IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Charlie Choe, Michael Baio, Junda Zhu, :

Edward Rumell, Shanlin Shah, Jared :

Levin, Daniel Tokich, David Vansciver, :

Rebeccah Lavitan, Namita Kalyan, :

Moataz Elrafie, Adam Murray, :

Christopher Kui, Monica Burton, :

Patrick Lyman, Stephen Ficchi, Joan :

Schwartz, Meredith Armstrong, :

Brandon Karpo, Gennady Spector, :

Daniel Bigler, Dan Dubiner, Paul Kim, :

Pamela Beatrice, Bidlur Shivaprakash, :

Elisa Keppler, John Didomenicis, :

Alaina Gregorio, Marilyn Myers, :

Daniel Friel, Jan Topczewski, Gary :

Staegemann, Ronald Banner, Shira :

Cohen, Luigi Adamo, Lauren Dolaway, :

Sylvester Mendoza, Christopher Clay, :

Kristen Kammerer, Irving Scolnick, :

Caroline Lederman, Michael Hertz, :

Mary Ellen Byrne, Christopher Meffe, :

Jerry DeSiderato, Felix Korostin, John :

Hyson, Thomas Modafferi, Eugenio :

Boldrini, Sean Logue, Rina Kaplan, :

David Blumenfeld, Tapas Tejura, :

Thomas Murry, Lauren Aquino, Justin :

Mathews, Andry Oei, Ariel Jaduszuwer, :

Neelam Bhalakia, Stratton Lee, Zachary :

Berman, Lei Ju, Mian Jan, Daniel :

Levine, Adam Solow, Enrico Pagnanelli,:

Tuu Thampy, Marie Carroll, Jeffrey :

Rubin, Bin Meng, David Esola, Elena :

Bernardis, David Ackers, Lynn :

Rothman, Alan Herbert, David Waxman,:

Carolyn Gregory, Scott Rosenberg, :

Ajit Singh, Patricia Wong, Jeff Lazinger,:

Bartholomew Omalley, 111 S 15th St :

Associates, William Hammill, Daniel :

Spitzen, Costandi Awadalla, Michael :

Canino, Arthur Bachman, George Audi, :

Meredith Shapiro, Valsa Jacob, Farrah :
2

Awadalla, Jeremiah Eagan, Constantinos:

Ketonis, Michael Field, Peter Shulman, :

Gilberto Pereira, Garrett Miller, Carolyn :

Prager, Pushkar Murthy, Melissa :

Sigmond, Victoria Chen, Steven Appel, :

Siham Abarkan, Lance Moore, Georges :

Bandlec, Hsu-Nan Huang, Mitchell :

Kent, Rainer Westphal Trust, Caitlin :

Cantor, David Kwasny, Jacob Lazinger, :

John Wynn, R N Jwalamalini :

Kumaraiah, Laura Levenberg, Keerthi :

Gogineni, Anne Connelly, Arthur :

Armstrong, Edward English, Luv Ram :

Javia, Richard Gorniak, Stephanie :

Spaeder, Gary Grunder, Andrzei :

Cetnarski, Chaim Ouziel, Julie Terrana, :

Nevena Simidjiysha, Adam Telem, :

Stephen Lowe, Andrew Rosen and :

Mahbod Mohazzebi, :

Appellants :

:

v. : No. 1824 C.D. 2019

: Argued: March 15, 2021

From the Decision of the Philadelphia :

Board of Revision of Taxes :

BEFORE: HONORABLE P. KEVIN BROBSON, President Judge

HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge (P.)

HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge

OPINION BY 

PRESIDENT JUDGE BROBSON FILED: April 19, 2021

Appellants, who are current or former owners of condominium units in the 

Packard Grande Condominium building located at 111 South 15th Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (Property), appeal from an order of the Court of 

Common Pleas of Philadelphia County (Common Pleas), dated October 28, 2019, 
3

which denied Appellants’ appeal from a decision of the City of Philadelphia’s (City) 

Board of Revision of Taxes (BRT). BRT denied Appellants’ real estate market value 

appeals for tax years 2014 and 2015, wherein Appellants challenged the City’s 

Office of Property Assessment’s (OPA) termination of a 10-year tax abatement for

each of the individual condominium units effective December 31, 2013. For the 

reasons set forth below, we affirm Common Pleas’ order.

I. BACKGROUND

In 2001, Chest-Pac Associates, L.P. (Chest-Pac) and 111 South 15th Street

Associates, L.P. (Developer) purchased the Property, which at the time was a vacant 

office building. (Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 884a.) Upon acquisition, Chest-Pac 

and Developer divided the Property into 2 condominium units: Unit 1, which is 

comprised of floors 1 through 12, and Unit 2, which is comprised of 

floors 13 through 26. (Id. at 60a, 884a.) Chest-Pac redeveloped Unit 1 into retail

and office space. (Id. at 884a.) On August 20, 2002, Developer obtained a building 

permit for the redevelopment/conversion of Unit 2 into 153 residential rental units 

on floors 13 through 25 and a health spa on floor 26. (Id. at 51a, 884a.) Thereafter, 

on September 3, 2002, Developer filed an application for real estate tax exemption 

for Unit 2 of the Property with BRT.

1

 (Id. at 51a.) By letter dated March 20, 2003, 

1 At the time that Developer filed its application for real estate tax exemption, BRT was 

responsible for, inter alia, performing property assessments, approving real estate tax abatements 

and exemptions, and hearing appeals from property assessments. See Bd. of Revision of Taxes v. 

