Weissenberger v. Chester County Board of Assessment Appeals
2013 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 61
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2013Background
- Two parcels of property in the School District: one six-and-a-half acres with seven buildings (108 apartments) and another three-and-a-half acres with seven buildings (93 units).
- For tax year 2003, large parcel valued at $3,174,040 and small parcel at $2,937,810 for assessment purposes.
- Chester County School District Managers hired Cole, Lynch to review market values and identify under-assessed apartment properties for 2004.
- Cole, Lynch recommended an appeal by the School District only for the two Taxpayer parcels; the District pursued this as a business decision to raise revenue.
- Board of Assessment Appeals increased the fair market value of each parcel by about $1,000,000 (total $2,128,050), yielding roughly $53,000 more annually in District revenue.
- Taxpayer challenged the increased 2004 assessments in the trial court, which held the District’s selective targeting violated uniform treatment; this Court reverses and reinstates the Board’s increased assessments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a school district may selectively appeal assessments without violating uniformity. | Taxpayer argues selective appeals target a class and violate uniformity. | School District contends it has statutory right to appeal in the same manner as taxpayers; selection methodology is lawful. | No; the Court holds the District may selectively appeal and the method did not violate uniformity. |
| Whether the District’s selective appeal was permissible under statutory authority. | Taxpayer asserts statutory right to appeal is subject to constitutional limits, including uniformity. | School District asserts statutory grant provides broad discretion without requiring universal targeting. | Yes; statutory authority permits such appeals and does not mandate uniform targeting. |
| Whether the challenge is an as-applied uniformity claim and the proper standard of review. | Taxpayer argues as-applied attack shows discriminatory enforcement of tax laws. | School District maintains rational basis for selective process; no deliberate discrimination shown. | Uniformity claims require showing deliberate discrimination; the Court applies rational basis wide review and finds no improper discrimination. |
| Whether Valley Forge Music Fair undermines the District’s approach in these cases. | Taxpayer argues Valley Forge shows selective enforcement invalidates uniformity. | District argues Valley Forge is distinguishable and not controlling here. | Valley Forge is inapposite; this case does not require invalidating the District’s approach. |
| Whether the District’s approach created improper subclassifications of property. | Taxpayer contends targeting an apartment subclass violated uniform treatment. | District argues class-wide process over time is rational and non-discriminatory. | No improper subclassification; a measured, class-wide process over time is permissible. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Penn-Delco Sch. Dist., 903 A.2d 600 (Pa.Cmwlth.2006) (uniformity considerations in school district appeals)
- In re Springfield School District, 879 A.2d 335 (Pa.Cmwlth.2005) (statutory authority to appeal; process need not be identical to taxpayers’)
- Vees v. Carbon County Board of Assessment Appeals, 867 A.2d 742 (Pa.Cmwlth.2005) (selective appeal not per se discriminatory; en banc)
- Millcreek Twp. Sch. Dist. v. Erie Cnty. Bd. of Assessment Appeals, 737 A.2d 335 (Pa.Cmwlth.1999) (authorities permitting school district appeals; uniformity context)
- Downingtown Area School Dist. v. Chester Cnty. Bd. of Assessment Appeals, 590 Pa.459, 913 A.2d 194 (2006) (uniformity and taxation principles in school district appeals)
- Valley Forge Music Fair, 627 A.2d 820 (Pa.1993) (distinguished as distinguishable; selective enforcement analysis)
- Aliar v. Blue Mountain School District, 12 A.3d 498 (Pa.Cmwlth.2011) (unreported but cited; published in A.3d)