SUCCESS & RESULTS
Clients have saved millions in taxes using the services of R. H. Jacobson’s sophisticated tax experts. You could be the next commercial property owner to benefit from the wealth of knowledge and experience.
City and County of Denver – Case Study 2016
3-Parcel Commercial Office Property
Located in Denver, the property was protested as one economic unit and the combined 2015 property value was reduced from $72.4 MM to $58.0 MM resulting in an annual property tax reduction of $347,569. The BAA Order covered tax year 2015 only, so RHJ subsequently filed an abatement for 2016 which shall result in an annual property tax savings of $347,569 as well for tax year 2016. This represents a 20.2% reduction of property taxes in 2015 and in 2016.
We won because of two things. First, we used evidence and testimony to show that the subject sale was not valid for use because the sale considered data and information that was outside the base period by showing that a DCF was used to determine sale price. This made the sale not a market sale and was not considered for value. We next presented property actual income from the base period to show a value. The board did not fully use our income estimate but did use most of it to determine value.
City and County of Denver – Case Study 2016
3-Parcel Commercial Office Property
Located in Denver, the property was protested as one economic unit and the combined 2015 property value was reduced from $72.4 MM to $58.0 MM resulting in an annual property tax reduction of $347,569. The BAA Order covered tax year 2015 only, so RHJ subsequently filed an abatement for 2016 which shall result in an annual property tax savings of $347,569 as well for tax year 2016. This represents a 20.2% reduction of property taxes in 2015 and in 2016.
We won because of two things. First, we used evidence and testimony to show that the subject sale was not valid for use because the sale considered data and information that was outside the base period by showing that a DCF was used to determine sale price. This made the sale not a market sale and was not considered for value. We next presented property actual income from the base period to show a value. The board did not fully use our income estimate but did use most of it to determine value.
Broomfield County – Case Study 2016
Vacant Land over valuation and error in calculating Present Worth Discounting
For 2015 and 2016 total tax savings was approximately $1,160,000
refund for 2013 and 2014 was approximately $700,000
Broomfield County – Case Study 2016
Vacant Land over valuation and error in calculating Present Worth Discounting
For 2015 and 2016 total tax savings was approximately $1,160,000
refund for 2013 and 2014 was approximately $700,000
Case Study- 2012
Property – Vacant land in Jefferson County
Problem – Vacant land was not being assessed at market value and was not being appropriately discounted.
Solution – Establish appropriate market value and develop long term absorption analysis.
| Year | Original Value | Value Prior to Hearing | Tax Savings |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2009 | $16,690,100 | $9,171,432 | $224,571 |
| 2010 | $16,690,100 | $9,171,432 | $203,146 |
| 2011 | $24,909,800 | $16,534,800 | $199,158 |
| Total Savings: | $626,875 |
Case Study- 2012
Property – Vacant land in Jefferson County
Problem – Vacant land was not being assessed at market value and was not being appropriately discounted.
Solution – Establish appropriate market value and develop long term absorption analysis.
2009 – 2011
Total Savings $626,875
Case Study- 2011
Property – 33.3 acres of land zoned Commercial/Office
Problem – High office vacancy makes development for the subject property’s current zoning infeasible. Owners need to hold the property for many years until development is practical. During the holding period the owners need to mitigate the holding costs of which taxes are one of the highest expenses.
Solution – Maintaining and establishing agricultural use. A signed farming lease for hay was acquired and an ongoing crop was harvested. It took two years plus the current year to establish an agriculture appropriated use. Reducing the owner’s tax rate to an agricultural use allows them to maintain the property and wait for development. The taxes are now a few hundred dollars per acre.
| Year | Original Value | Value Prior to Hearing | Tax Savings |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2009 | $3,316,030 | $1,012,940 | $22,488 |
| 2010 | $2,146,950 | $2,143,780 | $55,286 |
| Total Savings: | $77,775 |
Case Study- 2011
Property – 33.3 acres of land zoned Commercial/Office
Problem – High office vacancy makes development for the subject property’s current zoning infeasible. Owners need to hold the property for many years until development is practical. During the holding period the owners need to mitigate the holding costs of which taxes are one of the highest expenses.
Solution – Maintaining and establishing agricultural use. A signed farming lease for hay was acquired and an ongoing crop was harvested. It took two years plus the current year to establish an agriculture appropriated use. Reducing the owner’s tax rate to an agricultural use allows them to maintain the property and wait for development. The taxes are now a few hundred dollars per acre.
2009 – 2010
Total Savings $77,775