City of Phila., 4 A.3d 610, 615 (Pa. 2010). Sometime thereafter, the City’s Council, by ordinance, 

sought to abolish BRT and replace it with 2 newly created bodies: OPA and the Board of Property 

Assessment Appeals. Id. BRT and its members sought to challenge the ordinance before the 

Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Id. at 614-16. The Supreme Court, exercising plenary jurisdiction 

under 42 Pa. C.S. § 726, held that the ordinance was invalid “insofar as it eliminate[d] . . . BRT’s 

quasi-judicial appellate function and abolishe[d] . . . BRT entirely, replacing it with the 

newly[ ]created Board of Property Assessment Appeals.” Id. at 629. The Supreme Court further 

held that the invalid provisions were severable from the remainder of the ordinance. Id. Thus, 
4

BRT approved the application, thereby granting Developer a 10-year tax abatement 

for Unit 2 of the Property under Philadelphia Ordinance 1130, Philadelphia Code 

§ 19-1303.3. (Id. at 52a.) In that letter, BRT informed Developer that the tax 

abatement would commence on January 1st in the tax year immediately following 

the year in which the City’s Department of Licenses and Inspections (L&I) issued 

the initial certificate of occupancy for the Property. (Id.) L&I issued temporary 

certificates of occupancy for the Property on July 10, 2003, August 11, 2003, 

October 23, 2003, and December 15, 2003. (Id. at 53a-56a.) Subsequent thereto, 

by letter dated January 9, 2004, BRT informed Developer that the tax abatement

would be in effect from January 2004 through December 2013. (Supplemental 

Reproduced Record (Suppl. R.R.) at 2b.)

By letter dated June 10, 2005, David Grasso, Developer’s general partner, 

informed David Glancey, BRT’s then Chairman, that Developer intended to convert 

the 153 residential rental units located in Unit 2 of the Property into individual 

condominium units and offer them for sale. (R.R. at 60a.) In that letter, Mr. Grasso 

acknowledged that the Property was “subject to a [10-]year tax abatement that began 

on January 1, 2004[,] and ends on December 31, 2013.” (Id.) Mr. Grasso further 

noted his belief “that the current abatement should be able to be provided to 

[Developer’s] condominium buyers as owner[-]occupants on a pro-rata basis,” 

but requested assistance from Mr. Glancey and BRT with figuring out how to 

accomplish the transfer. (Id.) On July 26, 2005, in response to BRT’s 

guidance/instructions, Developer filed a separate application for real estate tax 

following the Supreme Court’s decision, BRT is responsible for hearing/deciding property 

assessment appeals, while OPA is responsible for the administrative and ministerial functions 

relative to property assessments, including approving real estate tax abatements and exemptions. 

Id. at 628-30.
5

exemption for each of the 153 individual condominium units with BRT. 

(Id. at 62a-176a.) By letters dated December 8, 2005, BRT approved the 

applications, thereby granting Developer a 10-year tax abatement for each of 

the 153 individual condominium units under Philadelphia Ordinance 961, 

Philadelphia Code § 19-1303.2. (Id. at 61a-175a.) In each of those letters, BRT 

explained:

The [10]-year abatement term will begin on January 1, in the tax year 

immediately following the year in which the improvements are 

completed. In order to begin this exemption, you must notify [BRT] in 

writing of the completion date of the improvements. The abatement 

term and the abatable assessment will then be implemented as provided 

by [Philadelphia] Ordinance [961, Philadelphia Code § 19-1303.2].

(Id. (emphasis in originals).)

L&I issued the final certificates of occupancy for the Property on 

May 10, 2005. (Id. at 58a-59a.) By letters dated December 23, 2005, Developer’s 

general counsel, Richard A. Koory, Esquire (Attorney Koory), provided BRT with 

the final certificate of occupancy for floors 13 through 25 of the Property, as well as 

certificates of completion for each of the 153 individual condominium units. 

(Id. at 177a-748a, 911a-13a.) In those letters, Attorney Koory indicated that each of 

the 153 individual condominium units were “completed on May 10, 2005, and thus 

the [t]ax [a]batement [t]erm should begin on January 1, 2006, the tax year 

immediately following the date in which the improvements were completed.” (Id.) 

Following their purchase of the individual condominium units, Appellants’ annual 

real estate tax bills included a tax abatement for a portion of their real estate taxes.

(Id. at 834a-83a, 885a-86a.) The real estate tax bills that Appellants received for tax 

years 2014 and 2015 did not, however, include such an abatement. (Id.)

On October 1, 2014, Developer’s attorney, Edgar R. Einhorn, Esquire 

(Attorney Einhorn), filed real estate market value appeals for tax 
6

years 2014 and 2015 with BRT on behalf of “all [of the Property’s 153 individual 

condominium] units,”

2

challenging what Appellants have characterized as OPA’s 

premature termination of the tax abatements for the individual condominium units

after a period of only 8 years. (Id. at 749a.) BRT held a hearing on the appeals on 

September 21, 2015, at which time, BRT heard argument from Attorney Einhorn 

and counsel for OPA; BRT did not, however, hear testimony from any witnesses. 

(Id. at 750a-93a.) After taking a short break to deliberate, BRT concluded on the 

record that only a 10-year tax abatement applied to the Property. (Id. at 793a.) 

Thereafter, on October 27, 2015, BRT issued a written decision/order, wherein BRT 

reiterated its conclusion that “ONLY A [10-]YEAR TAX ABATEMENT APPLIES 

TO THIS BUILDING.” (Id. at 803a.) Appellants appealed BRT’s decision/order 

to Common Pleas. By opinion dated June 2, 2017, Common Pleas determined that 

the record was insufficient to address Appellants’ argument that BRT had 

granted 2, separate 10-year tax abatements for the Property—the first under 

Philadelphia Ordinance 1130, Philadelphia Code § 19-1303.3, and the second under 

Philadelphia Ordinance 961, Philadelphia Code § 19-1303.2—and, therefore, 

Common Pleas vacated BRT’s decision and remanded the matter to BRT for a new 

hearing. (Id. at 890a-92a.)

