provision having to do with a supportive living facilities which are defined in another part of the the statutes of illinois if you have a supportive living facility the way the assessment for tax purposes supposed to be done is according to plan three ninety of the code now generally when we talk about in the sest like there are several ways to assess property when would be a recent sale  properties in the area we can also look at the replacement costs trying to determine what the buy you property is another method is called the income capitalization approach and if a piece of county must use this method the end come capitalization approach so they take away all the other way wastes you're going to praise property and leave just this one method it then goes on to say that because this is a supporting supportive living facility which receives medicaid money the appraiser once they determine the income capitalization approach they must remove the medicaid money out of out of the equation removing that i think that are related to the predicate for so that when i started reading this the first thing that you know time for me is is there a place where the income capitalization approach is definitively  any place where i can remove the expenses and the administrative law judge what this opinion says very explicitly that there's nothing in the statute that allows for the removal of the expenses now question then the case of versus chicago which is the only supreme court case about how your target bypassing cases says you read the statute literally and apply it and if there's any disagreement as to  for example if this property is over a motor county if it was indicator on it in one of the poorer areas of town then the fact that you get all this income that would that would cause the building to be over assess a i believe that's the case that they look at it and of the appraisers were very clear especially the appraiser for peterson she said here in fact it's reported in the decision she got all of the income the net income out of her question when she applied for capitalization and came up with the the amount that the her valuation the but this statute doesn't talk about income it specifically says payment for medicaid for services and payments by a resident that would have been paid by medicaid at that residence but all of have been qualified so that's what's to come out the question that is would hurt or is there is it does it's a it's a speed you will use but everyone in that room agreed that there was no provision to take out the expenses that mr webster took out was not in the statute but but th net is if there is a defined income capitalization approach if that is defined in a specific way and that you exclude income from services that you also are not entitled to include your those particular expenses so the experts have decided that these expenses are not part of the income capitalization approach this is something he did in addition to a new response to the requirement that he must remove the payments for that i'll see what opposing counsel thinks about that because that i believe that he thought that he was using the income capitalization approach in doing what he did in his the justice post question is yes that is part of the income capitalization approach it would involve considering income and expenses that relate to the real estate but not considering business related expenses and that's because in illinois and i think this is true in most other states the tax is on the real property it's not on the business so expenses real what that are related to the business related to services from the from a business right would not be counted what it does take into account is rightfully a cop and that's the situation in which the an album approach is classically used when the properties primary it comes from rentals so in this case what was considered was the value of the  the units and also expenses that would have been related to the property itself up things like maintaining the grounds maintaining the buildings would have been considered but income and expenses from providing services to patients would not have been considered really what we're saying is they didn't need to put ten three deal with and we the best answer we could come up with is that this is the best way to interpret the statute that the both the income and both the business related income and expens dollars is inherent in the income capitalization approach and also it stems from the fact that section ten ninety three ninety eight refers to determining the fair market value of the property meaning the real property itself not the this ness and the dublin senior center limited partnership case from ohio talks about this now unfortunately we don't have a lot of case law delanoe i regarding the income approach because it's probably the least favorite approach hloise courts generally say you go with the sales comparison approach so we  section ten it's not a well written statute but i think because a section ten three ninety eight which again says you're determining the federal market value of just the property not the business and if you're not intended as a clarification and not really a change of the existing law if the statute is interpreted the way that peterson asked if huge change it's really it's a very big change that would really constitute a huge break for support of living facilities i mean it's dated another way a b contradict each other in the sense that given your definition is the come capitalisation wrote the absence of the reference to expansive would be is either an oversight or an inconsistency and we want to use that as a kind of that and we want to use this approach with assisted living facility but it's only on the income side but you're right i think a better way to already excluded from consideration by virtue of fact they didn't need to go there i think it's i think it's redundant but they were only redundant as to the income and not to get expensive and i know i i think it's clearer but i'm the opposite then from mr mc not just because it does say the object is to ascertain the fair market value of the statute using the income capitalization approach and if we only subtract out the business related expenses the expenses from providing services to patients and we don't also not and we but we still consider the income from services related to patient you're not going to get the fair market value in this case there are prayers or values for each year we're roughly three hundred thousand dollars for a fifty unit building  that would produce gross income probably of around a million dollars a year because the rent for each for the studio units is in one thousand nine hundred seventy five a month for the one bedroom units a twenty four hundred dollars a month so assuming they're all occupied that's a huge it's producing like i said over probably over a million dollars a month and yet the value would be around three hundred  be and extremely low valuation and in this regard i know mr mcnutt disagrees that that some sort of result but this is an area this is an area where the property tax  expertise in you know determining what you know the value properties are and should be and you know it determined here that that would be should not be considering business related income or expenses and again that case out of ohio that we cited dublin senior center does does support us it's true as  the ohio court held that his appraisal was properly not considered by the equivalent of p t a b that states approval in a p t a b because he applied the income approach in error by not separating out this missing comma and business expenses he included both business income that expense and the courts in his income capitalization approach and the court said no he should decision that the the income capitalization approach is to be applied to the property based upon its income bursars expenses it getting down to what is the by you of the property the statute however  goes on and it doesn't this next part of the statute doesn't part about that income it doesn't talk about expenses it says you're going to remove the payments for medicaid and that's what this appraiser d forget that this is a nursing home but what do you do with business expenses that occur because you're generating income be in the end come capitalization of birth you remove the business part of the  production of income out of if the if you have a strip mall you have businesses there your plan is generating income you look only to what it what the income capitalization approach is trying to determine what is the income off and she is an exception and it's saying under the way we're telling you to do it once you do that then you take up the medicaid payments and yes related services if they don't want to they don't want to pay for they don't want the medicaid to be part of the property tax  and that's would be a better isn't it already take it how you file all the income capitalization approach you know some of the and you know some of the medicaid and serve to pay for the rent that's part of the problem but this treasurer says we're going to take out the which she didn't do was go back and then subjectively remove expenses not up as i'm listening to the argument something in illinois we don't tax income tax we don't tax pensions and this is like saying medicaid for services that's something outside the i'm approached as far as if they were applying the income capitalization approach that's a totally separate step and not related to find that approach that's correct that's what you're