Gurvich v. Bd. of Prop. Assessment Appeals & Review of Allegheny Cnty

1

Victor Gurvich, Appellant v. Board of Property Assessment Appeals and Review of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania

No. 717 C.D. 2022

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

August 3, 2023

OPINION NOT REPORTED

Submitted: April 6, 2023

BEFORE: HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, President Judge, HONORABLE CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge, HONORABLE LORI A. DUMAS, Judge

MEMORANDUM OPINION

CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, JUDGE

Victor Gurvich (Gurvich), pro se, appeals from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County (trial court) that rejected Gurvich's challenges to the tax reassessment of his real property. Gurvich asserts that the decision of the Board of Property Assessment Appeals and Review of Allegheny County (Board) increasing the assessed value of his property following his 2019 purchase of the property, without also increasing the assessments of his neighbors' properties violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment^[1] of the United States Constitution and the Uniformity Clause of the Pennsylvania Constitution^[2] and discriminated against him based on his Russian national origin in violation of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act.^[3] Upon review, we affirm the trial court's order.

I. Background

In 2019, Gurvich purchased real property in Shaler Township, Allegheny County (County), for $245,000.00. Original Record (O.R.), Item #11 at 1. In the County's 2013 countywide reassessment, using 2012 as the base year^[4] for valuations, the property had been assessed at $164,300.00. Id. The Shaler Area School District (School District) appealed that assessment after Gurvich purchased the property. Following a hearing, the Board assigned a new assessed value of $211,200.00, calculated by applying the County's then-current common level ratio (CLR)^[5] of 86.2% to Gurvich's purchase price. Id.; O.R., Item #8 at 3.

Gurvich challenged the reassessment before the Board, which transferred the matter to the trial court. O.R., Item #11 at 1-2. Gurvich argued that his property's reassessment was not uniform with those of surrounding properties because those properties were still assessed at their 2012 base year values while Gurvich's property alone had been subjected to reassessment.^[6] Id. at 2. Gurvich also argued that the reassessment discriminated against him because he was born in Russia. Id.

After a hearing, the trial court issued a memorandum and order on March 15, 2022. O.R., Items #11 & #12. The trial court rejected Gurvich's uniformity challenge, finding that applying the CLR to the sale price was "the most fair method of reassessing the property . . . ." Id., Item #11 at 4. The trial court also rejected Gurvich's discrimination claim, finding that such a claim was better left to the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission (PHRC)^[7] and that, in any event, Gurvich failed to show any discrimination. Id. at 2-4.

Gurvich appealed the trial court's decision to this Court. The School District moved to quash the appeal, asserting that the trial court's order was interlocutory because the trial court had not made a final determination of the correct reassessed value. By order dated June 1, 2022, this Court remanded the matter to the trial court for further proceedings. Gurvich v. Gd. Of Prop Assessment Appeals & Rev. of Allegheny Cnty. (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 323 C.D. 2022, filed June 3, 2022) (per curiam). The trial court held another hearing, after which it issued an order dated June 30, 2022, setting the assessed value of Gurvich's property at $211,000.00 for 2020, $236,250.00 for 2021, and $251,410 for 2022. O.R., Item #20. This appeal by Gurvich followed.^[8]

II. Issues

On appeal,^[9] Gurvich raises several interrelated issues for review, which we reorder, consolidate, and summarize as follows. Gurvich asserts that the Board's reassessment improperly failed to use the 2012 base year assessment for his property and that, as a result, the reassessed value of his property is not uniform with the assessments of his neighbors, in violation of state and federal constitutions. He also maintains that the trial court mischaracterized his reassessment argument as a challenge to the County's entire reassessment system and thereby failed to consider his actual uniformity challenge. In addition, Gurvich reiterates his assertion that the reassessment of his property constituted discrimination based on his national origin.

