This is the preview version of the Wisconsin State Legislature site.
Please see http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov for the production version.
70.32 Annotation When an assessor disavows the correctness of a valuation of comparable property shown on the tax roll, the burden is on the assessor to explain why the assessment is incorrect. Brighton Square Co. v. Madison, 178 Wis. 2d 577, 504 N.W.2d 436 (Ct. App. 1993).
70.32 Annotation A taxpayer challenging an assessment has the burden of proving that a sale was an arm's-length transaction. The taxpayer has the burden of proof on each assessment manual condition that must be met. Doneff v. Review Board of Two Rivers, 184 Wis. 2d 203, 516 N.W.2d 383 (1994).
70.32 Annotation The use of owner-operator income to value property is allowed if the net income reflects the property's chief source of value, the income is produced without skill of the owner, or the owner's skill and labor are factored out and other valuation approaches are considered. Waste Management v. Kenosha County Board of Review, 184 Wis. 2d 541, 516 N.W.2d 695 (1994).
70.32 Annotation There is no bright line rule for the number of comparable properties that must be shown to prove that the rule of uniformity is being violated. Assessments that are discriminatory and made based on arbitrary and improper considerations cannot stand. Levine v. Fox Point Board of Review, 191 Wis. 2d 363, 528 N.W.2d 424 (1995).
70.32 Annotation Property that is encumbered by a bundle of rights must be appraised at its value using the current value of that bundle of rights. City of West Bend v. Continental IV Fund, 193 Wis. 2d 481, 535 N.W.2d 24 (Ct. App. 1995).
70.32 Annotation Real property shall be valued based on the best information available. The best information is a recent arms-length sale of the property, followed by recent sales of comparable property. If either of those are not available the assessor may look to all factors that collectively have a bearing on the value of the property. Campbell v. Town of Delavan, 210 Wis. 2d 239, 565 N.W.2d 209 (Ct. App. 1997), 96-1291.
70.32 Annotation Equalized value is not a measure of fair market value of individual properties; it is improper for an assessor to take it into account in valuing property. Noah's Ark Family Park v. Village of Lake Delton, 210 Wis. 2d 301, 565 N.W.2d 230 (Ct. App. 1997), 96-1074.
70.32 AnnotationAffirmed. 216 Wis. 2d 387, 573 N.W.2d 852 (1998), 96-1074.
70.32 Annotation For purposes of the uniformity clause, there is only one class of property. The burden of taxation must be borne as nearly as practicable among all property, based on value. Compliance with the requirement of s. 70.05 (5) that property be assessed at fair value at least once every 5 years is not a substitute for compliance with the uniformity clause and sub. (1). Approving an increased assessment for only one property despite evidence that it and other properties had recent sales at a price above prior assessments violated the law, and its approval by the board of review was arbitrary. Noah's Ark Family Park v. Village of Lake Delton, 210 Wis. 2d 301, 565 N.W.2d 230 (Ct. App. 1997), 96-1074.
70.32 AnnotationAffirmed. 216 Wis. 2d 387, 573 N.W.2d 852 (1998), 96-1074.
70.32 Annotation It was improper to rely solely on insurance replacement value to set the valuation of low income apartments encumbered with income and rental restrictions, although it is a relevant factor. Walworth Affordable Housing, LLC v. Village of Walworth, 229 Wis. 2d 797, 601 N.W.2d 325 (Ct. App. 1999), 98-2535.
70.32 Annotation Income that is attributable to land, rather than personal to the owner, is inextricably intertwined with the land and is transferable to future owners. This income may be included in the land's assessment because it appertains to the land. Income from managing separate off-site property may be inextricably intertwined with land and subject to assessment if the income is generated primarily on the assessed property itself. ABKA Ltd. v. Fontana-On-Geneva-Lake, 231 Wis. 2d 328, 603 N.W.2d 217 (1999), 98-0851.
