<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for International Appraisal Company</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.intlappraisal.com/comments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.intlappraisal.com</link>
	<description>Property tax management and valuation consulting</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 14 Jul 2011 12:19:57 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on FL &#8211; Taxes Must be Paid During Pending Property Tax Appeals by Sheila Anderson, Realtor</title>
		<link>http://www.intlappraisal.com/property-tax/fl-taxes-must-be-paid-during-pending-property-tax-appeals/comment-page-1/#comment-622</link>
		<dc:creator>Sheila Anderson, Realtor</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Jul 2011 12:19:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.intlappraisal.com/?p=1234#comment-622</guid>
		<description>And there seem to be some constitutional problems with the content of this bill.
&#160;
The VABs schedule Value Adjustment Board Hearings (VAB)&#160;beginning typically in October or November and continuing until all Hearings are concluded. In the larger counties, Hearings can be scheduled after April 1st, and often are. So, any taxpayers who are scheduled before April 1st will not be obligated to make their tax and fee payments until they know the outcome of their appeals, but those taxpayers scheduled after April 1st will be forced to make their payments in advance - a different standard.
And it&#039;s not clear what standards apply to those VAB petitioners whose Hearings may be scheduled before April 1st but delayed - reschedulings are permitted.
Can the Clerks impose a form of retaliation by selecting whose petition will be scheduled before or after April 1st?
Can the Property Appraiser influence the calendar by asking for rescheduling?
Are the taxing authorities entitled to collection of any revenue which is unlawful?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>And there seem to be some constitutional problems with the content of this bill.<br />
&nbsp;<br />
The VABs schedule Value Adjustment Board Hearings (VAB)&nbsp;beginning typically in October or November and continuing until all Hearings are concluded. In the larger counties, Hearings can be scheduled after April 1st, and often are. So, any taxpayers who are scheduled before April 1st will not be obligated to make their tax and fee payments until they know the outcome of their appeals, but those taxpayers scheduled after April 1st will be forced to make their payments in advance &#8211; a different standard.<br />
And it&#039;s not clear what standards apply to those VAB petitioners whose Hearings may be scheduled before April 1st but delayed &#8211; reschedulings are permitted.<br />
Can the Clerks impose a form of retaliation by selecting whose petition will be scheduled before or after April 1st?<br />
Can the Property Appraiser influence the calendar by asking for rescheduling?<br />
Are the taxing authorities entitled to collection of any revenue which is unlawful?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Florida Shifts Property Tax Burden Of Proof by Summer 2009 &#187; International Appraisal Company</title>
		<link>http://www.intlappraisal.com/property-tax/florida-shifts-property-tax-burden-of-proof/comment-page-1/#comment-55</link>
		<dc:creator>Summer 2009 &#187; International Appraisal Company</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Apr 2010 13:27:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://intlappraisal.com/blog/?p=139#comment-55</guid>
		<description>[...] Florida Shifts Property Tax Burden Of Proof [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Florida Shifts Property Tax Burden Of Proof [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Maricopa County Engaged In Discriminatory Property Tax Valuation by For What It&#8217;s Worth &#8211; Newsletter Summer 2009 &#187; International Appraisal Company</title>
		<link>http://www.intlappraisal.com/property-tax/maricopa-county-engaged-in-descriminatory-property-tax-valuation/comment-page-1/#comment-57</link>
		<dc:creator>For What It&#8217;s Worth &#8211; Newsletter Summer 2009 &#187; International Appraisal Company</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Apr 2010 16:24:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://intlappraisal.com/blog/?p=153#comment-57</guid>
		<description>[...] Maricopa County Engaged In Discriminatory Property Tax Valuation [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Maricopa County Engaged In Discriminatory Property Tax Valuation [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on A Good Big Box Property Tax Appeal Case by Winter 2010 &#187; International Appraisal Company</title>
		<link>http://www.intlappraisal.com/property-tax/a-good-big-box-property-tax-appeal-case/comment-page-1/#comment-56</link>
		<dc:creator>Winter 2010 &#187; International Appraisal Company</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Apr 2010 16:18:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://intlappraisal.com/blog/?p=143#comment-56</guid>
		<description>[...] A Good Big Box Property Tax Appeal Case [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] A Good Big Box Property Tax Appeal Case [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Tax Appeal Dismissed Due To Inappropriate &quot;Reconstruction Cost Approach&quot; by Winter 2010 &#187; International Appraisal Company</title>
		<link>http://www.intlappraisal.com/property-tax/tax-appeal-dismissed-due-to-inappropriate-reconstruction-cost-approach/comment-page-1/#comment-58</link>
		<dc:creator>Winter 2010 &#187; International Appraisal Company</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Apr 2010 16:11:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://intlappraisal.com/blog/?p=157#comment-58</guid>
		<description>[...] Tax Appeal Dismissed Due To Inappropriate “Reconstruction Cost Approach” [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Tax Appeal Dismissed Due To Inappropriate “Reconstruction Cost Approach” [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Texas Property Tax Appeal Pilot Program by Winter 2010 &#187; International Appraisal Company</title>
		<link>http://www.intlappraisal.com/property-tax/texas-property-tax-appeal-pilot-program/comment-page-1/#comment-59</link>
		<dc:creator>Winter 2010 &#187; International Appraisal Company</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Apr 2010 16:09:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://intlappraisal.com/blog/?p=166#comment-59</guid>
		<description>[...] Texas Property Tax Appeal Pilot Program [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Texas Property Tax Appeal Pilot Program [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Foreclosures and Property Tax Assessments by Winter 2010 &#187; International Appraisal Company</title>
		<link>http://www.intlappraisal.com/property-tax/foreclosures-and-property-tax-assessments/comment-page-1/#comment-60</link>
		<dc:creator>Winter 2010 &#187; International Appraisal Company</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Apr 2010 16:09:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://intlappraisal.com/blog/?p=173#comment-60</guid>
		<description>[...] Foreclosures and Property Tax Assessments [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Foreclosures and Property Tax Assessments [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Georgia’s “Property Tax Reform” Bill by Russ Madison</title>
		<link>http://www.intlappraisal.com/property-tax/georgia%e2%80%99s-%e2%80%9cproperty-tax-reform%e2%80%9d-bill/comment-page-1/#comment-49</link>
		<dc:creator>Russ Madison</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Mar 2010 20:43:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://intlappraisal.com/blog/?p=294#comment-49</guid>
		<description>Thanks, Brett, for that reply &amp; good insights.  Perhaps those points will be considered when the Georgia House of Representatives takes their crack at it.

