Property Tax Appeal Analyzer

Assessment Data (required)

Market Value Evidence (required)

Comparable Sales (preferred, 3-6 sales)

Property Details (optional)

Process

Step 1: Overassessment Quantification

• Calculate delta: assessed_value - market_value.
• Calculate percentage overassessment: (assessed - market) / market * 100.
• If assessed <= market: appeal unlikely to succeed. Note this but continue analysis in case income or comp data supports a value lower than the user's market estimate.

Step 2: Income Approach Analysis

• Calculate assessor's implied cap rate: actual_noi / assessed_value.
• Compare to market cap rate.
• Calculate income-indicated value: actual_noi / market_cap_rate.
• If assessor's implied cap rate is below market (assessor using a lower cap rate): strong appeal basis.
• Quantify the difference: income-indicated value vs. assessed value.
• Show cap rate sensitivity: indicated value at market cap +/- 50 bps.

Step 3: Sales Comparison Approach

• Organize comparable sales in a grid.
• Apply standard adjustments:
  • Time of sale (market movement since sale date)
  • Location (submarket quality)
  • Size (larger properties typically trade at lower price/SF)
  • Age/condition
  • Property type/quality
• Calculate adjusted price/SF range.
• Apply adjusted range to subject property SF for indicated value range.
• Compare to assessed value.

Step 4: Cost Approach (if applicable)

• Estimate replacement cost new: construction cost/SF x building SF.
• Subtract depreciation: physical (age/condition), functional (layout obsolescence), external (market/location).
• Add land value.
• Skip if building > 20 years old and not recently renovated (depreciation estimates become speculative).

Step 5: Assessment Error Identification

Check for common errors:

• Incorrect SF in assessment record.
• Wrong property classification (wrong multiplier).
• Assessor used non-comparable sales.
• Assessor used unrealistic income assumptions (below-market vacancy, above-market rents, below-market cap rate).
• Each error becomes a specific appeal point.

Step 6: Tax Savings Calculation

• Current tax liability: assessed_value x tax_rate.
• Projected tax at appealed value: target_assessed_value x tax_rate.
• Annual savings: current - projected.
• Multi-year savings: annual_savings x years_until_next_reassessment (typically 1-3).
• Present value of multi-year savings.

Step 7: Appeal ROI Analysis

• Consultant fee estimate (contingency basis): 25-40% of first-year savings.
• Net benefit after fees: total_savings - consultant_fees.
• Self-file option: compare time cost vs. consultant fee.
• Probability-weighted expected value.

Step 8: Appeal Recommendation

• APPEAL: Overassessment > 10%, strong evidence from 2+ approaches, ROI positive after fees.
• APPEAL IF FREE: Overassessment 5-10%, evidence supports reduction but magnitude may not justify consultant fee. Self-file if permitted.
• DO NOT APPEAL: Overassessment < 5%, evidence does not support reduction, or assessed at/below market.

Step 9: Draft Appeal Brief

• Opening: property description, assessed value, claimed market value.
• Evidence 1: Income approach with calculations.
• Evidence 2: Comparable sales grid with adjustments.
• Evidence 3: Assessment errors (if any).
• Conclusion: requested assessed value with supporting rationale.
• Exhibits list.

Output Format

1. Recommendation Banner

APPEAL / APPEAL IF FREE / DO NOT APPEAL with one-sentence rationale and dollar savings estimate.

2. Assessment vs. Market Summary

3. Tax Savings Estimate

4. Appeal Basis Summary

Ranked list of appeal arguments by strength.

5. Comparable Sales Grid

6. Income Approach Detail

NOI breakdown, cap rate source, indicated value, sensitivity at +/- 50 bps.

7. Assessment Errors Identified

Numbered list of specific errors found.

8. Draft Appeal Narrative

2-3 paragraph narrative suitable for submission to appeals board.

9. Deadline and Filing Requirements

Appeal deadline, filing method, required forms, hearing date.

Red Flags and Failure Modes

1. Cap rate sensitivity: Small cap rate changes produce large value changes. Always show sensitivity at +/- 50 bps.
2. Comparable quality: Flag any comp requiring > 20% total adjustment. Three tight comps beat six loose ones.
3. Conservative target: Appeal to a value supported by evidence, not the absolute lowest. Overreaching weakens credibility.
4. Jurisdiction variation: Procedures, deadlines, and evidentiary standards vary significantly. User must confirm local requirements.
5. Successful appeals may reset value for multiple years: Calculate multi-year benefit but note jurisdiction differences on duration.

Chain Notes