70.32 Annotation The requirement to use the “best information" does not require that an assessor use actual figures in the absence of a sale. An assessor acted properly in using estimated expense figures when actual figures did not reflect regular expenses. ABKA Ltd. v. Fontana-On-Geneva-Lake, 231 Wis. 2d 328, 603 N.W.2d 217 (1999), 98-0851.
70.32 Annotation It is clear from the Assessor's Manual that assessors should consider many market factors from a variety of sources when gathering and applying comparable sales information. Even sales prices of similar properties need some adjustment in order to arrive at an estimate of value for a different property. Joyce v. Town of Tainter, 2000 WI App 15, 232 Wis. 2d 349, 605 N.W.2d 284, 99-0324.
70.32 Annotation When valuing subsidized housing, assessors are required to consider the effects the property's restrictions have on value. Bloomer Housing Limited Partnership v. City of Bloomer, 2002 WI App 252, 257 Wis. 2d 883, 653 N.W.2d 309, 01-3495. See also Northland Whitehall Apartments Limited Partnership v. City of Whitehall, 2004 WI App 60, 290 Wis. 2d 488, 713 N.W.2d 646, 04-2941.
70.32 Annotation An assessor cannot be free to choose between the mortgage subsidy rate and the mortgage market rate when using the income approach to valuing federally subsidized housing. If the use of a market rate was proper in City of Bloomer, the use of a subsidized interest rate cannot be. Mineral Point Valley Limited Partnership v. City of Mineral Point, 2004 WI App 158, 275 Wis. 2d 784, 686 N.W.2d 697, 03-1857
70.32 Annotation When a property carries with it a bundle of rights, an assessment must be based on the property at its value using the current value of that bundle of rights. A buyer necessarily acquires the right to the rents guaranteed in long-term leases. The goal of assessment is to ascertain what an investor would pay for the property, and contract rents, not market rents, whether above or below market rent, are the clearest indicator of what the investor would pay. Walgreen Co. v. City of Madison, 2007 WI App 153, 303 Wis. 2d 620, 735 N.W.2d 543, 06-1859.
70.32 Annotation A property tax assessment of retail property leased at above-market rent values should be based on market rents and not on the above-market rental terms of the actual lease. Walgreen Co. v. City of Madison, 2008 WI 80, 311 Wis. 2d 158, 752 N.W.2d 687, 06-1859.
70.32 Annotation When an assessor only after looking at prevailing market conditions and all variables determined that the market for lakefront property had grown so strong that factors other than beach length and beach quality were being ignored by the marketplace, the approach was not formulaic and is not in violation of Campbell. Anic v. Board of Review of the Town of Wilson, 2008 WI App 71, 311 Wis. 2d 701, 751 N.W.2d 870, 07-0761.
70.32 Annotation An assessment based on a Department of Revenue analysis of the sale of a mining company that owned the land was not based upon a recent arm's-length sale of the property. A value derived by analyzing a complex corporate transaction involving the sale of a variety of assets, tangible and intangible, independent and interdependent, is not equivalent to the price obtained in a sale of one component of that transaction. Forest County Potawatomi Community v. Township of Lincoln, 2008 WI App 156, 314 Wis. 2d 363, 761 N.W.2d 31, 07-2523.
70.32 Annotation The Assessment Manual and case law set forth a 3-tier system for determining the fair market value of property. A recent arm's-length sale of the property is the best evidence of value, and is the basis for an assessment under tier one. If there has been no recent sale, an assessor must consider sales of reasonably comparable properties, which is the tier 2 approach. In the absence of comparable sales data, the assessor determines the value under tier 3, which permits consideration of all the factors collectively that have a bearing on value of the property in order to determine its fair market value. Nestle USA, Inc. v. DOR, 2009 WI App 159, 322 Wis. 2d 156, 776 N.W.2d 589, 08-0322.
