07/01/2019 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Karen Wonsetler, Esq. Writing Sample - Prior Report 2015 &Recommendation whether or not the Petitioner's ownership. and actual use of the property would qualify it for the • affordable housing exemption for the 2013 tax year. Per the Property Appraiser's representative and counsel, it was not satisfied with Petitioner's showing as to the criteria for ownership or use as of January 1, 2013, and stand by that office's initial denial of the exemption application. Although Petitioner did provide information with its application to the Property Appraiser's Office and did request the Value Adjustment Board conduct a hearing on its petition in its absence, Petitioner failed to put forth any evidence or testimony above and beyond a copy of the current information available from the Florida Secretary of State, Division of Corporation showing the relationship between Petitioner and other corporate entities. The application of that portion of the statute that was not changed on July 1, 2013 yields the first layer of legal issues, irrespective of any discussion or argument related to a 2013 mid. -year amendment regarding ownership criteria. As such, this legal conclusion is irrespective of any retroactive application as to ownership, and focuses instead upon the provisions governing Section 196.195 Florida Statute, and proof as to Petitioner's eligibility as of January 1, 2013. As Petitioner made no challenge to.any retroactively applied version of the law by the Property Appraiser's Office and the legal analysis does not consider the retroactive application in this decision, there will be no legal discussion regarding the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of acts by the Florida legislature. 1 find that there is an unresolved question as to whether or not the non-profit partner does in fact inure to the benefit of the general for profit partner. If it does inure to the benefit of the for-profit partner, then the ownership and use are not an appropriate basis for a claim for the exemption. Petitioner made no presentation of facts or evidence which would assist in the factual and legal analysis. As such, the Petitioner failed to carry its burden of proof and has not affirmatively shown an entitlement to the Affordable Housing exemption. When the Petitioner fails to carry its burden of proof, the initial denialof the exemption by the Property Appraiser's Office is upheld. Accordingly, the petition is denied. -16-