BRT held a second hearing on December 4, 2017. At that time, Appellants 

offered the testimony of Attorney Koory, who testified that he sent the 

2 At the time of the September 21, 2015 hearing before BRT, Attorney Einhorn withdrew 

the appeals of those individual condominium unit owners who had not provided him with a 

completed representation form. (R.R. at 751a-56a.) Attorney Einhorn also noted that one of the 

individual condominium unit owners had previously advised him that he/she did not want to 

proceed with the appeal. (Id. at 752a.) Appellants in this matter are, therefore, only 

those 138 individual condominium unit owners—some of which own more than one condominium 

unit—who made the decision to proceed with the appeal before BRT and who provided Attorney 

Einhorn with a completed representation form.
7

December 23, 2005 letters to BRT to satisfy the requirements necessary to begin 

the 10-year term of the tax abatement on the individual condominium units as of 

January 1, 2006. (Id. at 923a-24a.) He indicated that he did not, however, receive

any communication from BRT in response to his December 23, 2005 letters—i.e., 

BRT never confirmed or denied that the tax abatements on the individual 

condominium units began on January 1, 2006. (Id. at 913a-14a, 924a-25a.) 

Attorney Koory further indicated that, at each of the closings for the sale of the 

individual condominium units, he provided the purchaser with a copy of the 

applicable December 23, 2005 letter. (Id. at 915a.) He also testified that he 

informed each purchaser that he/she would receive a 10-year tax abatement on 

his/her condominium unit that began on January 1, 2006. (Id. at 924a-25a.)

Appellants also offered the testimony of Justin Mathews, Jeff Lazinger, 

Scott Rosenberg, and Ryan Zeichner, 4 of the condominium unit owners. 

Mr. Mathews, Mr. Lazinger, and Mr. Zeichner testified that Attorney Koory

and/or Developer advised them that with their purchase of a condominium unit

they would receive a 10-year tax abatement for a portion of their real estate taxes. 

(Id. at 932a, 936a, 942a-43a, 946a-47a, 962a-63a.) They also testified that they 

relied upon that statement, as well as Developer’s marketing materials/sales pitch, 

when they made their decisions to purchase their condominium units. 

(Id. at 932a-33a, 936a, 943a-45a, 948a-49a, 963a-66a.) In fact, Mr. Mathews and 

Mr. Lazinger indicated that, without the 10-year tax abatement, they would not have 

purchased a condominium unit. (Id. at 933a-34a, 943a-44a, 947a.) Mr. Mathews, 

Mr. Lazinger, and Mr. Zeichner admitted, however, that they did not contact any 

City agency to confirm that they would receive a 10-year tax abatement for their 

condominium units that began on January 1, 2006. (Id. at 937a, 946a-47a, 
8

968a-69a.) Similarly, Mr. Rosenberg, a subsequent purchaser, testified that the 

listing for his condominium unit included a statement that there was a 6-to-7-year 

tax abatement that would be transferred to him at the time of sale and that he relied 

upon that statement when he made his decision to purchase his condominium unit. 

(Id. at 952a-56a, 958a-59a.) Mr. Rosenberg also admitted, however, that he did not 

contact any City agency to confirm that he would receive a 6-to-7-year tax abatement 

on his condominium unit. (Id. at 958a.) In addition to the testimony of 

Mr. Mathews, Mr. Lazinger, Mr. Rosenberg, and Mr. Zeichner, Appellants also 

offered affidavits from a substantial number of the other condominium unit owners. 

(Id. at 834a-83a.) In those affidavits, the condominium unit owners indicated that, 

at the time they purchased their units, they relied upon the tax abatement to provide 

them with additional funds to pay their expenses, such as mortgage payments. (Id.)

Appellants also offered the testimony of Mr. Grasso, who testified that he 

believed that BRT had granted a new 10-year tax abatement on each of the individual 

condominium units. (Id. at 978a.) Mr. Grasso explained that, based upon that belief, 

Developer advertised that the sale of the individual condominium units would 

include a 10-year tax abatement. (Id. at 978a, 981a.) With respect to the 2 years of 

tax abatement that Developer had already received, Mr. Grasso indicated: “I didn’t 

know whether they were going to bill me back for the previous [2] years or not that 

we had gotten, but I knew we were given 10 years to these buyers. I didn’t know 

what was happening to the previous [2] years.” (Id. at 982a.)

On December 15, 2017, BRT issued a written decision/order, wherein BRT 

concluded that “ONLY A [10-]YEAR TAX ABATEMENT APPLIES TO THIS 

BUILDING BEGINNING IN 2004.” (Id. at 1018a.) Appellants appealed BRT’s 

decision/order to Common Pleas. By order dated October 28, 2019, Common Pleas 
9

denied Appellants’ appeal, concluding that OPA properly terminated the 10-year tax 

abatement for the Property, effective December 31, 2013. Appellants appealed 

Common Pleas’ order to this Court, and Common Pleas directed Appellants to file a 

statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of 

Appellate Procedure (Rule) 1925(b). In its Rule 1925(a) opinion, Common Pleas 

reasoned:

In 2001, Developer purchased the [Property]. The [Property 

consists of] a [25-]story structure,[3]first built in 1900, that up to that 

point had been used as an office building. . . . Developer rehabbed the 

[Property] and converted floors [13] through [25] into [153] residential 

rental units.

On September 3, 2002, [Mr.] Grasso, acting as the [g]eneral 

[p]artner of . . . Developer, applied for a [10-]year tax abatement for the 

“[c]onversion of floors 13[ through ]25 into 153 residential rental units 

and floor 26 into [a] [h]ealth [s]pa for residents[’] use.” At the time of 

the application, full rehabilitation and conversion had only been 

completed on floors [24] and [25]. On March 20, 2003, . . . BRT issued 

a letter granting the abatement application for a [10-]year term. 

