Opinion ID: 1349359
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Case Number 34423Stone Brooke

Text: In Case Number 34423, the appellant herein and petitioner below, Stone Brooke Limited Partnership (hereinafter Stone Brooke), challenged its ad valorem property tax assessments for tax year 2006. The Assessor of Brooke County, Phyllis Sisinni (hereinafter Brooke County Assessor), used the cost approach [1] to value Stone Brooke's property at $1,784,100.00. After Stone Brooke challenged this assessment, the Brooke County Assessor asked the State Tax Commissioner (hereinafter the Commissioner) [2] to value the property. The Commissioner employed an income approach and valued Stone Brooke's property at $1,971,000.00; this valuation relied upon the actual, restricted rents charged by Stone Brooke, rather than the market, unrestricted rents, and includes the value of the Low Income Housing Tax Credits (hereinafter LIHTC or tax credits) that were allocated to Stone Brooke's property. During proceedings before the Brooke County Board of Equalization and Review (hereinafter Brooke County Board), Stone Brooke offered its own appraiser's valuation of its property in the amount of $1,159,000; this calculation used Stone Brooke's actual, restricted rents and excluded the value of the tax credits. The Brooke County Board adopted the Assessor's valuation of $1,784,100.00, and Stone Brooke appealed this decision to the Circuit Court of Brooke County. By order entered January 28, 2008, the circuit court concluded that the assessing officer is vested with discretion to select the most accurate appraisal method and that the Brooke County Assessor had not abused her discretion in valuing Stone Brooke's property. Accordingly, the circuit court affirmed the Brooke County Board's decision. From this ruling, Stone Brooke appeals to this Court.