Summary
The Nevada Supreme Court reviewed the valuation of income-producing apartment properties containing constructional defects for the 2004–2005 tax year. The court held that the income-capitalization method was appropriate and that the State Board of Equalization properly accounted for the defects by increasing the capitalization rate rather than deducting construction-defect judgments directly from replacement cost. The court affirmed the district court’s denial of judicial review.
Holdings
- The income-capitalization method is an appropriate method for assessing the full cash value of income-producing real property when the improvements contain constructional defects.
- The State Board was not required to deduct the amount of constructional-defect judgments directly from the replacement cost or assessed value of the apartment improvements.
- The appellants failed to establish by clear and satisfactory evidence that the State Board applied a fundamentally wrong principle or failed to exercise its best judgment in selecting a 2.25 percent capitalization-rate increase.
Questions Presented
- Whether Nevada's property-tax assessment scheme permits use of the income-capitalization method to determine the full cash value of income-producing real property whose improvements contain constructional defects.
- Whether the State Board properly accounted for the constructional defects by increasing the properties' capitalization rates rather than deducting construction-defect damages directly from replacement cost.
- Whether the appellants established by clear and satisfactory evidence that the State Board applied a fundamentally wrong principle or failed to exercise its best judgment in imposing a 2.25 percent capitalization-rate increase.
Disposition
affirmed
Cases Cited (13)
- Imperial Palace v. State, Dep't Taxation, 108 Nev. 1060, 843 P.2d 813 (1992)(followed)
- State, Bd. of Equalization v. Bakst, 122 Nev. 1403, 148 P.3d 717 (2006)(followed)
- Beavers v. State, Dep't of Motor Vehicles, 109 Nev. 435, 851 P.2d 432 (1993)(followed)
- Hometowne Associates, L.P. v. Maley, 839 N.E.2d 269 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2005)(persuasive)
- Tatten Partners v. New Castle County, 642 A.2d 1251 (Del. Super. Ct. 1993)(persuasive)
- Southern Minn. Beet Sugar Coop. v. County of Renville, 737 N.W.2d 545 (Minn. 2007)(persuasive)
- Snider v. Casino Aztar/Aztar Mo. Gaming Corp., 156 S.W.3d 341 (Mo. 2005)(persuasive)
- Midlantic Operating Admin. v. West Caldwell Township, 20 N.J. Tax 446 (2002)(persuasive)
- Merrick Holding Corp. v. Board of Assessors, 45 N.Y.2d 538, 382 N.E.2d 1341 (1978)(persuasive)
- National Advertising Co. v. State, Dep't of Transportation, 116 Nev. 107, 993 P.2d 62 (2000)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 13.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…