On January 9, 2004, . . . BRT issued a letter confirming the abatement 

period from January 2004 to December 2013. In 2003[,] the conversion 

of the [Property] to residential apartment use was completed.

At the time of its purchase, the [Property] was a “deteriorated 

property,” as defined by [the Local Economic Revitalization Tax 

Assistance Act (LERTA)].

[4]

 As stated above, when . . . Developer 

purchased the [Property] it was zoned and used as an office building. 

As such, . . . Developer’s construction and rehabilitation of the 

[Property] constituted a conversion from commercial to residential use. 

The conversion [sic] “construction, improvement, or conversion of 

deteriorated commercial properties” implicates LERTA and 

Philadelphia Code . . . § 19-1303[.3]. Therefore, the 2004 [a]batement: 

(1) was properly applied for and granted under LERTA and 

Philadelphia Code . . . § 19-1303[.3]; (2) began on January 1, 2004; 

and[] (3) terminated on December 31, 2013.

3

It is our understanding that the Property contains a 26-story structure, not a 25-story 

structure.

4 Act of December 1, 1977, P.L. 237, as amended, 72 P.S. §§ 4722-4727.
10

On June 10, 2005, [Mr.] Grasso informed . . . BRT that 

floors [13] through [25] of the [Property] had been converted from 

apartment units to luxury condominium units and subsequently sold. 

In his letter, [Mr.] Grasso requested that the existing 2004 [a]batement 

be provided to the new owner-occupants of the condominium units. 

On December 8, 2005, after the new owner-occupants had filed 

separate applications with . . . BRT, the 2004 [a]batement was 

transferred.

Appellants aver that the language of [BRT’s December 8, 2005 

approval letter] had the effect of starting a new abatement that would 

run from 2006 through 2015. Such a “re-set” of an abatement is not 

provided for by the General Assembly in either LERTA or 

[the Improvement of Deteriorating Real Property or Areas Tax 

Exemption Act (IDRPA)],[5] nor in the relevant portions of 

[T]he Philadelphia Code. In fact, [Section 5(c) of] LERTA[, 72 P.S. 

§ 4726(c),] . . . [provides] that, “[t]he exemption from taxes authorized 

by this act shall be upon the property exempted and shall not 

terminate upon the sale or exchange of the property.” Therefore, it is

well established that [BRT’s] December 8, 2005[ approval letter]

merely conveyed the balance of the 2004 [a]batement to the 

owner-occupants of the condo[minium] units.

On December 8, 2005, the new owner-occupants received . . . 

[approval l]etter[s] from . . . BRT. [Those l]etter[s] provide[,] 

in pertinent part, “[t]he [10]-year abatement term will begin on 

January 1, in the tax year immediately following the year in which the 

improvements are completed.” Appellants aver that this generic, 

boilerplate, language had the effect of the [sic] inducing the by [sic] the 

owner-occupant’s [sic] reliance on a new abatement that would run 

from 2006 through 2015.

It is clear from the record that [Mr.] Grasso knew and understood 

that the abatement would end in 2013. [Mr.] Grasso’s [June 10,] 2005 

[l]etter referenced the transfer of “the current abatement” to the new 

occupant owners, and [Mr.] Grasso stated that the [Property] was 

“[s]ubject to a ten [(10)-]year tax abatement that began on 

January 1, 2004[,] and ends on December 31, 2013.” Finally, even if 

the boilerplate language in [BRT’s December 8, 2005 approval] letter 

could be interpreted to create a new abatement, . . . BRT lacked the 

legal authority, granted by LERTA and the General Assembly, to award 

another abatement beginning in January of 2006.

5 Act of July 9, 1971, P.L. 206, as amended, 72 P.S. §§ 4711-101 to -305.
11

Appellants aver that the improvements completed in 2005, which 

converted the recently completed apartments to luxury condominium 

units, equate to the rehabilitating improvements conducted upon 

deteriorated properties as defined under LERTA, IDRPA, and the 

corresponding sections of [T]he Philadelphia Code. Therefore, 

Appellants aver that a new [10-]year abatement term began to run 

[in] 2006. First, after the completion of the conversion from office 

building to apartments, the [Property] no longer qualified as 

“deteriorated” under Philadelphia Code § 19-1303[.2] and LERTA. 

Second, the optional conversion of apartment units to condominium 

units, for . . . Developer’s financial gain, does not rise to the level of 

rehabilitation for the purpose of habitability, safety, health, amenity, or 

compliance, as required under Philadelphia Code § 19-1303[.2] and 

LERTA.

Finally, for the sake of argument, Appellants’ position that 

[the Property’s] 2005 conversion to condominiums created a new 

abatement, would create a loophole that would allow taxpayers to stack 

successive [10-]year abatements with every new remodeling project. 

Such a loophole would fly in the face of Article [VIII], Section 2 of the 

Pennsylvania . . . Constitution[,] which empowers local taxing 

authorities to “make uniform special tax provisions applicable to a 

taxpayer for a limited period of time to encourage improvement of 

deteriorating property . . . [.]”

It is clear that the 2004 [a]batement was proper and naturally 

terminated in 2013 under Article [VIII], Section 2 of the Pennsylvania 

. . . Constitution, LERTA, and Philadelphia Code § 19-1303[.3]. 

Furthermore, Appellants have failed to meet their heavy burden of 

showing an exemption is warranted. Therefore, both this court’s 

decision that the 2004 abatement properly terminated at the end 

of 2013, and this court’s denial of . . . Appellants’ appeal from [BRT’s 

decision] were proper.

(Trial Ct. Op. at 7-10 (emphasis in original) (citations omitted) (headings omitted).)