70.32 AnnotationAffirmed. 2011 WI 4, 331 Wis. 2d 256, 795 N.W.2d 46, 08-0322.
70.32 Annotation Absent sufficient proof that no market existed for a property having a specialized use, an assessment under the tier 2 comparable sales approach based on an expanded definition of highest and best use to include a use for which a market exists would be contrary to sub. (1). The taxpayer has the burden of proving the absence of a market for the property with its current specialized use. That there were no known sales of properties put to that special use merely suggests that such properties are rarely bought and sold. It does not necessarily indicate that the taxpayer would be unable to find a buyer who intended to maintain the property as its current use. Nestle USA, Inc. v. DOR, 2009 WI App 159, 322 Wis. 2d 156, 776 N.W.2d 589, 08-0322.
70.32 AnnotationAffirmed. 2011 WI 4, 331 Wis. 2d 256, 795 N.W.2d 46, 08-0322.
70.32 Annotation When there are no sales of the property itself or of reasonably comparable properties, an assessment cannot be made under a tier one or tier 2 methodology. The assessment is then made using a tier 3 methodology. The cost of replacement approach is the preferred tier 3 method of valuation when, as here, the property has a highly specialized use resulting in there being no comparable properties. Nestle USA, Inc. v. DOR, 2009 WI App 159, 322 Wis. 2d 156, 776 N.W.2d 589, 08-0322.
70.32 AnnotationAffirmed. 2011 WI 4, 331 Wis. 2d 256, 795 N.W.2d 46, 08-0322.
70.32 Annotation In situations when it has been determined that there is no potential market for the subject property, it is contrary to sub. (1) to conclude that the highest and best use of the property should remain the same. That was not the case when there was at least a limited market for powdered infant formula production facilities. Nestle USA, Inc. v. DOR, 2011 WI 4, 331 Wis. 2d 256, 795 N.W.2d 46, 08-0322.
70.32 Annotation Reassessing one property at a significantly higher rate than comparable properties using a different methodology and then declining to reassess the comparable properties by that methodology violates the uniformity clause. U.S. Oil Co., Inc. v. City of Milwaukee, 2011 WI App 4, 331 Wis. 2d 407, 794 N.W.2d 904, 09-2260.
70.32 Annotation Comparing a taxpayer's appraised value to lower values assigned to a relatively small number of other properties has long been rejected as a claimed violation of the uniformity clause. Lack of uniformity must be established by showing a general undervaluation of properties within a district when the subject property has been assessed at full market value. Great Lakes Quick Lube, LP v. City of Milwaukee, 2011 WI App 7, 331 Wis. 2d 137, 794 N.W.2d 510, 09-2775.
70.32 Annotation A property's assessed value is based on fair market value but a property's assessed value is not necessarily equal to its fair market value. Assessors must base assessments of real property on the property's fair market value. However, as the plain language of the Property Assessment Manual makes clear, a property's fair market value is not synonymous with its assessed value. In most cases individual property assessments are different than the property's fair market value. Stupar River LLC v. Town of Linwood Board of Review, 2011 WI 82, 336 Wis. 2d 562, 800 N.W.2d 468, 09-0191.
70.32 Annotation The taxpayer challenging an assessment and classification has the burden of proving at the board hearing that the assessment and classification of property are erroneous; that the taxpayer did not meet his burden of proof; and that the board's determination to maintain the assessment is supported by a reasonable view of the evidence. Sausen v. Town of Black Creek Board of Review, 2014 WI 9, 352 Wis. 2d 576, 843 N.W.2d 39, 10-3015.
70.32 Annotation Except for sub. (2) (c) 3., every subdivision of sub. (2) (c) uses the verb “means" instead of “includes" when defining a property classification. “Means" clearly limits the classes of property defined in those subdivisions to the specific types of property described therein. If the legislature intended the residential class to be restricted to the type of property described in sub. (2) (c) 3., it would have used the verb “means" instead of “includes." Aside from the property specifically described in sub. (2) (c) 3., any other property included in the residential class must fall within the ordinary meaning of the term “residential." West Capitol, Inc. v. Village of Sister Bay, 2014 WI App 52, 354 Wis. 2d 130, 848 N.W.2d 875, 13-1458.
