stating that a taxpayer may offer “evidence of assessments of comparable properties, so long as the taxpayer also presents evidence to show that the actual fair market value of the comparable properties is different than that found by the taxing authority” (citations omitted)
How later courts described this case
- stating that a taxpayer may offer “evidence of assessments of comparable properties, so long as the taxpayer also presents evidence to show that the actual fair market value of the comparable properties is different than that found by the taxing authority” (citations omitted)
- finding error in court’s rejection of equalization evidence on grounds that the “comparable” properties were not similar enough to taxpayer’s property; any relevant evidence may be used to establish lack of uniformity in assessments
- stating that properties need not be identical to be comparable and comparisons may be based, among other things, on sales according to similarities in use, size, and type of construction
- noting that the proper assessment procedure is to value the property as a whole; however, separate values may be required for portions of the property
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Dissenting Opinion by
Me. Chief Justice Bell:
I would affirm the Order of the Court below for the reasons set forth at length in my dissenting opinions in Morris v. Bd. of Property Assessment, 417 Pa. 192 , 209 A. 2d 407 , and in Deitch Company v. Bd. of Property Assessment, 417 Pa. 213 , 209 A. 2d 397 .
Mr. Justice Musmanno joins in this Dissenting Opinion.