II. ARGUMENTS ON APPEAL

On appeal,6 Appellants essentially argue that BRT committed an error of law 

by concluding that the 10-year tax abatement applicable to the individual 

6 Where, as here, the court of common pleas does not take any additional evidence but 

decides the matter solely on the record created before the local agency, this Court’s scope of review 
12

condominium units terminated/expired as of December 31, 2013; and (2) even if

BRT properly concluded that the 10-year tax abatement on the individual 

condominium units terminated/expired as of December 31, 2013, principles of 

equity require that Appellants receive a full 10-year tax abatement on their 

condominium units beginning on January 1, 2006, and ending on

December 31, 2015.

7

III. DISCUSSION

A. Real Property Tax Abatements Generally

Article VIII, Section 2(b)(iii) of the Pennsylvania Constitution permits the 

General Assembly to enact laws that, inter alia, “[e]stablish standards and 

qualifications by which local taxing authorities may make uniform special tax 

provisions applicable to a taxpayer for a limited period of time to encourage 

improvement of deteriorating property or areas by an individual, association or 

corporation, or to encourage industrial development by a non-profit corporation.” 

Pursuant to this constitutional authority, the General Assembly enacted IDRPA and 

LERTA, both of which authorize local taxing authorities to provide real property tax 

abatements for improvements made to certain deteriorated properties. See

Section 102 of IDRPA, 72 P.S. § 4711-102; Section 2 of LERTA, 72 P.S. § 4723. 

More specifically, IDRPA authorizes local taxing authorities to provide tax 

abatements for “improvements to certain deteriorated residential property and 

areas,” whereas LERTA authorizes local taxing authorities to provide tax 

is limited to determining whether the local agency violated any constitutional rights, whether the 

local agency committed an error of law, or whether the local agency’s factual findings are 

supported by substantial evidence. Kuziak v. Borough of Danville, 125 A.3d 470, 474 n.2 

(Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (citing Spencer v. City of Reading Charter Bd., 97 A.3d 834, 839 

(Pa. Cmwlth. 2014); 2 Pa. C.S. § 754(b)).

7 We have condensed Appellants’ arguments for purposes of discussion.
13

abatements for “new construction in deteriorated areas of economically depressed 

communities and improvements to certain deteriorated industrial, commercial or 

other business property.” 72 P.S. § 4711-102(a); 72 P.S. § 4723.

Pursuant to the authority granted to it under IDRPA and LERTA, the City’s 

Council adopted 2 ordinances that are relevant to this appeal: Philadelphia 

Ordinance 1130, which is codified at Philadelphia Code § 19-1303.3, and 

Philadelphia Ordinance 961, which is codified at Philadelphia Code § 19-1303.2. 

Under Philadelphia Code § 19-1303.3, which was adopted under LERTA, an 

applicant is entitled to receive a tax abatement for improvements made to 

deteriorated industrial, commercial, or other business property. Under Philadelphia 

Code § 19-1303.2, which was adopted under IDRPA, an applicant is entitled to 

receive a tax abatement for improvements made to eligible residential property. 

IDRPA, LERTA, Philadelphia Code § 19-1303.2, and Philadelphia Code 

§ 19-1303.3 limit the maximum tax abatement for improvements made to 

deteriorated property to 10 years. See Section 203(a)(5) of IDRPA, 72 P.S. 

§ 4711-203(a)(5); 72 P.S. § 4726(b)(1); Philadelphia Code § 19-1303.3(4)(b)(.1); 

Philadelphia Code § 19-1303.2(5)(a). Stated another way, a property 

owner/taxpayer is entitled to receive a single 10-year tax abatement for 

improvements made to a deteriorated property. In addition, a tax abatement granted 

under IDRPA, LERTA, Philadelphia Code § 19-1303.2, and Philadelphia Code 

§ 19-1303.3 is on the property and does not terminate upon the sale or exchange of 

the property. See 72 P.S. § 4711-203(c); 72 P.S. § 4726(c); Philadelphia Code 

§ 19-1303.3(4)(b)(.2); Philadelphia Code § 19-1303.2(5)(b).
14

B. Termination/Expiration of 10-Year Tax Abatement

Appellants argue that BRT committed an error of law by concluding that 

the 10-year tax abatement applicable to the individual condominium units 

terminated/expired as of December 31, 2013. More specifically, Appellants contend 

that BRT’s December 8, 2005 letters plainly and unambiguously establish that BRT 

granted a 10-year tax abatement on the individual condominium units, not an 8-year 

tax abatement. Appellants further contend that, because the final certificates of 

occupancy for the Property were not issued until May 10, 2005, the 10-year tax 

abatement on the individual condominium units would have started on 

January 1, 2006, and ended on December 31, 2015. Appellants, therefore, suggest 

that by terminating the 10-year tax abatement for the individual condominium units 

effective December 31, 2013, the City, namely OPA, improperly implemented the 

tax abatement based upon the temporary certificates of occupancy that L&I issued 

in 2003, rather than the final certificates of occupancy that L&I issued in 2005.

8

8 Appellants further argue that the central dispute in this case is not whether the Property—

or individual condominium units—is tax exempt or should be entitled to receive a tax abatement, 

but rather, whether the previously granted tax abatement should have been terminated effective 

December 31, 2013. As a result, Appellants suggest that Common Pleas applied an incorrect 

standard—i.e., that “statutory provisions exempting property from taxation should be strictly 

construed”—and burden of proof—i.e., “a heightened burden” or “heavy burden.” 