Glad I found your blog!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks, Brett, for that reply &amp; good insights.  Perhaps those points will be considered when the Georgia House of Representatives takes their crack at it.</p>
<p>Glad I found your blog!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Georgia’s “Property Tax Reform” Bill by Brett Harrington</title>
		<link>http://www.intlappraisal.com/property-tax/georgia%e2%80%99s-%e2%80%9cproperty-tax-reform%e2%80%9d-bill/comment-page-1/#comment-48</link>
		<dc:creator>Brett Harrington</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Mar 2010 15:44:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://intlappraisal.com/blog/?p=294#comment-48</guid>
		<description>Thanks for the comment, Russ. Regarding the purchase price requirement, I agree, it could be significant. However, I am not 100% sure it is entirely taxpayer friendly. In some respects it places an emphasis on the purchase price, which can be problematic. This has been the case in places like CA &amp; OH. When it comes to commercial/industrial transactions, the purchase price is not always the best indicator of market value for property tax purposes.

I believe the annual notice requirement is a favorable requirement. However, I think that changing/eliminating the &quot;annual return&quot; requirement would be much better. Taxpayers can file a return annually to initiate an appeal, but most taxpayers do not know this. What about eliminating the return requirement and allowing taxpayers to appeal after they receive their tax bills? Not only would it provide the opportunity to appeal, it would also be more cost and time effective for the municipalities.

As with any legislation, I think the proof will be in how it actually plays out in reality.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for the comment, Russ. Regarding the purchase price requirement, I agree, it could be significant. However, I am not 100% sure it is entirely taxpayer friendly. In some respects it places an emphasis on the purchase price, which can be problematic. This has been the case in places like CA &amp; OH. When it comes to commercial/industrial transactions, the purchase price is not always the best indicator of market value for property tax purposes.</p>
<p>I believe the annual notice requirement is a favorable requirement. However, I think that changing/eliminating the &#8220;annual return&#8221; requirement would be much better. Taxpayers can file a return annually to initiate an appeal, but most taxpayers do not know this. What about eliminating the return requirement and allowing taxpayers to appeal after they receive their tax bills? Not only would it provide the opportunity to appeal, it would also be more cost and time effective for the municipalities.</p>
<p>As with any legislation, I think the proof will be in how it actually plays out in reality.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Georgia’s “Property Tax Reform” Bill by Russ Madison</title>
		<link>http://www.intlappraisal.com/property-tax/georgia%e2%80%99s-%e2%80%9cproperty-tax-reform%e2%80%9d-bill/comment-page-1/#comment-47</link>
		<dc:creator>Russ Madison</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Mar 2010 12:05:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://intlappraisal.com/blog/?p=294#comment-47</guid>
		<description>The bill&#039;s requirement that the purchase price of the property will be the set value of the property for tax purposes for one year after the sale seems significant to me.

Also, right now, you can only appeal your property value if you received an assessment notice.  Many Georgia counties currently send a notice every three years, which limits property owners&#039; opportunities to appeal, but this bill would mandate annual notices.

I read those as more important because Georgia appraisers have already been taking distressed sales into account.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The bill&#8217;s requirement that the purchase price of the property will be the set value of the property for tax purposes for one year after the sale seems significant to me.</p>
<p>Also, right now, you can only appeal your property value if you received an assessment notice.  Many Georgia counties currently send a notice every three years, which limits property owners&#8217; opportunities to appeal, but this bill would mandate annual notices.</p>
<p>I read those as more important because Georgia appraisers have already been taking distressed sales into account.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

