# Truck Terminal Motels of America, Inc. v. Berks County Board of Assessment Appeals

> Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · July 19, 1989 · 127 Pa. Commw. 408

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9752552

## Case

- **Full name:** TRUCK TERMINAL MOTELS OF AMERICA, INC. v. BERKS COUNTY BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS. Appeal of TULPEHOCKEN AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT
- **Court:** Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** July 19, 1989
- **Citations:** 127 Pa. Commw. 408; 561 A.2d 1305; 1989 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 505
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Kalish
- **Judges:** Craig, Barry, Kalish
- **Cited by:** 12 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9752552

## Opinion text

KALISH, Senior Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent.
*414 As a result of negotiations, the Board and the taxpayer entered into a stipulation fixing the assessed value of the property involved, which the trial court accepted.
The trial court should be affirmed if it has not made an error of law. Wynne, Inc. Tax Assessment Case, 434 Pa. 59 , 253 A.2d 632 (1969). I believe that the trial court did err.
In Pittsburgh Miracle Mile Town & Country Shopping Center Inc. v. Board of Property Assessment, 417 Pa. 243 , 209 A.2d 394 (1965), the court indicated that a stipulation as to fair market value of land is merely an evidentiary expedient and does not alter the court’s obligation to pass upon and determine the correctness of the property assessment. Such a stipulation, in effect, achieves only the same evidentiary result as though the taxpayer offered no evidence to challenge or overcome the prima-facie validity of the Board’s assessment. In other words, just as the taxing authority cannot rely solely on its assessment record in the face of countervailing evidence, it should not be permitted to rely on a stipulation. A stipulation designed to restrict the court’s function cannot change the scope of the court’s obligation on review.
Article IX, section 1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution provides that all taxes must be uniform on the same class of subjects within the territorial limits of the authority levying the tax. Thus, the uniformity provision of the Constitution of Pennsylvania requires that taxes must be applied uniformly upon similar kinds of property and with substantial equality of the tax burden to all members of the same class. 1 Brooks Building Tax Assessment Case, 391 Pa. 94 , 137 A.2d 273 (1958).
In determining whether the constitutional provision of uniformity has been complied with, all properties are comparable in construing the appropriate ratio of assessed *415 value to market value. In proving what is the ratio the property owners, taxing authority, and the courts may rely on relevant evidence. Deitch Co. v. Board of Property Assessment, 417 Pa. 213 , 209 A.2d 397 (1965).
If, by stipulation, a taxpayer is permitted to pay less than his fair share, there is an injustice to the remaining taxpayers. The proceedings in the trial court are de novo, and the determination of fair market value must ultimately be made on the basis of competent testimony as to the worth of the property in the market at a fair sale. Deitch.
Fair market value, which is the basis of real estate tax assessments, embodies a willing buyer, willing seller concept, in the open market, at arms length—a normal sale, a fair sale. To rely on a stipulation as to fair market value, even with the approval of the court, is an improper reliance on irrelevant testimony. Deitch.
. In McKnight Shopping Center v. Board of Property Assessment, 417 Pa. 234 , 209 A.2d 389 (1965), in a footnote, the court indicated that even absent the uniformity constitutional clause in the Pennsylvania Constitution, the Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal Constitution *415 would protect taxpayers from discrimination in violation of their right to equal protection.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9752552. Public record. Not legal advice.