Opinion
September 30, 1948.
November 8, 1948.
Taxation — Assessment — Evidence — Appellate review.
In a tax assessment case, it was Held that plaintiff's appeal from the assessment of its real estate was properly dismissed.
Before MAXEY, C. J., DREW, LINN, STERN, PATTERSON, STEARNE and JONES, JJ.
Appeal, No. 132, March T., 1948, from order of Common Pleas, Allegheny Co., July T., 1946, No. 1737, in re Appeal of Fisher Scientific Company, from Assessment of the Board of Property Assessment, Appeals and Review of Allegheny Co. Order affirmed.
Appeal from assessment of real estate.
The facts are stated in the opinion, by SOFFEL, J., of the court below, ELLENBOGEN, SOFFEL, and ADAMS, JJ., as follows:
The Fisher Scientific Company owns certain property located in the First Ward of the City of Pittsburgh, County of Allegheny and State of Pennsylvania. The property is located on the northerly side of Forbes Street between Boyd and Hooper Streets, starting approximately 200 feet east of Boyd Street and extending from Forbes Street back to Watson Street. The buildings located on said property are known as 711-15-17 and 719-21-23 Forbes Street. The Board of Property Assessment, Appeals and Review of Allegheny County assessed said land and buildings for the triennial 1945-46-47 as follows:
Lot 67.5 avg. 92.12 rr Forbes St. bet Boyd Hooper, $28,000. Lot 20.5 x 43.5 Forbes St. bet Boyd Hooper St., $6,785. Lot 22.5 x avg. 108 Forbes St. to Watson, $12,425. Lot 20.5 x 68.5 Watson St. bet Hooper Boyd, $3,530. Lot 20.03 x 112 Forbes St. bet Boyd Hooper Sts., $11,365. Lot 3 x 112 Forbes St., $1,650. Lot 137 x 112 tract purchased from Penna. R. R., $71,450. 6 sty brk factor whse 711-15-17, $60,000. 6 sty stl fra brk enclosed off whse 719-21-23, $95,000. (The latter not being under appeal.)
On November 3, 1944 the Fisher Scientific Company appealed and a hearing was held January 17, 1946. On April 29, 1946 the Board of Property Assessment, Appeals and Review notified the Fisher Scientific Company that the following reductions had been made in the assessment:
Land: Reduced from $28,000 to $24,870. Land: Reduced from $35,755 to $29,370. Land: Reduced from $71,450 to $63,155. Bldg: Remains as assessed $60,000 $95,000.
The Fisher Scientific Company thereupon appealed from the assessment of the land as stated and also from the assessment of $60,000 on the building known as 711-815 Forbes Street as being unfair, unreasonable and excessive, and not based on the actual value of the property.
The appeal was dismissed and the case now comes before the court en banc on the following exception: The Court erred in dismissing the appeal of the plaintiff.
Mr. Leonard Kane, testifying in behalf of the petitioner, stated that the purchase price of the parcel of land (which included five buildings) which was purchased from the Pennsylvania Railroad in June, 1944 was $26,300.00; that this particular parcel is assessed at $63,155.00, or $175,000.00 an acre, or $4.00 a square foot. This particular district has been zoned as a light industrial district. Mr. Kane further testified that you could buy almost any industrial land in the City of Pittsburgh for $1.00 a square foot. His opinion as to the fair market value of that portion of the assessment appealed from was as follows:
Lot 140.97 x 112 — $2.00 a square foot or $31,600.00. Lot 67.5 avg 92.12 and 66.03 avg 111 — $2.00 a square foot or $27,000.00. 6-story building at 711-15-17 — $43,000.00. Total appraisal on land (3 parcels and 1 building) $101,600.00. Building as a whole — $138,000.00 — $95,000.00 on the new structure and $43,000.00 on the old.
There was additional testimony on the part of Mr. Kane tending to establish the fact that similar property in the same general region was assessed at much less per square foot, and the general assessment was attacked for lack of uniformity.
