08/16/2017 VAB - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

did not have a clear explanation for the use of this multiple or data to support it. The Agent stated that this is not acceptable appraisal methodology or citation of a credible source. She indicated that the Taxpayers are not appraisers. The PA was asked if there. was any explanation on the DR -405 sent to the Taxpayer showing how FMV should be calculated. The PA could not. confirm what explanation was sent to the Taxpayer. The PA restated that he used the cost approach and mass appraisal, using the Taxpayer's estimate of FMV is only part of the process. The Agent stated that the PA did not verify how the. Taxpayer developed their FMV. The Agent questioned the PA's market research, verification of the data, the tables' reflection of all forms of depreciation and the business analysis. She asked the PA if they verified the similarity in the assets. The PA stated that they made an attempt to contact the sources but could not confirm. The Agent stated that DOR's tables are % of remaining economic life from Marshall & Swift (M/S). She stated that M/S produces mortality tables and they do not include external obsolescence. She reiterated that both the PA and Ryan are doing a cost approach and a market check. The Agent discussed that the PA does not have an authoritative source for their market research. Then, the Agent began discussion of their evidence. Her evidence included a definition of FMV, requirement of a market check based on DOR guidelines, ASA definitions, cost approach steps applied, calculation of effective .age/weighted age/normal economic life, auto/drilling industry market trends, dealer contacts, and intemet comparables. She discussed the sample size used to establish the Remaining Obsolescence Factor (ROF) applied to the assets — laundry equipment and M & E. The evidence stated that "this factor is necessary to make an obsolescence adjustment in the cost approach to determine a final answer for all depreciation that may not be readily apparent from the appraiser's research into a particular asset." Both the PA and the Agent are working from the same starting point, which includes freight, sales tax and installation. The Agent stated that the level of trade is the end user, not auction. On Page I21-124 of her evidence, the Agent presented the .tables used to depreciate the assets - computer; computer peripheral, tech & comm, office FF&E, LHI, M&E, retail trade, restaurant equipment, supermarket; medical, forklifts & batteries, refrigeration, construction, tractors and laundry equipment. The Agent's requested values are as follows: Petition No. 2016-� $S Petition No. 2016 Petition No. 20161 $4� Petition No. 2016 $mom Petition No. 2016! $� Petition No. 2016mft$� Petition No. 2036; $ Petition No. 20361 $� Petition No. 2016 $i Petition No. 2016 $mom Petition No. 2016' $X� Rebuttal The PA stated that the Agent did not present evidence to show the drop in the first year and an explanation of same. The PA used DOR and S tables, compared apples to apples, discussed loss of contact with manufacturer when buying used, contacted dealers themselves and received a different story, spot checked tables through their own market studies and considered previous VAB years. The PA questioned the Agent's lack of data used to create their depreciation tables. The PA reiterated that they considered all approaches to value. He discussed the Iack of data on the returns or, development of an income approach. He also discussed that the Agent did not send supporting data for their own tables. -74-