*1 Moreover, cation, commercial. the area was zoned with concerned primarily were objectors’ complaints traffic and alcohol consumption of increased the effects Pleas However, the Common neighborhood. between the noted, correlation legal there no driving and dangerous beverages of alcoholic availability evidence A.2d at and the se, Parks per correla- show such any is insufficient in the record tion. Pleas Court
Therefore, the Common we hold the evi- the LCB. Although err in reversing did not the same as it was essentially dence considered considered, conclusion court’s which the LCB insufficient to warrant that such evidence was legally within its purview. denial is well Pleas Court and order of the Common We affirm the transfer of the license. grant
Order order, Pleas Court No. Common Philadelphia Docket, dated November 8503-2825 Miscellaneous 1985, is affirmed. A. 2d 1372 Ap- Inc., Revenue
Reichard-Coulston, v. Northampton County, Appellee. peals Board *2 Craig 9, 1986, and before Argued Judges September as a sitting and Senior Judge panel Barry, Kalish, three. him,
Seth 1. E. Garippa, for with Davenport, John appellant. Bartos, DeVito,
Leo him, for with Jr., John J. appellee.
Opinion by 17, 1986: Barry, November Judge This results an order the North- appeal court) Pleas (trial Common ampton County the value of certain prop- which established assessment Reichard-Coulston, Inc. the erty appellant, belonging The of North- Revenue Board Appeals taxing authority, in the ap- is the present ampton County, respondent peal. 20.5
The involved consists approximately on is erected manufacturing facility acres which a heavy con- The facility owned and the appellant. operated many buildings, built which were sixteen sists of centuries, early twentieth nineteenth late recently have also improvements additions though facility undertaking is the made. been paint pigments indus- for oxide of iron manufacture try. authority taxing its had established
After sought property, appellants de the latter assessment stipu- parties trial, the At trial court. review novo (CLR) Level Ratio the Common lated testimony presented there- county1 22.4%, and the was prop- only market value of after thus addressed us- parties such values erty. Experts testified to of both Ap- Approach” ing and the “Cost “Market Data proach.” accept
Noting valua- it was “not bound *3 experts,” testimony the trial court concluded tion appropriate was the most that performed the property. then The trial court involved following calculation: Approach,
Using we conclude the Cost year 1984 tax the land in the market value of by figure This is reached $1,163,840.00. was $3,012,800.00 taking reproduction cost new of a 70%, subtracting depreciation rate of to and it- $903,840.00. value of the land The arrive at added, at the $260,000.00 is then self of $1,163,840.00. final value applied op. in turn 5. The trial court at Trial Court establishing the market to CLR of 22.4% $260,700.16. then initiat- value at assessment present appeal. ed the
1 ratio, level see concept of the common of the For discussion 89 Pa Appeal, v. Board Assessment Strawbridge & Clothier 201-02, 108, 198, (1985). 109 492 A. 2d Ct. Commonwealth 230 is limited to determining
Our of review own scope discretion, committed the trial abused its whether court law, its decision supported an or whether error Club, 92 Pa. Com the evidence. Duquesne Appeal of 459, n.1 n.1, A.2d Ct. monwealth maintains, as its argument, only (1985). Appellant an of law in relying committed error court value of the market in determining cost approach and hence affirm. We disagree property. entails valuation method of challenged property “assumed vacant the value of land (1) estimating use;”2 estimat (2) and available for its best highest the facility;3 cost or “cost new” of ing reproduction dep the latter amount the facility’s (3) subtracting this to (4), finally, adding depreciated reciation;4 method the land This above).5 balance the value of ((1), com the market under which contrast to approach, a val sales are considered in order to establish parative ue to “the at which purchaser, corresponding price owner, an would pay but not willing obligated buy, sell, into considera taking but not willing obligated and might all uses is adopted tion to which School Chartiers Valley reason be applied.” Appeal of 121, 126-27, District, Ct. nn. 7 67 Pa. Commonwealth .T., nn. 7 & 10 N & 447 A.2d (1982). Cf. 1/22/85, 10-12.
2 N.T., 1/22/85, *4 Lerario). (testimony at 21 of M. 3 Id. inspection of (“[Such physical is estimated based on cost] manuals.”). property accepted and utilization of cost 4 a de Id. Depreciation deducted. (“Depreciation is then physical, functional economic duction from cost new based on [sic].”). and absolescences deterioration 5 im Id. at 21-22 at a cost new of the (“To depreciated arrive arrive at is added back the value of land to provements, to that Approach.”). the Cost an indication of value
231 case, court, In the as evident present from its believed that the opinion, was a more approach accurate to derive market the nature of way given offered: expert testimony We believe the Cost to be a ac- Approach more curate method of valuation the instant case. sales under the Market comparable Ap- proach ranged $3.00 to per $9.00 square foot. In the Cost Approach, this particular prop- considered, itself can be erty and depreciation deducted by examining features of unique the property.