70.32 Annotation Nothing in s. 70.10 requires a property to be classified based on its actual use or prevents an assessor from considering a property's most likely use. An owner's subjective expression of intent is not dispositive of a property's most likely use. The Assessment Manual directs assessors to consider whether the property owner's actions are consistent with an intent for residential use, but that is only one of 7 factors the Manual directs assessors to consider. West Capitol, Inc. v. Village of Sister Bay, 2014 WI App 52, 354 Wis. 2d 130, 848 N.W.2d 875, 13-1458.
70.32 Annotation A property need not be zoned residential in order to be classified as residential for property tax purposes, as long as residential use is likely to be allowed. West Capitol, Inc. v. Village of Sister Bay, 2014 WI App 52, 354 Wis. 2d 130, 848 N.W.2d 875, 13-1458.
70.32 Annotation Under sub. (2) (c) 4., land is nonproductive when it is neither producing nor capable of productive use. Property that is capable of productive use is not nonproductive and not entitled to the 50-percent assessment reduction under sub. (4). West Capitol, Inc. v. Village of Sister Bay, 2014 WI App 52, 354 Wis. 2d 130, 848 N.W.2d 875, 13-1458.
70.32 Annotation An appraiser must not value federally regulated housing as if it were market-rate property. Doing so causes the assessor to pretend that the subject property is not hindered by federal restrictions. The restrictions and underlying agreements implicit in federally regulated housing will affect the property's value. Regency West Apartments LLC v. City of Racine, 2016 WI 99, 372 Wis. 2d 282, 888 N.W.2d 611, 14-2947.
70.32 Annotation Because of the difficulty in appraising subsidized properties under other appraisal methods, the income approach may be the best determiner of value. The property assessment manual does not preclude appraisers from relying solely on the income approach when valuing subsidized properties. Metropolitan Holding, 173 Wis. 2d 626, unambiguously requires assessors to use income and expenses for the subject property when valuing subsidized housing under the income approach. Regency West Apartments LLC v. City of Racine, 2016 WI 99, 372 Wis. 2d 282, 888 N.W.2d 611, 14-2947.
70.32 Annotation Sub. (1) requires assessors to value property based on “the best information that the assessor can practicably obtain." In this case, projected expenses and income for this newly opened property were available to the assessor. When an assessor calculated the net operating income for an income-based valuation through mass appraisal techniques that were not particularized to the assessed property, the assessment did not comply with sub. (1) because it did not use the “best information” that was available. Regency West Apartments LLC v. City of Racine, 2016 WI 99, 372 Wis. 2d 282, 888 N.W.2d 611, 14-2947.
70.32 Annotation In addition to calculating a net operating income (NOI) for the subject property, an income-based valuation requires determining the applicable capitalization rate. The capitalization rate expresses the rate of return an investor would expect to receive from an investment in the subject property. The value of a subject property is determined by dividing its NOI by the applicable capitalization rate. Capitalization rates from the marketplace are usually derived from the sale of market-rate projects. Such capitalization rates do not reflect the unique characteristics of subsidized housing. Regency West Apartments LLC v. City of Racine, 2016 WI 99, 372 Wis. 2d 282, 888 N.W.2d 611, 14-2947.
70.32 Annotation If there are no reasonably comparable properties, the comparable sales approach cannot be used. The property assessment manual explicitly states that when subsidized properties are reasonably comparable, properties being compared must have restrictions similar to the subject property. To determine if properties have similar restrictions, an appraiser must examine the specific restrictions that apply to each property, as well as the differences between these restrictions. Regency West Apartments LLC v. City of Racine, 2016 WI 99, 372 Wis. 2d 282, 888 N.W.2d 611, 14-2947.
