Dick Adams wrote:
- quote -

Yep. It seems that's what's confusing the issue for the Tax
Assessor although I don't know why. I haven't been, nor do I
intend to rent either building in the foreseeable future.

Speaking of confusion, I inadvertantly posted to this thread
yesterday using a different address. -sorry- It's still me
though. I'll try to pay more attention to what I'm doing
from now on.

Port

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

PhantMan[at]nospam.invalid wrote:
- quote -

Ok, now I get it. I spent a little time looking into MS
cases, but found nothing on this precise subject. It's a
pretty esoteric point, and you are unlikely to get an answer
without talking to a local lawyer well versed in real estate
and tax law.

Good luck.

Stu

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

Seth Breidbart wrote:

- quote -

We don't have a "Certificate of Occupancy" here but I think
you're on the right track. I've already used the
"non-habitable" argument with the Tax Assessor to no avail.
If I appeal to the Board of Supervisors, I intend to use
that argument again, and if it goes to court, I'd think it
would carry some weight there. I hope it doesn't go that far
though.

I'm hoping I can find some indisputable legal Cite or
uniform type guidelines somewhere that can settle this issue
for me at the Tax Assessor level. If guidelines don't
exist, I'll be surprised. They certainly are well hidden
though :-(

Port

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

"Stuart A. Bronstein" wrote:

- quote -

No, I'm not disputing the value they've placed on it. The
problem is what rate they're taxing it. A "house" is taxed
at a much higher rate than an "outbuilding" even if their
values are the same.

Thanks for the response though.

Port

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

Dick Adams wrote:

- quote -

Apparently, a tax parcel is whatever the Tax Assessor says
it is. It's just an administrative thing to make things
simpler for him. His problem with my property is that one
house is owner occupied, therefore taxed at one rate. The
other two are not owner occupied, so they're taxed at a much
higher rate. Technically, he could combine the tax parcels
without changing the rate at which each structure is taxed
but it would complicate his system and it wouldn't do me any
good dollarwise. What I'm trying to do is have the two
houses taxed as outbuildings (storage buildings) which is
what I actually use them for. Outbuildings (barn, garage,
guest house, storage, etc), no matter what their value, are
taxed at a much lower rate.

- quote -

I'll try that next, thanks.

Port

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

- quote -

Many localities define a "habitable structure" as one having
a functional toilet/bathroom and functional kitchen. See if
removing the bathroom/kitchen will satisfy the tax assessor.

--
To email me directly, remove CLUTTER.

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

- quote -

I had the property taxes reduced on the last two houses I
purchased based on the price. I got a double reduction on
my current home because the prior owner had been leasing the
basement apartment and that raised the tax rate. In neither
case did I deal directly with the Office of the Tax Assessor,
but went directly to a hearing.

Your case appears to be complicated because the buildings
are separated and could be rented. The "could be rented"
issue was raised at my last reduction hearing. My response
was "Is it the County's policy to tax other homes with
upstairs and downstairs kitchens and bathrooms as apartment
buildings? If it is, some of you may have been underpaying
your property taxes for years."

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

<PortStG[at]nospam.invalid> wrote:

- quote -

Do they have "certificates of occupancy"? (If not, it's
illegal to live in them, therefore they can't be houses. If
so, try getting them revoked first.)

- quote -

That should make it easy to get the C or O revoked.

Seth

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

PortStG[at]nospam.invalid wrote:

- quote -

I don't know Mississippi law, but if it's like the law I'm
familiar with the definition of "house" has nothing to do
with it. The issue is actual value of the property - what
would someone pay you to buy it?

That value won't change with how you use the property, but
how someone else could.

Stu

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

PortStG[at]nospam.invalid wrote:

- quote -

You wrote they "were split off into separate Tax Parcels and
taxed separately." I would be more concerned with "what is
the definition of a tax parcel" and "how to combine tax
parcels."

Also this is more of a real estate law question than a tax
question. I suggest you repost to both misc.legal.moderated
and misc.invest.real-estate.

Dick

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

My home, along with several other structures, are on a 3
acre non-subdivided parcel. Two of the aforementioned
"other structures" were rental houses when the property
belonged to a prior owner and, as such, were split off into
separate Tax Parcels and taxed separately. Since I've owned
the property (6 years), I've used the structures for storage
and not for rental. Even though, from the street, they
still appear to be "houses" at first glance, I'm trying to
convince my Tax Assessor to re-combine the entire 3 acres
and treat the former rental houses as outbuildings, thus
substantially lowering my tax bill. So far I'm getting
nowhere and, unfortunately, haven't been able to find a
specific definition of "house" in the Ad Valorem tax law (my
Tax Assessor doesn't seem to have a definition either, or at
least one he's willing to share).

Other info re the houses, each has its own power meter and I
keep the power turned on for lightning. The other utilities
though, gas and city water/sewer, are not connected.
Neither has a mailbox. Neither has a paved driveway or
designated parking. One has no working bathroom facility,
the sink, the toilet's tank, and the bathtub fixtures have
long since been removed. Both exteriors are well maintained
to keep the neighborhood happy but the interiors would
require substantial repair to make them habitable again.

I'm in MS which, I assume, follows the same or similar
guidelines as other states.

Does anyone here know when a house ceases being a "house"
for Ad Valorem tax purposes and becomes just another
outbuilding?

Thanks in advance,
Port

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >