{
  "id": 11916771,
  "name": "In the matter of: The Appeal of the May Department Stores Company From the Appraisal of Certain Real Property by the Forsyth County Board of Equalization and Review for 1991",
  "name_abbreviation": "In re the Appeal of the May Department Stores Co.",
  "decision_date": "1995-07-18",
  "docket_number": "No. 9410PTC58",
  "first_page": "596",
  "last_page": "598",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "119 N.C. App. 596"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "96 ALR2d 666",
      "category": "reporters:specialty",
      "reporter": "A.L.R. 2d",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "96 ALR2d 666",
      "category": "reporters:specialty",
      "reporter": "A.L.R. 2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 317,
    "char_count": 5173,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.725,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 3.6856254361847664e-07,
      "percentile": 0.891696967661049
    },
    "sha256": "73801f77ab371b32a54809f6b0a4b4a5c85986b6973bef743c989f1c1e43043f",
    "simhash": "1:e4adf1bb4bfdb98a",
    "word_count": 822
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:09:59.579385+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges COZORT and GREENE concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "In the matter of: The Appeal of the May Department Stores Company From the Appraisal of Certain Real Property by the Forsyth County Board of Equalization and Review for 1991"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "JOHNSON, Judge.\nThe Commission, in making findings of fact based on the evidence, concluded that the County\u2019s appraisal of the subject property at a value of $8,497,800.00 did not exceed the true value in money of the subject property as of 1 January 1991. Taxpayer brings forward numerous assignments of error; however, this case turns on the question of whether the Commission\u2019s use of the cost approach was unlawful because it does not approximate market value as required by North Carolina General Statutes \u00a7 105-283 (1992). In a similar case filed today, In re Appeal of Belk-Broome Co., No. 9310PTC1319 (N.C. App. July 18, 1995), we held that it was error for the Commission to exclusively use the cost approach in valuing the Belk property therein, and that the income approach should have been the primary method used to reach a value for the Belk property. However, we noted \u201cthat while the income approach is preferential a combination of approaches may be used because of the inherent weakness in each approach.\u201d Belk, slip op. at 6. In Belk, we did not \u201cforeclose using such a combination of approaches ... so long as the income approach [was] given greatest weight.\u201d Id.\nTherefore, based on Belle, we reverse and remand this action for a new hearing so that the Commission can redetermine the value of the subject property with emphasis on the income approach to valuation. We note that in Belle, we commented that \u201c[t]he cost approach is better suited for valuing specialty property or newly developed property[.]\u201d Id. Given that the subject property in the instant case was newly developed property, we direct the Commission\u2019s attention to the language cited above that \u201ca combination of approaches may be used because of the inherent weakness in each approach . .. [as] long as the income approach is given greatest weight.\u201d\nReversed and remanded.\nJudges COZORT and GREENE concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "JOHNSON, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Doody & Lafakis, Ltd., by Gregory J. Lafakis; and Manning Fulton & Skinner, P.A., by Michael T. Medford, for petitioner-appellant.",
      "Forsyth County Attorney\u2019s Office, by P. Eugene Price, Jr., Davida W. Martin, and Paul A. Sinai, for respondent-appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "In the matter of: The Appeal of the May Department Stores Company From the Appraisal of Certain Real Property by the Forsyth County Board of Equalization and Review for 1991\nNo. 9410PTC58\n(Filed 18 July 1995)\nTaxation \u00a7 82 (NCI4th)\u2014 valuation of department store property \u2014 use of cost approach error\nIt was error for the Property Tax Commission to use the cost approach in valuing petitioner\u2019s department store property, and the case is remanded for a new hearing so the Commission can redetermine the value of the subject property with emphasis on the income approach to valuation.\nAm Jur 2d, State and Local Taxation \u00a7\u00a7 759-762.\nIncome or rental value as a factor in evaluation of real property for purposes of taxation. 96 ALR2d 666.\nAppeal by May Department Stores Company from Final Decision entered 16 August 1993 by the North Carolina Property Tax Commission sitting as the State Board of Equalization and Review. Heard in the Court of Appeals 29 September 1994.\nThe May Department Stores Company (Taxpayer) appeals from a decision of the North Carolina Property Tax Commission concerning the ad valorem tax value that Forsyth County (County) placed upon the Hecht\u2019s Department Store (Hecht\u2019s) located at Hane\u2019s Mall, a super regional mall, in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for the year 1991. Hecht\u2019s is located on approximately 9.667 acres of land and consists of a three-story department store having approximately 152,000 square feet of gross building area plus paving, lighting, and other usual accessories normally associated with a department store located in a mall location. The parties stipulated and agreed that the highest and best use of the subject property is \u201cits present use as a department store.\u201d The parties further stipulated \u201cthat the reproduction cost new of the subject improvements as of 1 January 1988 was approximately $7,591,600.\u201d\nConstruction of Hecht\u2019s was completed in late 1990 and it first opened as a department store in October 1990. While the parties dispute whether Taxpayer purchased the subject property from Thalhimer\u2019s Inc. before, during or after construction of the subject improvement, it is clear that Taxpayer owned the property as of 1 January 1991.\nLess than three months after Hecht\u2019s opened its doors in October 1990 to customers, Forsyth County, during its 1991 revaluation, assessed the subject property at $10,019,600.00. Taxpayer contested the County\u2019s assessment before the Forsyth County Board of Equalization and Review, which reduced the assessment to $8,497,800.00. Taxpayer had the subject property appraised by an independent appraiser, Mr. Bruce Tomlin, who, using the cost approach method of valuation, set its value at $8,200,000.00. On 22 January 1992, Taxpayer appealed the County\u2019s assessment to the North Carolina Property Tax Commission (Commission) by filing an Application for Hearing. The Commission affirmed the Board\u2019s assessment of $8,497,800.00 and on 16 August 1993, entered its Final Decision. From this Final Decision, Taxpayer appeals.\nDoody & Lafakis, Ltd., by Gregory J. Lafakis; and Manning Fulton & Skinner, P.A., by Michael T. Medford, for petitioner-appellant.\nForsyth County Attorney\u2019s Office, by P. Eugene Price, Jr., Davida W. Martin, and Paul A. Sinai, for respondent-appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0596-01",
  "first_page_order": 630,
  "last_page_order": 632
}
