Case Name: Crescent Realty & Investment Company Tax Assessment Case
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1967-09-26
Citations: 426 Pa. 575
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 4
Parties: Crescent Realty & Investment Company Tax Assessment Case.
Judges: Before Bell, C. J., Musmanno, Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O’Brien and Roberts, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 426
Pages: 575–576

Head Matter:
Crescent Realty & Investment Company Tax Assessment Case.
Argued November 28, 1966.
Before Bell, C. J., Musmanno, Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O’Brien and Roberts, JJ.
reargument refused October 25, 1967.
Maurice Louik, County Solicitor, with him James Victor Voss and John F. Murphy, Assistant County Solicitors, and Francis A. Barry, First Assistant County Solicitor, for Board, appellant.
Niles Anderson, Solicitor, with him Justin M. Johnson, Assistant Solicitor, for School District of Pittsburgh, intervening appellant.
Leonard M. Mendelson, for appellee.
September 26, 1967:

Opinion:
Opinion by
Mb. Justice Cohen,
This is an appeal by the Board of Property Assessment, Appeals and Review of Allegheny County (Board) from a decision regarding the proper assessment of property owned by Crescent Realty & Investment Company for the triennium 1960, 1961 and Í962. In this case the issues are similar to those presented in the appeal of the Board in the 'case of property owned by Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company decided this day except that (1) an earlier tri-' ennium is involved and (2) no testimony regarding fair market value was offered by the Board.
The assessment here was $140,225; the taxpayer's two expert witnesses testified to a fair market value of $100,000 and $95,400; and the court below found the fair market value to be $100,000. It then reduced this figure to an assessment of $42,000 by application of the common level ratio of assessed value to market value found by Dr. Raymond Richman for the triennium beginning in 1960 of 42%.
The principles set forth in the Massachusetts Mutual case are equally applicable here. The order of the court below is affirmed.
Mr. Justice Eagen dissents.