A FEW EXAMPLES of the significant tax savings we have secured for our clients include the following:
Corporate Headquarters Case
In one of the first instances of a major assessment reduction affecting a corporate headquarters building, GLG effectively proved that current market conditions adversely affected the valuation of a corporate headquarters building. Through the use of both market and engineering studies, the assessment reduction resulted in a tax savings of more than one million dollars.
BASF v. MT. Olive
In the largest Tax Court settlement in recent years, Garippa, Lotz & Giannuario secured a 9 million dollar refund on a large city brewery. We successfully argued the reduction utilizing the market approach, while emphasizing the obsolescence factors that buyers take into account when purchasing these properties.
Anheuser Busch v. Newark, NJ
In a significant case of first impression, the taxing jurisdiction attempted to set aside a settlement with the taxpayers because a purported sale was consummated at millions of dollars over the settlement after an agreement in principle had been reached. While the settlement documents had not been signed, both parties had agreed to the settlement. GLG convinced the court that the sale of the property was not a proper indication of value and did not reflect market practices. The sale involved a 1031 transaction and synthetic lease. GLG also successfully argued that the sale was well after the valuation date in question. Under these circumstances, the court agreed with GLG and upheld the settlement.
ATT v. Morris Township, NJ
In the appeal of a chemical plant located in Perth Amboy, New Jersey, the Court agreed with the theory presented by GL& G with regard to the deduction in value attributable to environmental contamination and the associated costs for remediation. This is the first time that a court in the state has awarded a taxpayer a reduction in their assessment for environmental contamination and the associated costs.
WITCO Corp. v. City of Perth Amboy
A more than $5 million tax refund was obtained for a large oil refinery client. The case established a precedent for using the market approach to value a "special purpose" property.
Coastal Oil v. West Deptford, New Jersey
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled on behalf of our brewery client resulting in a $24 million reduction in market value assessment. The Court agreed with our argument that it was impermissible to use a "value in use "standard in assessing the value of "special purpose" property. The tax refund secured in this case was in excess of $3.5 million.
Stroh Brewery v. Lehigh County, Pennsylvania
We appealed a $1 billion property tax assessment on a Westinghouse trash to steam plant. While the plant was new, we argued that the taxing authority substantially overstated the property’s fair market value due to economic obsolescence caused by overbuilding in the industry. The result was a $965 million reduction in the assessment.
Westinghouse v. Chester, Pennsylvania
Our client owned an electrical generating facility that had been assessed at $1.8 billion based on its sale for that amount. In trial we raised three arguments in opposition to the assessment:
- The sale contained a number of business value issues, i.e., the assets in question were "intangibles," not subject to real property assessment.
- The sale contained machinery and equipment that are not subject to real property assessment.
- The property exhibited substantial amounts of depreciation and obsolescence.
Following a successful decision at trial, we settled the case at a fair market value of $42 million, a reduction of over $1.7 billion. This represented one of the largest reductions ever achieved in assessment litigation.
Edison Mission Energy v. Indiana County, Pennsylvania
In the case of a large waterfront development project, an initial assessment was levied against the taxpayer in excess of $880 million. We raised issues relating to highest and best use and market absorption, which resulted in a settlement following trial, reducing the assessment to $120 million, a reduction in excess of $750 million.
Newport Development v. Jersey City, New Jersey