(Appellants’ Br. at 21-22.) Appellants do not, however, suggest what standard or burden of proof 

Common Pleas should have applied under the circumstances. In any event, as explained more 

fully below, Appellants’ arguments relative to the ultimate issues presented in this case fail 

regardless of whether the relevant provisions of LERTA, IDRPA, and The Philadelphia Code are 

strictly construed or whether Appellants are held to a heightened burden of proof.
15

In response, the City argues that BRT properly concluded that the 10-year tax 

abatement applicable to the individual condominium units expired on 

December 31, 2013, because, pursuant to IDRPA, LERTA, Philadelphia Code 

§ 19-1303.2, and Philadelphia Code § 19-1303.3, BRT could not grant any more 

than a 10-year tax abatement for the improvements made to the Property. 

More specifically, the City contends that, because Developer enjoyed the 

first 2 years of the 10-year tax abatement that BRT granted for the improvements 

that Developer made to the Property and that tax abatement continued on the 

Property upon Developer’s sale of the individual condominium units, Appellants 

were only entitled to have the remainder of that 10-year tax abatement transferred to 

them. In other words, Appellants were not entitled to a brand new 10-year 

tax abatement simply because Developer converted Unit 2 of the Property 

from 153 residential rental units to 153 individual condominium units. 

The City further argues that, contrary to Appellants’ contentions, the plain and 

unambiguous language of BRT’s December 8, 2005 letters did not provide a 

new 10-year tax abatement for the individual condominium units beginning on 

January 1, 2006. The City contends, rather, that BRT’s December 8, 2005 letters 

indicated that the 10-year term of the tax abatement for the individual condominium 

units would begin in the tax year immediately following the year in which the 

improvements were completed, which would have been January 1, 2004, not 

January 1, 2006, because Developer had previously informed BRT that the 

improvements to the Property had been completed in 2003. The City also contends 

that the evidence presented to BRT establishes both that “the course of dealing 

between . . . Developer and . . . BRT shows that both parties intended to simply 

transfer the remainder of the existing abatement” and that “BRT had 
16

treated the [existing] abatement as having been transferred, not re-started.”

(City’s Br. at 26, 27.) Lastly, the City contends that Appellants’ argument that BRT 

should not have commenced the 10-year tax abatement based upon the temporary 

certificates of occupancy but, instead, should have waited until Developer received 

the final certificates of occupancy is “over a decade too late,” and, even if it was

timely, Appellants “have not produced any authority that temporary certificates of 

occupancy are legally insufficient proof of completion to trigger the start of the [tax] 

abatement term.” (City’s Br. at 29, 31.)

While we recognize that BRT’s December 8, 2005 letters may “plainly and 

unambiguously” indicate that the individual condominium units would receive 

a 10-year tax abatement, the key consideration is when that 10-year tax abatement 

began. Appellants would like this Court to ignore both the law and the facts and 

circumstances surrounding this case and conclude that the 10-year tax abatement 

applicable to the individual condominium units began on January 1, 2006. This we 

cannot do. BRT’s December 8, 2005 letters do not indicate the exact date on which 

the term of the 10-year tax abatement for the individual condominium units would 

commence. Rather, BRT’s December 8, 2005 letters provide, in relevant part, that 

“[t]he [10]-year abatement term will begin on January 1, in the tax year immediately 

following the year in which the improvements are completed.” (R.R. at 61a-175a.) 

The tax year in which the improvements are completed is critical because it is the 

improvements made to deteriorated property that qualify the Property for a tax 

abatement. See 72 P.S. § 4711-102; 72 P.S. § 4723; Philadelphia Code § 19-1303.3; 

Philadelphia Code § 19-1303.2. Here, by the time that BRT issued the 

December 8, 2005 letters, Developer had already informed BRT that the 

improvements to the Property had been completed—i.e., Developer provided BRT 
17

with copies of the temporary certificates of occupancy that L&I had issued for the 

Property. Thus, based upon the “plain and unambiguous” language of BRT’s 

December 8, 2005 letters and the date on which Developer informed BRT that the 

improvements to the Property had been completed, the 10-year term of the tax 

abatement granted on the individual condominium units commenced on 

January 1, 2004, and ended on December 31, 2013.

That conclusion is further bolstered by the statutory provisions set forth in 

IDRPA, LERTA, Philadelphia Code § 19-1303.2, and Philadelphia Code 

§ 19-1303.3, all of which limit the maximum tax abatement for improvements 

made to deteriorated property to 10 years. See 72 P.S. § 4711-203(a)(5); 72 P.S. 

§ 4726(b)(1); Philadelphia Code § 19-1303.2(5)(a); Philadelphia Code 

§ 19-1303.3(4)(b)(.1). BRT granted Developer, upon its application, a 10-year tax 

abatement for Unit 2 of the Property by letter dated March 20, 2003, which 

Developer subsequently acknowledged began on January 1, 2004, and ended on 

December 31, 2013. (See R.R. at 51a-56a, 60a; Suppl. R.R. at 2b.) Developer was 

not entitled to a brand new 10-year tax abatement simply because Developer

thereafter converted the 153 residential rental unitsinto 153 individual condominium 

units. By that time, Developer not only had applied for and had been granted 

a 10-year tax abatement for Unit 2 of the Property, but Developer had also enjoyed 

the first 2 years of that 10-year tax abatement and did not object to BRT starting the 

period of that 10-year tax abatement based upon the temporary certificates of 

occupancy for the Property. In addition, when Developer converted Unit 2 of the 

Property—i.e., the 153 residential rental units—into 153 individual condominium 

units and offered them for sale, most, if not all, of the improvements had already 

been made to the Property and the Property no longer qualified as deteriorated. 
18

Thus, Developer would not have qualified for a tax abatement under Philadelphia 

Code § 19-1303.2. BRT’s guidance/instructions to file new applications for each of 

the individual condominium units under Philadelphia Code § 19-1303.2, therefore, 

appears to have been a mechanism by which BRT could include the existing tax 

abatement on 153 separate real estate tax bills for each of the individual 

condominium units. Moreover, when Developer contacted BRT regarding the 

conversion of the 153 residential rental units into 153 individual condominium units, 

Developer acknowledged that BRT had already granted a 10-year tax abatement on 

the Property and requested assistance in providing the “current abatement” to the 

purchasers of the individual condominium units. (See R.R. at 60a.) For all these 

reasons, Developer could only pass along to Appellants the 8 years that remained on 

the 10-year term of the existing/original tax abatement. As a result, we cannot 

conclude that BRT committed an error of law by determining that the 10-year tax 

abatement applicable to the individual condominium units terminated/expired as of 

December 31, 2013.