Trial Court at 5. The court op. utilized a (1) thereupon land calculation; value figure; (2) reproduction cost (3) depreciation all within the percentage, figures of the range to arrive at expert testimony, market value. maintains that the Appellant foregoing utilization of of the part trial court constitut error, ed given long-standing judicial declaration that the “reproduction cost [approach] has no probative value for any purpose fixing fair market value of real estate improved for tax purposes.” Wilkes- City of Barre Indus. Development Auth. v. Board Tax Assessment Appeals, Pa. 182, Commonwealth Ct. 492 A. 2d alia, (1985) inter (citing, U.S. Steel v. Board Corp. Assessment and Revision Taxes, A.2d 92 (1966)). fur ther offers to us scholarly for the authority proposition that the cost approach inappropriate for the valuation on which “any are not improvements new,”6 difficulties given involved in de measuring preciation.
However reasonable are appellants they arguments, advanced in practical re- disregard legislatures 6 W. Kinnard & Messner, S. (2d Estate Real Industrial 1979). ed. *5 While it is true the assessment realm.
cent in action to was held be that for many approach years value, in the tax law now provides, without probative pertinent part: by and valuations
Revision
assessments
roll;
board;
list.
exemption
assessment
assessment
at actual value
In
(d)
arriving
[for
may
at which any property
purposes]
price
..
. shall
have been sold
be considered
actually
Instead such
controlling.
selling
but shall not be
actual,
re-
estimated
shall be
to
subject
or
price,
to
vision
increase or decrease
by
accomplish
similar
within
with other
equalization
property
district.
In
at actual
taxing
arriving
methods,
or
all three
cost
namely
(reproduction
as
less
replacement,
applicable,
depreciation
sales and
obsolescence), comparable
all forms of
considered in con-
income
must be
approaches,
one another.
with
junction
26,
Act
(Section 7(d)
72 PS. §5348(d)
June
13,
of December
as amended
Act
P.L.
We
with
added).
1165) (emphasis
agree
P.L.
statute “evidences
legislative
that the above
appellee
court,
board and
intent
have a revenue appeals
finder,
to valuing
as
all three
fact
consider
approaches
further,
to be
ineluctable
conclusion
property.”7
that the cost
drawn
from this action by
legislature
proba
as
now be considered
approach
possessing
assessments. Conse
tive value
at
within
to be clearly
we view the
quently,
legislature
its
acting,
judicial pronouncements
so
powers
prior
now have no author
use of the cost
forbidding
approach
then,
conclude,
that the trial court
necessarily
We
ity.
in his
of the
consideration
no error
committed
judge
11.
Appellee
Brief for
dis-
no abuse of
also that
and conclude
approach,
of it
in his
application
particular
was committed
cretion
case.
present
the trial court
recital of
our above
As apparent
the market
regarding
the testimony
opinion,
*6
un
thought
it was
apparently
conflicting
was so
contrast,
included
the calculations
In
trustworthy.
resulted
under the cost approach
testimony
the experts’
to be
trial court
the
thought by
values
in assessment
A
the latter ap
choice of
and credible.8
consistent
more
evidence, was
the
court’s view of
given
proach,
discretion,
be disturbed
and will not
within that court’s
Wilkes-Barre, 89 Pa. Common
this court. City
by
of
Further,
the feet
185,
Id. between the
market lies valuations offered by value] it its witnesses indicates that properly performed expert finder.”)9 role fact
Affirmed.
Order Now, 17, 1986, the Order the North- November 1983-C-8320, Pleas, dat- Common No. Court of ampton 29, 1985, ed March is affirmed. hereby argument, any has not advanced constitutional or otherwise, legislature premised the view that the lacks the au thority promulgate attributing particular prob a rule evidence know, judiciary contrary. held to the We ative value has after case, support argument—there certainly for such an no any no provision declaring, so nor such attribution irra constitutional tional, power legislature, irrespec even “beyond and thus Farrell, Leahey v. tive of constitutional restrictions.” 55-56, (1949). 66 A. 578-79 2d *7 Bashore, in Hill v.