70.32 Annotation Sub. (1) explicitly directs that property be assessed in the manner specified “in the Wisconsin property assessment manual . . .from actual view or from the best information that the assessor can practicably obtain." The manual provides that “commercial property can be valued by either single property or mass appraisal techniques." The manual makes clear that mass appraisal is accepted at the initial assessment stage and sets forth when a single property appraisal is necessary after the initial mass appraisal has been challenged by the taxpayer or if the property being valued is a special-purpose property that does not lend itself well to mass appraisal. The express language of the manual indicates that mass appraisal is a proper method of valuation in all other circumstances. Metropolitan Associates v. City of Milwaukee, 2018 WI 4, 379 Wis. 2d 141, 905 N.W.2d 784, 16-0021.
70.32 Annotation Under the inextricably intertwined test, the income-generating capability of the oil terminals was inextricably intertwined with the land and was thus transferable to future purchasers of the land. Therefore, that income was included in the land's assessment because it appertained to the land. Marathon Petroleum Company LP v. City of Milwaukee, 2018 WI App 22, 381 Wis. 2d 180, 912 N.W.2d 117, 16-0939.
70.32 Annotation The inextricably intertwined test applies to a tier 2 comparable sales approach for assessing real estate. Marathon Petroleum Company LP v. City of Milwaukee, 2018 WI App 22, 381 Wis. 2d 180, 912 N.W.2d 117, 16-0939.
70.32 Annotation Classification of real property for tax purposes is based on the actual use of the property. Although an injunction, contract, or ordinance may be presented to argue how the property is supposed to be used, none can be the decisive factor for tax assessment purposes. Thoma v. Village of Slinger, 2018 WI 45, 381 Wis. 2d 311, 912 N.W.2d 56, 15-1970.
70.32 Annotation Using a property only for maintaining ground cover does not fall within the statutory definition of agricultural use. When the property owner adamantly denied any farming took place at all on the land and insisted that he was maintaining ground cover only, the property owner failed to present any evidence that his use qualified as agricultural for tax assessment purposes. Thoma v. Village of Slinger, 2018 WI 45, 381 Wis. 2d 311, 912 N.W.2d 56, 15-1970.
70.32 Annotation A business purpose is not required in order for land to be classified as agricultural land for property tax purposes. The relevant statutes and rules refer to “growing" the relevant crops, not marketing, selling, or profiting from them. State ex. rel. Peter Ogden Family Trust of 2008 v. Board of Review, 2019 WI 23, 385 Wis. 2d 676, 923 N.W.2d 837, 17-0516.
70.32 Annotation Taxation of undeveloped real property in Wisconsin. Hack, Sullivan, 1974 WBB No. 1.
70.323 70.323 Assessment of divided parcel.
70.323(1)(1)Determination of value.
70.323(1)(a)(a) If a parcel of real property is divided, the owner of a divided parcel may request a valuation of the divided parcels. A request shall be in writing and submitted to the treasurer of the taxation district in which the property is located. If the taxation district treasurer is in possession of the tax roll, the treasurer shall make the requested valuation. If the tax roll has been returned under s. 74.43, the taxation district treasurer shall forward the request to the county treasurer, who shall make the requested valuation.
70.323(1)(b) (b) The appropriate treasurer shall, with the assistance of the assessor of the taxation district, attribute to each new parcel its value for the year of division. The value of each new parcel shall represent a reasonable apportionment of the valuation of the original undivided parcel, and the total of the new valuations shall equal the valuation of the original undivided parcel on January 1 of that year. The value of a new parcel as determined under this subsection is the value of that property for purposes of s. 70.32 for the year of division.
70.323(2) (2) Appeal. A determination under sub. (1) may be appealed by bringing an action in circuit court within 60 days after the determination is made. The court shall determine whether the value determined under sub. (1) represents a reasonable apportionment of the valuation of the original undivided parcel on January 1 of that year. If the court determines that the value does not represent a reasonable apportionment, the court shall redetermine the parcels' values, the total of which shall equal the valuation of the original undivided parcel on January 1 of that year.
70.323(3) (3) Lien extinguished. Payment of all real estate taxes based on the value determined under sub. (1) or (2) extinguishes the lien against the parcel created under s. 70.01.