C. Equity

Appellants argue, for the first time in this appeal, that, even if BRT properly 

concluded that the 10-year tax abatement applicable to the individual condominium 

units terminated/expired as of December 31, 2013, principles of equity require that 

Appellants receive a full 10-year tax abatement on their condominium units

beginning on January 1, 2006, and ending on December 31, 2015. In that regard, 

Appellants contend that, because BRT informed Appellants in writing that they 

would receive a 10-year tax abatement on their individual condominium units, this 

Court should apply the doctrine of equitable estoppel and preclude the City from 

“depriving [Appellants] of the preconceived benefits of a [10]-year real estate tax 
19

reduction.” (Appellants’ Br. at 25.) Relying upon a statement made by Common 

Pleas in its June 2, 2017 opinion vacating BRT’s initial order/decision and 

remanding the matter to BRT for a new hearing, Appellants suggest that BRT’s 

December 8, 2005 letters were not “boilerplate” and did not serve merely to transfer 

the existing 10-year tax abatement to the individual condominium unit owners, 

because, standing alone, those letters would lead the individual condominium unit 

owners to believe that the 10-year tax abatement would commence on 

January 1, 2006. Appellants further suggest that the evidence of record—namely, 

that BRT instructed Developer to file new applications for the individual 

condominium units under Philadelphia Code § 19-1303.2, that no BRT employee 

ever indicated to Developer that the existing abatement would be transferred, and 

that nowhere in BRT’s December 8, 2005 letters did BRT indicate that the term of 

the abatement would be 8 years rather than 10 years—clearly establishes that 

Appellants justifiably relied upon BRT’s December 8, 2005 letters to mean that 

Appellants had been granted a 10-year tax abatement. Appellants further contend 

that “[t]his Court should be especially willing to exercise its equitable powers” and 

rule in favor of Appellants because their position is consistent with what they have 

characterized as “[m]odern [e]nabling [l]egislation,”

9

entitling a property 

9 The “modern enabling legislation” cited and relied upon by Appellants is Section 205 of 

The General County Assessment Law, Act of May 22, 1933, P.L. 853, as amended, added by the 

Act of July 29, 1970, P.L. 642, 72 P.S. § 5020-205, which is entitled “Temporary tax exemption 

for residential construction,” and provides, in relevant part:

(b) New single and multiple dwellings constructed for residential purposes 

and improvements to existing unoccupied dwellings or improvements to existing 

structures for purposes of conversion to dwellings, shall not be valued or assessed 

for purposes of real property taxes until (1) occupied, (2) conveyed to a bona fide 

purchaser or, (3) [30] months from the first day of the month after which the 

building permit was issued or, if no building permit or other notification of 

improvement was required, then from the date construction commenced.
20

owner/developer to receive a “construction abatement.” (Appellants’ Br. at 32.) 

In support thereof, Appellants suggest that, “[h]ad the [c]onstruction [a]batement 

been in effect when the Property was first renovated, [Developer] would have 

applied for the [c]onstruction [a]batement and would have enjoyed a [2]-year period 

of abatement prior to converting the [rental] units into condominium[ units, and, 

u]pon the sale of each [condominium ]unit, the abatement would have converted, as 

it did, into an . . . abatement [under Philadelphia Code § 19-1303.2,] granting each 

condominium unit owner a separate [10]-year abatement term.” (Id. at 33.)

In response, the City argues that Appellants’ equitable estoppel argument 

lacks merit because, even if BRT actively misrepresented that Appellants would 

receive a brand new 10-year tax abatement on their individual condominium units, 

BRT cannot be estopped from collecting taxes, an essential government function, or 

compelled to award a tax benefit that exceeds its authority under IDRPA, LERTA, 

Philadelphia Code § 19-1303.2, and Philadelphia Code § 19-1303.3. The City 

further argues that, even if the doctrine of equitable estoppel could be applied to 

BRT under these circumstances, Appellants have not established the required 

elements for equitable estoppel—i.e., a misrepresentation made by BRT directly to 

Appellants, rather than to Developer and subsequently “passed-through” to 

Appellants, that Developer’s reliance on BRT’s December 8, 2005 letters as 

establishing a brand new 10-year tax abatement on the individual condominium units 

beginning on January 1, 2006, was reasonable, or that BRT made a 

misrepresentation of material fact, as opposed to a misrepresentation of law. 

The City also contends that the “construction abatement” cannot form the basis for 

equitable relief because Appellants have not advanced any viable claim that would 

justify extending their tax abatement for an additional 2 years.
21

Even if we were to put aside the fact that Appellants may have waived their 

equitable arguments by failing to raise them before BRT and/or Common Pleas,10

we cannot conclude that Appellants would be entitled to equitable relief. 

