09/14/2020 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

oes refiubish before the assets are put out on the floor for.fatuSe rental at: The,Agent reiterated that d tagO of 1116. f bi m and � , Fre go ral or sale. He stated fb�. � a perces believes that the FA is not accounting for. fimetional and economic obolbscence ill its tables•. The stated Hast lyage 10. describes. die cottditicrn cedes used, along kith. the age of the asse . The Appraiser m his data He believes Sue !A did not consider all of the 8 Agent stated that all -standards rgere considered ! . Criteria factors or all forms of obsolescence. The PA asked the Agent how the assets are treated WUM they are tcUMteilt ► pre store after the first lease. The Agent said that they are put into inventory The PA furter a if kms, assets are pat back .on the returd. The Agent said no, as they are Bien oonsideied inventory on the incdme tax returns and records. The PA stated that this would mean there,is underrePorting.on the rebus Therefore, the FA belie=ves -no additional depreciation is warranted, option of correctness was established, considea'ation of all 8 factors. of F.S. 193.011 was perfonaued, a o4g with adherence to Florida law and professionally accreted appraisal practices. Findinns of Fact and•Conclnsions ofI.aw As per.Rule 1211-9.025(1) FAC., the. Special Magistrate revievVed,. conside�ted and. admitted the evidence. Per DOR guidelines, the PA should considerall approaches to value — sales';eoinpari. (market data), cost and. inncorne. DOR, also states that the "market data relating to personalroperty may be obtained from leasing companies, commercial bankers, new and used equipment dears, trade and sales journals, newspaper advertisement and auction sales". The PA stated that the sacs beyond the scope of mass appraisal. Tri Standard 6, USPAP, Mass Appraisal, states that the A"*er must describe how the three approaches to value were considered. The Special Magistrate does nor agree. with the PA's statement ... that the sales comparison approach is beyond the scope of mass aPPraisal.- Mat said, the PA asserted, without contradiction. or challenge, that they considered all s factors of S> 193.011 vale criteria sad the parties agreed that the cost approach was the appropriate appraisal method§UW, The PA established the presumption of correctness per F.S. 194.301. The Petitioner/Ageut must prove by a preponderance of the evidence tIaat. the FA's just value does not represent. just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices -that are alit fiom' appraisal practices generally applied by the PA to comparable property -within the county.? Mhe Agent believes that his methodology is more representative of market value. - Yet, he presented Iu±Ii?cS tables that were dated November, 2014 anti not 2019 and did not explain bow those tables were considered or used in lois value calculation. Therefore, the Special Magistrate is questioning his value de terminations. The Special Magistrate also questions the Age's and Appraiser's lack ofjdata clarifying the adjustments for the upcharge for the V m'bution Centers, additional depreciation column and how the company reports the returned assets placed back on the store floor as inventory on the imOme4laix return'. The Agent's Appraisal Report (valuation summary) and the Agetafs Appraiser stated that the work files and research used to develop the PRV tables were not presented at the healing and could not be reviewed by the Special Magistrate.. 'therefore, the Special Magistrate rejected the Appraisal Report values based on lack to supporting data to validate the percentages used in the tables andbe'Agent's explanation of the upcharge adjustment and additional depreciation column. 2Tbe PA's concern with regard to the underreporting of assets or designation as inventory needs to be addressed between the PA and the Agent at a later date, No evidence was presented at this hearing for the Special Magistrate to make any deteaaination on this issue. -60-