70.323(4) (4) Cooperation of assessor. The assessor of the taxation district shall assist the treasurer of the taxation district or of the county under sub. (1).
70.323(5) (5) Not applicable where written agreement. This section does not apply if there is a written agreement providing for the payment of real property taxes on the divided parcels in the year of division.
70.323 History History: 1987 a. 378.
70.327 70.327 Valuation and assessment of property with contaminated wells. In determining the market value of real property with a contaminated well or water system, the assessor shall take into consideration the time and expense necessary to repair or replace the well or private water system in calculating the diminution of the market value of real property attributable to the contamination.
70.327 History History: 1983 a. 410; 1995 a. 378.
70.337 70.337 Tax exemption reports.
70.337(1)(1)By March 31 of each even-numbered year, the owner of each parcel of property that is exempt under s. 70.11 shall file with the clerk of the taxation district in which the property is located a form containing the following information:
70.337(1)(a) (a) The name and address of the owner of the property and, if applicable, the type of organization that owns the property.
70.337(1)(b) (b) The legal description and parcel number of the property as shown on the assessment roll.
70.337(1)(c) (c) The date of acquisition of the property.
70.337(1)(d) (d) A description of any improvements on the land.
70.337(1)(e) (e) A statement indicating whether or not any portion of the property was leased to another person during the preceding 2 years. If the property was leased, the statement shall identify the portion of the property that was leased, identify the lessee and describe the ways in which the lease payments were used by the owner of the property.
70.337(1)(f) (f) The owner's estimate of the fair market value of the property on January 1 of the even-numbered year. The owner shall provide this estimate by marking one of a number of value ranges provided on the form prepared under sub. (2). The assessor for the taxation district within which the property is located may review the owner's estimate of the fair market value of the property and adjust it if necessary to reflect the correct fair market value.
70.337(2) (2)By July 1 of each even-numbered year, the clerk of each taxation district shall complete and deliver to the department of revenue a form on which the clerk estimates the value of tax-exempt property, classified by type of owner, within the taxation district.
70.337(3) (3)The department of revenue shall prescribe the contents of the form for reporting the information required under sub. (1), including the categories of value of property that the department of revenue determines will result in the best estimate of the value of tax-exempt property in this state. The department of revenue shall also prescribe the contents of the form under sub. (2). The form under sub. (2) shall provide for estimates of the value of tax-exempt property in the taxation district that is owned by various categories of owners, including property that is owned by the benevolent and educational associations; fraternal and labor organizations; nonprofit hospitals; private colleges; and churches and religious associations. The forms under subs. (1) and (2) shall be prepared and distributed under s. 70.09 (3).
70.337(4) (4)The department of revenue shall tabulate data from the forms received under sub. (2) and prepare an estimate of the value of tax-exempt property in this state by category of owner. The department shall include this information in the summary of tax exemption devices prepared under s. 16.425 (3).
70.337(5) (5)Each person that is required to file a report under sub. (1) shall pay a reasonable fee that is sufficient to defray the costs to the taxation district of distributing and reviewing the forms under sub. (1) and of preparing the form for the department of revenue under sub. (2). The amount of the fee shall be established by the governing body of the taxation district. This subsection does not apply to a church that is required to file a report under sub. (1).
70.337(6) (6)If the form under sub. (1) is not received by March 31 of the even-numbered year, the taxation district clerk shall send the owner of the property a notice, by certified mail, stating that the property for which the form is required will be appraised at the owner's expense if a completed form is not received by the taxation district clerk within 30 days after the notice is sent. If the completed form is not received by the taxation district clerk within 30 days after the notice is sent, the property shall be appraised either by the taxation district assessor or by a person hired by the taxation district to conduct the appraisal.
