![]() |
![]() |
|
Home | Forums | Gallery | Webcams | Blogs | YouTube Channel | Classifieds | Register | FAQ | Donate | Members List | Today's Posts | Search |
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
![]() |
#1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Tuftonboro and Sudbury, MA
Posts: 2,403
Thanks: 1,299
Thanked 1,022 Times in 632 Posts
|
![]()
Yes, that's exactly my point. If the owner has "over-improved" the property to the point where it is not marketable, or additional improvements are not longer increasing market value, isn't that his fault? Shouldn't he still pay taxes on the improvements?
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Merrimack and Welch Island
Posts: 4,384
Thanks: 1,355
Thanked 1,629 Times in 1,061 Posts
|
![]()
"Improvements" are only improvements if somebody wants to buy them. (Willing buyer, willing seller) No market, no value, no tax. If I put on an addition, and nobody wants to buy my indoor movie theater, it still has added value in the square footage because it can be used for other purposes.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Tuftonboro and Sudbury, MA
Posts: 2,403
Thanks: 1,299
Thanked 1,022 Times in 632 Posts
|
![]() Quote:
Now let's say you put on a new wing to house a movie theatre. In this case, you have not increased the market value of the home (its already at its cap), but you would still expect an increase in taxes. More reading here. Note that in the case I describe there is a sharp split between the sales comparison approach and the cost approach, both of which are valid. https://www.iaao.org/Media/Pubs/Property_Owner.pdf |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Bookmarks |
|
|