Gross McGinley LLP

Blog Disclaimer

Blog Disclaimer

This Blog is intended for educational and informational purposes and intended to only provide you with a general understanding of the law, not to provide any legal advice, including on the subject of the Blog. Laws that may pertain to this Blog will vary by jurisdiction, and the information on this blog may not apply to you. The content within this Blog is not intended, and should not be construed, in any way to be legal advice and thus you should not rely on any information provided in the Blog as legal advice. You should consult with appropriate legal counsel concerning any issues for which legal advice may be needed. Your review or use of the Blog and the content therein is not intended to create, and does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Please contact us if you have any questions about a Blog or would like more information, but, by contacting us, no attorney-client relationship is formed between you and Gross McGinley, LLP, including the Blog author. Do not send any confidential information to Gross McGinley, LLP or the authors of the Blog without first speaking to one of our lawyers and receiving our permission to provide confidential information. Unsolicited confidential information sent to us may not be subject to an attorney-client privilege and may not be treated as confidential. This Blog is not published for advertising or solicitation purposes. Gross McGinley, LLP disclaims all liability to all persons for any claim, loss, liability or any damages that may arise in connection with the Blog and any content or information contained in the Blog. Even though we strive to create our Blog content based on our current understanding of the law, we cannot and do not guarantee that the content and information in the Blog is current, accurate, or complete. Gross McGinley, LLP owns the copyright in the Blog, which is protected by federal and state laws, including copyright laws. The Blog cannot be altered or modified in any way. A copy of the Blog may be used and printed only for personal, educational, informational and noncommercial purposes. The Blog cannot be used for any other purpose without the express permission of Gross McGinley, LLP.

PA Supreme Court Decision Could Impact Future of Tax Assessment Appeals

Written by: and on July 11, 2017 | Category: Blog | Tags:

In early April, we discussed the pending Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling in the Valley Forge Towers Apartments N, LP, et al, v. Upper Merion Area School District, et al, case (the “Valley Forge Case”), where the Pennsylvania Supreme Court was presented with an opportunity to shed light and provide direction on the lawfulness of a growing pattern of property assessment appeals of commercial properties initiated by school districts across the state that were being challenged by the affected property owners as unconstitutional.  In their challenge, the Valley Forge Case property owners (made up of large apartment complexes) argued that they were being unfairly selected for reassessments because Pennsylvania law requires uniformity, and the school district was not seeking to reassess single-family residences.  The property owners alleged the school district was motivated by claims that single-family homes were owned by school district residents subject to property taxes, while the tenants at the apartment complex were not residents and did not directly pay property taxes, and thus the school districts assessment challenges were an attempt to increase revenue while avoiding political accountability.

On July 5, 2017, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued an Opinion remanding the dispute back to the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas and directing the Court to consider the merits of the property owners’ constitutional challenge rather than dismiss the property owners’ case on procedural grounds (which the County Court had done and which prompted the property owners’ appeal to the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court and then the Pennsylvania Supreme Court).  In remanding the case, the Supreme Court noted many flaws in the school district’s arguments and reminded the parties (as well as the lower Courts) that all real estate is to be viewed as a single class entitled to uniform treatment and should be protected from intentional or systematic enforcement of the tax laws.  The Supreme Court also made clear that while a school district has a statutory right to challenge tax assessments; it may not do so in a way prohibited by the uniformity clause of the Constitution.  Accordingly, the County Court will now consider the merits of the property owners’ claims with guidance from the Supreme Court as to the scope of a school district’s authority and the parameters of the Uniformity Clause of the Pennsylvania Constitution.

Attorney Jack Gross is a real estate attorney, counseling buyers and sellers in residential and commercial real estate transactions and zoning matters as well as tax assessment matters. He is a licensed title agent in the state of Pennsylvania.

Attorney Sam Cohen is a litigation attorney who has represented property owners in land ownership, tax assessment, and zoning matters before local and state courts as well as municipal boards.

Next Previous
View All Attorneys
View All Practice Areas
View Blog