70.337(7) (7)This section does not apply to property that is exempt under s. 70.11 (1), (2), (13), (13m), (15), (15m), (21) or (30), property that is exempt under s. 70.11 (18) if a payment in lieu of taxes is made for that property, lake beds owned by the state, state forests under s. 28.03 or 28.035, county forests under s. 28.10, property acquired by the department of transportation under s. 85.08 or 85.09 or highways, as defined in s. 340.01 (22).
70.339 70.339 Reporting requirements.
70.339(1)(1)By March 15 each person that owns property that is exempt under s. 70.11, except s. 70.11 (1) and (2), and that was used in the most recently ended taxable year in a trade or business for which the owner of the property was subject to taxation under sections 511 to 515 of the internal revenue code, as defined in s. 71.22 (4m), shall file with the clerk of the taxation district in which the property is located a statement containing the following information:
70.339(1)(a) (a) The name, address and telephone number of the owner of the property.
70.339(1)(b) (b) The name, address and telephone number of a person who can be contacted concerning the use of the property in a trade or business.
70.339(1)(c) (c) A general description of the activities engaged in to conduct the trade or business.
70.339(1)(d) (d) The location and a description of the property that is used in the trade or business including, if applicable, the specific portion of a building that is used to conduct the trade or business.
70.339(2) (2)The format and distribution of statements under this section shall be governed by s. 70.09 (3).
70.339(3) (3)If the statement required under this section is not received by the due date, the taxation district clerk shall send the owner of the property a notice, by certified mail, stating that failure to file a statement is subject to the penalties under sub. (4).
70.339(4) (4)A person who fails to file a statement within 30 days after notification under sub. (3) shall forfeit $10 for each succeeding day on which the form is not received by the taxation district clerk, but not more than $500.
70.339 History History: 1991 a. 39, 269.
70.34 70.34 Personalty. All articles of personal property shall, as far as practicable, be valued by the assessor upon actual view at their true cash value; and after arriving at the total valuation of all articles of personal property which the assessor shall be able to discover as belonging to any person, if the assessor has reason to believe that such person has other personal property or any other thing of value liable to taxation, the assessor shall add to such aggregate valuation of personal property an amount which, in the assessor's judgment, will render such aggregate valuation a just and equitable valuation of all the personal property liable to taxation belonging to such person. In carrying out the duties imposed on the assessor by this section, the assessor shall act in the manner specified in the Wisconsin property assessment manual provided under s. 73.03 (2a).
70.34 History History: 1973 c. 90; 1991 a. 316.
70.34 Annotation “True cash value" is not a figure that can be determined by bargaining with the taxpayer, and such an agreement would be void. The unsupported statement of the taxpayer has no probative value. Berg Equipment Corp. v. Spencer Board of Review 53 Wis. 2d 233, 191 N.W.2d 892 (1971).
70.34 Annotation When there are no actual sales, cost, depreciation, replacement value, income, industrial conditions, location and occupancy, sales of like property, book value, insurance carried, value asserted in a prospectus, and appraisals are all relevant to determination of market value for assessment purposes. Mitchell Aero, Inc. v. Milwaukee Board of Review, 74 Wis. 2d 268, 246 N.W.2d 521 (1976).
70.34 Annotation A market data or sales approach was proper when 94 percent of machines were leased and only 6 percent were sold. An income capitalization approach has been used only when no sales exist. Xerox Corp. v. Department of Revenue, 114 Wis. 2d 522, 339 N.W.2d 357 (Ct. App. 1983).
70.345 70.345 Legislative intent; department of revenue to supply information. The assessor shall exercise particular care so that personal property as a class on the assessment rolls bears the same relation to statutory value as real property as a class. To assist the assessor in determining the true relationship between real estate and personal property the department of revenue shall make available to local assessors information including figures indicating the relationship between personal property and real property on the last assessment rolls.
Loading...
Loading...
2019-20 Wisconsin Statutes updated through 2021 Wis. Act 91 and through all Supreme Court and Controlled Substances Board Orders filed before and in effect on December 21, 2021. Published and certified under s. 35.18. Changes effective after December 21, 2021, are designated by NOTES. (Published 12-21-21)