Mr. Whitehead, testifying in behalf of the Board, stated that the instant assessment is comparable with that of similar properties in the neighborhood; that the assessment of the Brink's Express property is $6.00 a square foot, and not $3.50, as stated by petitioner; that the property adjacent to the Brink's Express, which is used as a parking lot, is assessed at $5.50 a square foot; that the Singer property is assessed at $6.00 a square foot; that the Fisher building is a modern steel and concrete, fireproof structure, with freight and passenger elevators; that the assessment of the building is lower than that of other similar buildings in the neighborhood; that the property owned by the Pennsylvania Railroad in the neighborhood was sold at $.25 a square foot — a ridiculous figure.
Mr. Whitehead was asked on direct examination how he arrived at the assessment and on what the total assessment was based. His testimony was as follows: A. I based it on the surrounding property values, as to land; and comparable building values — reproduction cost less depreciation and so forth on the buildings and land values in accordance with sales that had been held previously in the neighborhood, and comparative values in that area. Q. How does this assessment compare with assessments of similar properties in the neighborhood? A. Well, we have gone into that. This assessment is in at $4.00 a square foot on the land and it is a choice piece of land for the purpose for which it is used. That is, the manufacturing of technical and scientific equipment — very light manufacturing. It has ideal loading facilities. It is a semi-business section on Forbes Street. Right up the street is a nice building that has just been put up, the Allied Electrical Company, a wholesale and retail business. On the rear they do all the loading, and manufacturing and so forth is carried on in the upper floors and by a package chute delivered down to the rear, where they have wonderful access for loading. The first floor is taken up as office space, sales quarters and demonstrations for the public; and in the rear of that, on Watson Street, the Brink's Express, the Singer piece, and the Fidelity Trust Company land all sold far in excess of what we have this piece assessed for.
. . . . . . . . .
A. I can give you a complete and accurate description of this building. We have gone into it very carefully. The ages, Section A, was built in 1915; Section B in 1912; and Section C, in 1906. They contain 540,480 cubic feet. 34,353 square feet of gross area. Building D is 605,752 cubic feet. It was built in 1936 and contains 48,935 square feet gross. The foundations of these buildings are concrete, except in the rear, and they are brick. The walls are brick, with ornamental trim. Sections A, B and C, which would be classed one building, have heavy brick walls clear to the height of the building. Section D, the newer section, is steel frame, steel beams and so forth with concrete floors or reinforced concrete. They have fireproof stairs, steel and concrete. The roof is fireproof slab. The entire job is fireproof. Plastering over the entire first floor. The entire first floor was recently remodeled; and the old sections, A, B, C, and D, was remodeled two years ago. All stairs are finished cement except the first floor which is covered with wood. It has steam heat radiators in unit heaters. The structure has a No. 1 Westinghouse passenger electric elevator, capacity 1800 pounds; a No. 2 Otis freight elevator, capacity 3500 pounds, a No. 3 freight, capacity 3,000; and another Otis freight elevator, capacity 4500 pounds. The building is also equipped with two automatic package lowerators. As I said at first, they deliver the packages to the trucks in the rear. I even have the toilet facilities. Q. Are the sections of this building connected? A. Yes. One opens right into the other. . . .:Q. Did you assess this building in sections or as a whole? A. It is assessed as a whole. We had to break it down as to sections. Of course, it has various ages.
Mr. Whitehead testified further that the properties sold by the Pennsylvania Railroad were sold at a ridiculously low figure — some of it $.25 and $.50 a foot; that the Pennsylvania Railroad had intended to use this particular land for future development, and that when the plans did not materialize the Railroad Company sold the property at public sale at a very low figure. He further testified that where there had been resales of the Pennsylvania Railroad properties the prices had been much higher. Because of the special circumstances surrounding the sale of the Pennsylvania Railroad property, Mr. Whitehead said it could not be considered in assessing particular properties for tax purposes. He further testified that the Fisher Scientific plant is a perfect set-up for the business in which it is engaged; that there is nothing better for light industrial manufacturing; that it has two elevations, and that the freight can be loaded at the rear of the building at the Watson Street entrance.
After examining the record in its entirety and consideration of the arguments and briefs of counsel, we are of the opinion that the exception should be dismissed.
Property owner appealed.
Louis Rosenfield, with him Alexander Cooper, for appellant.
James M. Guffey, Assistant County Solicitor, with him Nathaniel K. Beck, County Solicitor and Edward G. Bothwell, First Assistant County Solicitor, for appellee.
The order of the court below is affirmed on the opinion of Judge SOFFEL. Appellant will pay the costs.