not over assessed in relation to other similar properties in the area, in fact, the subject property is assessed lower than the comparable properties".
III. DECISION
Having considered the evidence presented during the hearing the Commission decided to dismiss the appeal. The reasons for dismissing the appeal are:
In reaching a decision the Commission refers to Section 3.(2) of the Act which states that:
"All real property owned by the Crown or any person shall be assessed at its market value, ..."
Section 1.(c) of the Act defines "assess" as meaning "to value a property for tax purposes, whether by appraisal or by use of an adjustment multiplier". Section 1.(f) of the Act defines "market value" as "the most probable sale price indicated by consideration of the cost of reproduction, the sale price of comparable properties and the value indicated by rentals or anticipated net income".
The Commission has determined that the approach used by the Government's assessors is valid and is appropriate when determining market value. While the factors will change from case to case in terms of what is most significant, overall their approach is acceptable. The Commission believes that it is reasonable to conclude, based on the evidence presented by the assessors, that the appellant's property has a market value of $79,900.00 and therefore the assessed value should be consistent.
The Commission sympathizes with the appellant who stated that he feels that properties are priced at and selling for more than he believes they are worth, and that he is suffering because, in his words "people are wheeling and dealing property". However, the assessors did note that they do not allow any one excessively high or low sale to influence the decision, and that there is a process of averaging to arrive at a fair level of assessment.
As the appellant himself noted, "A lot of people seem to want to live in the area". This is what is driving up prices and assessments. Unfortunately for someone who built twenty years ago and doesn't want to sell, this means higher taxes whether or not you improve your property. The appellant's complaint is more properly directed to the legislators who have decided that the law shall require assessments at market value. So long as that is the law, the approach taken in this case will be considered valid.
Of course each case must also be looked at with respect to any special circumstances that might require a significantly different assessment from the norm in the area -- e.g. excessive wear and tear, neglect, or extraordinary additions to the value of the property. The appellant presented no evidence to indicate that the property should be differently assessed; and the Commission concludes that the evident wear and tear was taken into account in the assessment.
The Commission notes that overall the assessment of the appellant's property appears significantly lower than many equivalent properties in the area and an argument could be made that the assessment should be increased. This situation seems to have developed as a result of the many appeals previously filed by the appellant and the accumulated decreases that resulted. However, the assessors justify the difference in terms of different building improvements, lot characteristics, and additions to the properties concerned.
Overall, the Commission finds that the assessment is not too high and that the Minister has demonstrated the uniformity of assessment in relation to other assessments, pursuant to Section 28.(1) of the Act. The appeal is therefore dismissed.
IN THE MATTER of the Real Property Assessment Act, R.S.P.E.I. 1988 Cap. R-4;
and
IN THE MATTER of an appeal to The Island Regulatory and Appeals Commission (the Commission), under Section 22 of the Real Property Assessment Act (Act), by Ron Jenkins (the Appellant) of Charlottetown, against a decision of the Minister of Finance (the Minister) with respect to the 1991 assessment of residential property. The property (Provincial Property Number 408245-000) is known municipally as 27 Sunset Drive, Charlottetown, P.E.I.
Order
WHEREAS Ron Jenkins (the Appellant) appealed to The Island Regulatory and Appeals Commission (the Commission), in written notice dated December 4, 1991, against a decision of the Minister of Finance;
AND WHEREAS the Commission heard the appeal at a public hearing conducted in Charlottetown, P.E.I. on June 4, 1992;
AND WHEREAS the Commission has made a decision in accordance with the stated reasons;
NOW THEREFORE, pursuant to the Real Property Assessment Act;
IT IS ORDERED THAT the appeal is hereby dismissed.
DATED at Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island this 7th day of December, 1992.
BY THE COMMISSION:
Linda Webber, Chairman
John L. Blakney, Vice Chairman
Mike Ryan, Commissioner
