Smart shopping center owners follow hoteliers' approach to reducing property taxes.
Why do taxing authorities recognize intangibles for hospitality properties, but not shopping center properties? The answer may be the way mall intangibles have been characterized for tax purposes.
Intangibles include such items as business franchises, licenses and permits, operating manuals and procedures, trained workforce, commercial agreements and intellectual property.
Owners of hospitality properties know that branding their properties with well-recognized franchises or flags, such as Marriott, increases revenues. Because branding usually delivers access to reservations and management systems, training programs and other value-added benefits, it attracts clientele willing to pay premiums for hospitality stays and related amenities.
While hospitality properties benefit from their property tax exemption for franchises and other intangibles, shopping mall properties haven't garnered the same benefits.
A recent unfavorable decision by the Minnesota Tax Court in an appeal filed by Eden Prairie Center in suburban Minneapolis typifies the difficulty shopping center owners face in obtaining exemptions for intangibles. Mall owners who could use a respite from high property taxes are understandably frustrated.
Hotel owners have succeeded in claiming the intangibles tax exemption by identifying specific types of intangibles, such as franchises and employee workforce, and assigning values to those tax-exempt items. This approach is particularly successful in states like California where statutes and court decisions support deductions for intangibles.
In contrast, shopping center owners typically urge tax assessors to reduce assessments based on residual “business enterprise value” (BEV). These owners ascribe to BEV the higher in-line store rents produced by the presence of high-end anchor tenants or a particularly advantageous tenant mix.
Mall owners believe BEV is exhibited in low cap rates evident in many shopping center sales and in sales prices that exceed replacement cost. They determine residual BEV by capitalizing the income remaining after owners meet the income return requirements for real estate and personal property.
Taxing authorities are reluctant to accept taxpayers' requests for BEV assessment reductions. Court decisions involving shopping center properties usually point to difficulties in proving BEV and the problem of separating intangibles from real estate.
Mall owners should focus on intangible assets and rights specific to their properties, as hospitality owners have done, rather than rely on the more nebulous BEV. They should identify and determine the value of intangibles such as anchor tenant and/or mall trade names, management agreements, and advertising arrangements.
Creativity in identifying and valuing intangibles can bring significant assessment reductions, but success depends on owners' efforts. For example, proving to taxing authorities the benefits of having upscale anchor tenants likely requires an appraiser's analysis and may also depend upon data for competing properties.
Making the case
After intangibles are identified, an appraiser who specializes in intangible valuation should be retained to appraise the identified assets and rights. Then the total value of the tax-exempt intangibles is deducted from the entire property's value to arrive at the value of the taxable real property.
If the value of all intangibles is substantial, this should be presented to the assessor. Ideally, informal negotiations with the taxing authority result in lower assessments. Even with the best efforts, however, it's still possible that the assessor won't reduce a shopping center's value by removing tax-exempt intangibles. In that event, a tax appeal should be filed.
Cris K. O'Neall is a partner with Cahill, Davis & O'Neall LLP, the California member of American Property Tax Counsel. He can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.