It is true that Rich Coal Co. provi a (1939), Supreme A. 2d 302 held unconstitutional compensation of the law which established sion workmens following as a rule of evidence: his in of employee injury
When an sustains an the course declarations, made and utterances employment, remarks in- by injured employee twelve hours after within evi- competent was shall as jury sustained be admissible dence. repealed], the Act of 201.1(b) September
Section
[now
Act, Act of
Pennsylvania
Compensation
amending The
Workmen's
2, 1915,
process
This
due
P.L. 736.
rule led to tremendous
June
In
hearsay implications
concerns
in the statute.
over the
inherent
act
response,
an
Hill Court declared
even
the Rich
“[n]ot
none.
legislation
has
give probative
can
value to a statement
legislature
The
Pa
control
the laws of
logic.”
has no
over
The to inapplicable foregoing patently declaration adju- section 5348. legislatures We unwilling are characterize the irrational, simply ration that be- approach cost be utilized many inappropriate cause or for approach most scholars think the properties problems. certain calculation depreciation because of hardly This in Rich illogic rises to the dealt with Hill. evidentiary Dissenting Opinion Kalish: Senior Judge dissent. I respectfully the trial de is whether judge,
The issue value of of the fair market novo, his determination based and relevant evidence. on competent arrived at that each record indicates party fair value of of the market opinions widely disparate market data considered the Each appellants property. less depreciation approaches and the cost reproduction However, each. the expert and on testified extensively owner testified difficulties concerning for the property and said he relied on the using approach at his lair market value arriving market data approach $450,000. The the Board said he gave little expert on to the cost relied reproduction basically weight fair the market data and arrived at a market approach $1,177,400. value of his of fair market finding
The trial based value judge cost less exclusively reproduction depreciation This was an method of valuation approach. improper his be sustained. In opinion, judge cannot said:
We believe to be a more accu- . . . rate method of valuation. the cost ap- Using we conclude that market value was proach $1,163,840. This reached figure by taking $3,012,800 cost new of and sub- reproduction rate tracting depreciation seventy percent $903,840. The value of land itself of arrive at $260,000 at the final value is added *8 $1,163,840. review, deter- the exercise of we must
In appellate courts is based on mine whether finding market val- in determining proper legal foundation fair must ue. The value court be finding v. Allen- evidence. competent Traylor supported by town, 378 Pa. A.2d 577 (1954); Algon Realty A. 49 Co. Tax Assessment Appeal, (1938). 26, 1931,
Section 7 of the Act P.L. (Act) June amended, §5348, this 72 PS. as applicable estate tax valuation of real for county determining assessment purposes provides: value, In at actual at
(d) arriving price sold, which have been any property may actually . . . shall be considered but shall not be control- ... In at the actual all three ling. arriving methods, or namely, (reproduction replace- ,. ment, as . . less ), applicable, depreciation sales and income must comparable approaches, be considered with one another. conjunction shall (e) Board established apply pre- determined ratio to the actual value of all real to formulate the assessment roll. property In “actual value” our interpreting Supreme has said that it than market means more or less nothing value. Market value is defined in terms of willing seller buyer—willing concept. Act, §5348,
A 7 of the 72 PS. section reading that it was the intent to continue this con- shows clearly Act, of “actual value.” section 7 of the For cept example, §5348, 72 P.S. that in an of an assess- provides appeal ment, the cur- Board shall make determination of rent market value the tax and that year question, the common level shall be after determining applied value; current market shall continue a Board list of the for which would bona prices fidely sell; that the hun- assessed value shall not exceed one value; dred of actual that in ac- percent tual value the utilize current market county may value itor a base market value. may adopt year
237
on the present
cost is based
Because reproduction
Supreme
our
less
cost of the buildings
depreciation,
has no
this approach
said that
Court has repeatedly
market val
in
fair
fixing
for
value
any purpose
probative
Baldwin-
for tax
real estate
purposes.
ue of improved
299, 194 A. 2d
Pa.
412
Lima-Hamilton Corp. Appeal,
probative
even
can
legislature
give
Not
(1963).
Rich Hill
to
has no such
something
quality.
value
which
Bashore,
Pa.
An the sales of concerning compa- may testify expert was consid- as of the fectors which rable one properties in value of the ered an of feir market arriving opinion sale the same real estate. One of reasons that a or evidence, but is admissible comparable properties similar not controlling, is that be may properties identical, and the being without comparison purposes for the feet finder. difference a matter weight 493, 80 Corp., Moodie v. Electric Westinghouse A.2d 734 (1951).
There is no the Act which specifically provision evidence of enables a introduce party independently makes cost. The Act simply reproduction reproduction use which the or compare fector expert may feir It an er- with his estimate of market value. check in determining that fector upon ror to rely exclusively market value. trial courts
The record indicates and the opinion data the market ap- shows that the trial discarded judge fair market at his opinion proach He did not and relied the cost exclusively approach. with consider conjunction approach he use the cost market data nor did approach, *10 Steel his result. See Moines Pittsburgh-Des check 565, 466 Ct. v. McLaughlin, 77 Pa. Commonwealth A.2d 1092 (1983). the trial court. I would reverse
Accordingly,