“[T]he Commonwealth [of Pennsylvania] or its subdivisions or instrumentalities[, in 

this case the City,] cannot be estopped ‘by the acts of its agents and employees if 

those acts are outside the agent’s powers, in violation of positive law, or acts which 

require legislative or executive action.’” Cent. Storage & Transfer Co. v. Kaplan, 

410 A.2d 292, 294 (Pa. 1979) (quoting Kellams v. Pub. Sch. Emps.’ Ret. Bd., 

403 A.2d 1315, 1318 (Pa. 1979) (Larsen, J., Opinion in Support of Reversal)). 

Thus, even if Appellants could establish all of the elements necessary to assert a 

claim under the theory of equitable estoppel11—including that BRT somehow 

misrepresented to Appellants, who were not the direct recipients of BRT’s 

December 8, 2005 letters and who did not even own the individual condominium 

units at the time that BRT issued its December 8, 2005 letters, that the 10-year tax 

abatement applicable to the individual condominium units commenced on 

January 1, 2006, and ended on December 31, 2015—Appellants cannot prevail 

because BRT could only grant a maximum of 10 years of tax abatement for the 

improvements that Developer made to the Property. See 72 P.S. § 4711-203(a)(5); 

10 Although the City noted, but did not definitively raise, the waiver issue, “an appellate 

court may sua sponte refuse to address an issue raised on appeal that was not raised and preserved 

below.” Lynch v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 710 A.2d 126, 128 n.6 

(Pa. Cmwlth. 1998).

11 “The doctrine of equitable estoppel may be applied to a Commonwealth agency when 

the party asserting estoppel establishes that: (1) the agency negligently misrepresented a material 

fact; (2) the agency knew or had reason to know that the party would justifiably rely on the 

misrepresentation; and (3) the party acted to his or her detriment by justifiably relying on the 

misrepresentation.” Forbes v. Pa. Dep’t of Corr., 931 A.2d 88, 94 n.6 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007), aff’d, 

946 A.2d 103 (Pa. 2008), cert. denied, 555 U.S. 1192 (2009).
22

72 P.S. § 4726(b)(1); Philadelphia Code § 19-1303.3(4)(b)(.1); Philadelphia Code 

§ 19-1303.2(5)(a). As explained more fully above, Developer used and enjoyed the 

first 2 years of that 10-year tax abatement and, therefore, could only pass along to 

Appellants the remainder of that 10-year term, which ended on December 31, 2013. 

As a result, we cannot conclude that Appellants are entitled to equitable relief in the 

form of a 10-year tax abatement on their condominium units beginning on 

January 1, 2006, and ending on December 31, 2015.

IV. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, we affirm Common Pleas’ order.

P. KEVIN BROBSON, President Judge
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Charlie Choe, Michael Baio, Junda Zhu, :

Edward Rumell, Shanlin Shah, Jared :

Levin, Daniel Tokich, David Vansciver, :

Rebeccah Lavitan, Namita Kalyan, :

Moataz Elrafie, Adam Murray, :

Christopher Kui, Monica Burton, :

Patrick Lyman, Stephen Ficchi, Joan :

Schwartz, Meredith Armstrong, :

Brandon Karpo, Gennady Spector, :

Daniel Bigler, Dan Dubiner, Paul Kim, :

Pamela Beatrice, Bidlur Shivaprakash, :

Elisa Keppler, John Didomenicis, :

Alaina Gregorio, Marilyn Myers, :

Daniel Friel, Jan Topczewski, Gary :

Staegemann, Ronald Banner, Shira :

Cohen, Luigi Adamo, Lauren Dolaway, :

Sylvester Mendoza, Christopher Clay, :

Kristen Kammerer, Irving Scolnick, :

Caroline Lederman, Michael Hertz, :

Mary Ellen Byrne, Christopher Meffe, :

Jerry DeSiderato, Felix Korostin, John :

Hyson, Thomas Modafferi, Eugenio :

Boldrini, Sean Logue, Rina Kaplan, :

David Blumenfeld, Tapas Tejura, :

Thomas Murry, Lauren Aquino, Justin :

Mathews, Andry Oei, Ariel Jaduszuwer, :

Neelam Bhalakia, Stratton Lee, Zachary :

Berman, Lei Ju, Mian Jan, Daniel :

Levine, Adam Solow, Enrico Pagnanelli,:

Tuu Thampy, Marie Carroll, Jeffrey :

Rubin, Bin Meng, David Esola, Elena :

Bernardis, David Ackers, Lynn :

Rothman, Alan Herbert, David Waxman,:

Carolyn Gregory, Scott Rosenberg, :

Ajit Singh, Patricia Wong, Jeff Lazinger,:

Bartholomew Omalley, 111 S 15th St :

Associates, William Hammill, Daniel :

Spitzen, Costandi Awadalla, Michael :

Canino, Arthur Bachman, George Audi, :

Meredith Shapiro, Valsa Jacob, Farrah :
Awadalla, Jeremiah Eagan, Constantinos:

Ketonis, Michael Field, Peter Shulman, :

Gilberto Pereira, Garrett Miller, Carolyn :

Prager, Pushkar Murthy, Melissa :

Sigmond, Victoria Chen, Steven Appel, :

Siham Abarkan, Lance Moore, Georges :

Bandlec, Hsu-Nan Huang, Mitchell :

Kent, Rainer Westphal Trust, Caitlin :

Cantor, David Kwasny, Jacob Lazinger, :

John Wynn, R N Jwalamalini :

Kumaraiah, Laura Levenberg, Keerthi :

Gogineni, Anne Connelly, Arthur :

Armstrong, Edward English, Luv Ram :

Javia, Richard Gorniak, Stephanie :

Spaeder, Gary Grunder, Andrzei :

Cetnarski, Chaim Ouziel, Julie Terrana, :

Nevena Simidjiysha, Adam Telem, :

Stephen Lowe, Andrew Rosen and :

Mahbod Mohazzebi, :

Appellants :

:

v. : No. 1824 C.D. 2019

:

From the Decision of the Philadelphia :

Board of Revision of Taxes :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 19th day of April, 2021, the order of the Court of Common 

Pleas of Philadelphia County, dated October 28, 2019, is hereby AFFIRMED.

P. KEVIN BROBSON, President Judge