III. Discussion

At the outset, we observe that Gurvich has not organized the argument section of his brief to correspond to his statement of the questions involved as required by Rule 2119(a) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure, Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a). As a result, this Court has had some difficulty determining which portions of the argument are intended to address which questions for review. In addition, Gurvich has not cited any legal authority in support of any of his arguments as contemplated by Rule 2119(a). Nonetheless, we address Gurvich's arguments to the extent that they are sufficiently developed to allow meaningful appellate review. See Hillside Villas Condo. Ass'n v. Bottaro Dev. Co., 177 A.3d 456, 465 n.9 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018) ("declin[ing] to find waiver of arguments that contain no legal citations but are otherwise sufficiently developed to allow meaningful appellate review").^[10]

A. Uniformity

Gurvich does not present any developed argument challenging either the specific assessed value assigned to his property or the accuracy of the CLR.

Rather, the essence of Gurvich's uniformity argument appears to be simply that increasing the assessed value of his property without also increasing the assessments of surrounding properties was unconstitutional. Gurvich cites no legal authority in support of this assertion. The law is to the contrary.

Section 8855 of the Assessment Law grants a school district or other taxing body "the right to appeal any assessment within its jurisdiction in the same manner, subject to the same procedure and with like effect as if the appeal were taken by a taxable person with respect to the assessment." 53 Pa.C.S. § 8855 (emphasis added). Section 8855 does not restrict the method by which a school district determines which assessments to appeal. Bethlehem Area Sch. Dist. v. Bd. of Revenue Appeals of Northampton Cnty., 225 A.3d 212, 219 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2020).

Nonetheless, in selecting properties for assessment appeals, the school district's methodology must fit within constitutional boundaries. Bethlehem, 225 A.3d at 219. The Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution provides that no state or governmental entity may "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. The Pennsylvania Constitution's Uniformity Clause requires that "[a]ll taxes shall be uniform, upon the same class of subjects, within the territorial limits of the authority levying the tax, and shall be levied and collected under general laws." Pa. Const. art. VIII, § 1.

It is well-settled law that the acts of a governmental entity are presumed constitutional. GM Berkshire Hills LLC v. Berks Cnty. Bd. of Assessment, 257 A.3d 822, 829 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2021), aff'd by an equally divided Court, 290 A.3d 238 (Pa. 2023)^[11] (citing Bethlehem Area, 225 A.3d at 218). Accordingly, a taxpayer asserting a constitutional uniformity challenge to a tax assessment bears the burden of proving that the taxing authority engaged in constitutionally prohibited conduct. GM Berkshire, 257 A.3d at 829 (citing Bethlehem Area, 225 A.3d at 218).

In GM Berkshire, this Court considered issues and arguments closely analogous to those asserted by Gurvich in this matter. The school district in GM Berkshire calculated that whenever the sale price of a property, reduced by the applicable CLR, resulted in a potential assessed value of at least $150,000.00 more than the current assessed value, an assessment appeal would be cost-effective. Id. at 825. The property at issue had recently been sold for millions of dollars more than its then-current assessed value. Id. Accordingly, the school district appealed the assessment. Id.

Like Gurvich here, the property owner in GM Berkshire argued that the school district's choice to appeal the assessments of recently sold properties based on their sales prices violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Pennsylvania Constitution's Uniformity Clause. Id. at 827. The property owner insisted that the school district could not selectively seek reassessment of properties based on their recent sales prices without also appealing the assessments of unsold properties that might be similarly underassessed. Id. The property owner argued that the school district's selective assessment appeals would tax new owners unfairly compared to owners of similar properties that had not recently been sold, and therefore would violate constitutional uniformity requirements. Id.

This Court rejected the property owner's arguments. We specifically explained that assessment appeals based on recent sales prices and use of a monetary threshold to determine the cost-effectiveness of appeals do not violate constitutional principles of uniformity, provided the selection criteria are not based on distinctions in property type or classification, such as appeals limited to commercial properties. GM Berkshire, 257 A.3d at 830-31; see also Valley Forge Towers Apartments N, LP v. Upper Merion Area Sch. Dist., 163 A.3d 962, 978 (Pa. 2017) (explaining that taxing bodies may not select properties for assessment appeals based solely on classifications such "as commercial, apartment complex, single-family residential, industrial, or the like").

The School District here, like that in GM Berkshire, selected...