2013 Spring newsletter

“Property is the fruit of labor.” Abraham Lincoln.

Another decision issued last year reminds us that the ad valorem tax is assessed against the property and not the owner. Miccosukee Tribe of Indians v. Dep’t of Envir. Protection, 78 So.3d 31 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012). This case generally involved the sovereign immunity of property owned by the Micco- sukee Indian Tribe from an eminent domain action. The property was neither reservation land nor land held by the federal government in trust. In resolving the immunity issue, the district court relied on cases holding that the ad valorem tax was assessed against the property rather than the owner. The district court held that an eminent domain proceeding requires jurisdiction over the property but not the property owner. In resolving difficult appraisal problems, it can be helpful to remember that the ad valorem tax is against the property and not the owner. The Florida Supreme Court discussed this principle in hold- ing unconstitutional the ―developers’ discount‖, which required platted lands to be assessed as acreage until a certain number of lots were sold. Interlachen Lakes Estates, Inc. v. Snyder, 304 So.2d 403 (1974). It also has been applied in decisions concluding that property appraisers must value property on the basis of fee simple unencumbered. See Schultz v. TM Fla.-Ohio Realty, Ltd., 577 So.2d 573 (Fla. 1991); Dep’t of Revenue v. Morganwoods Greentree, Inc., 341 So.2d 756 (Fla. 1977). Again, the assess- ment is against the property and not the owner. Why should your townhomes be valued differently than the identical townhomes owned by your neighbors merely because they are rented and the in- come approach may generate a lower value? Every legislative session, especially in the last five years, involves another list of bills containing changes to the property tax system in Florida. Although many of these bills are well intended and may bring positive benefits for property owners, amendments to the constitution and statutory changes ul- timately require administrative implementation. For many taxpayers, the property appraiser’s office also is the primary source of information regarding how a proposed amendment or recent statutory enactment impacts their tax burden. How much more difficult has it become in recent years to explain the TRIM notice to the property owner? Bills that our office is following this year include: a 30-day threshold on short-term rentals before abandonment of the homestead tax exemption occurs (SB 342, HB 279); a military housing exemption (SB 354, HB 531); changes to the VAB hearing process by eliminating the VAB attorney, creating a pre- siding special magistrate, and removing the 75,000 population cap to require all counties to use spe- cial magistrates (SB 1754; HB 1381); deletion of language authorizing VAB’s to review the property ap- praiser’s decision to grant an agricultural classification or exemption, and removal of the statutory presumptions of non-agricultural use (SB 1200; HB 1193); proposals to define ―combat-related injury‖ for purposes of the veteran’s discount (SPB 7032); and a yet unnumbered committee bill that will ad- dress the ―glitch‖ in the seniors exemption caused by last year’s implementing bill for Amendment 11, authorize electronic TRIMS, remove troublesome language in the affordable housing exemption stat- ute, and several other administrative issues. Which one of these changes, if any, would do you good? “A change would do you good.” Sheryl Crow.

Article Contributor: Loren Levy, Attorney, The Levy Law Firm

12

Spring 2013 Newsletter of the FCIAAO