COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY, JEFFERSON COUNTY PROPERTY VALUATION ADMINISTRATOR v. LHR PARTNERS, LTD.; COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY, KENTUCKY STATE FAIR BOARD; KENTUCKY FAIR EXPOSITION CENTER; AND KENTUCKY BOARD OF TAX APPEALS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED: May 24, 2002; 10:00 a.m.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
C ommonwealth O f K entucky
C ourt O f A ppeals
NO.
2001-CA-001229-MR
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY,
JEFFERSON COUNTY PROPERTY VALUATION
ADMINISTRATOR
v.
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE JUDITH MCDONALD-BURKMAN, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 00-CI-003010
LHR PARTNERS, LTD.; COMMONWEALTH OF
KENTUCKY, KENTUCKY STATE FAIR BOARD;
KENTUCKY FAIR EXPOSITION CENTER; AND
KENTUCKY BOARD OF TAX APPEALS
APPELLEES
OPINION
REVERSING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE:
GUDGEL, CHIEF JUDGE; JOHNSON AND TACKETT, JUDGES.
JOHNSON, JUDGE:
The Commonwealth of Kentucky and the Jefferson
County Property Valuation Administrator have appealed from an
opinion and order entered by the Jefferson Circuit Court on May
23, 2001, which affirmed an order of the Kentucky Board of Tax
Appeals, reducing the tax liability of LHR Partners, Ltd., for
the tax years 1994-1998.
Having concluded that the Board’s
decision was not supported by substantial evidence, since it
failed twice to follow required mathematical formulas, we
reverse.
LHR is the owner of a leasehold interest in the Hyatt
Regency Hotel in Louisville, Jefferson County, Kentucky.
This
first-class, 380-room hotel includes numerous meeting rooms, a
health club, a swimming pool, and two restaurants.
The hotel
facility is situated on a two-acre parcel of land owned by the
Kentucky State Fair Board.
LHR leases the property from the
Commonwealth of Kentucky for the sum of $270,000.00 per year,
plus a percentage of the hotel’s annual gross receipts.1
The
lease will expire at the end of 2007 unless LHR exercises its
option to renew the lease.
It has the right to renew the lease
for two, 10-year periods at a cost of $2,500.00 per renewal.
If
both lease renewal options are exercised, the lease would extend
through 2027.2
Since the Commonwealth of Kentucky owns the land upon
which the hotel is situated, the real property, and all
improvements to the real property, are exempt from taxation.3
However, LHR’s leasehold interest in the hotel is subject to ad
valorem property taxes based on the fair cash value of the
1
LHR has never paid additional rent based on a percentage of
annual gross receipts.
2
At the conclusion of the lease, LHR is required to deliver
the physical structure of the hotel, including all its fixtures
and furnishings, to the Commonwealth in good condition and free
and clear of any liens and encumbrances.
3
See Kentucky Constitution, § 170.
-2-
leasehold.4
The responsibility of assessing the fair cash value
of LHR’s leasehold lies with the Jefferson County PVA.
In 1994, the Jefferson County PVA dramatically
increased the assessed value of LHR’s leasehold interest in the
hotel.
Following standard administrative procedures, LHR
appealed this new assessment to the Jefferson County Board of
Assessment Appeals.
After the Board of Assessment Appeals
affirmed the PVA’s assessment, LHR appealed to the Kentucky Board
of Tax Appeals.
On May 11, 1999, an evidentiary hearing was held before
the Board of Tax Appeals.
The Board heard conflicting testimony
in support of differing assessments from each party’s expert
witness.
LHR’s expert, Lin Bell, applied the income approach
evaluating the leasehold interest.
in
First, Bell totaled the
income generated by the hotel’s various components, including
real property, furniture, fixtures, equipment, and goodwill.
Second, in order to arrive at the fair cash value of LHR’s
leasehold interest, Bell used a 14% discount rate5 to estimate
the present value of this income stream for the remaining years
of the leasehold.
While acknowledging the favorable terms of the
option to renew the lease, Bell testified that it would be
4
See Kentucky Constitution, § 172; Kentucky Revised Statutes
(KRS) 132.195(1).
5
The discount rate was calculated by assuming an 11%
expected rate of return for a potential buyer’s investment, a
1.6% tax base component, and a 1.4% component to reflect expected
increases in income over the remaining term of the lease.
-3-
improper to include in the evaluation a renewal of the lease
which might not occur.
The PVA’s expert, Ron Galloway, used a combination of
three valuation approaches: the cost approach, Bell’s income
approach, and the sales comparison approach.
In light of the
favorable terms of the lease, Galloway assumed that the options
to extend the lease for two, 10-year periods would be exercised.
Additionally, he included the hotel’s income from off-site
catering fees.
The Board of Tax Appeals chose to use Bell’s income
method in setting the fair cash value of the leasehold.
However,
the Board rejected Bell’s 14% discount rate, replacing it with a
12.5% discount rate; and the Board assumed a 20-year extension of
the lease in calculating the value of the leasehold.
The Commonwealth appealed the Board’s order to the
Jefferson Circuit Court.
The Commonwealth claimed the Board
committed two computation errors in calculating the present value
of the hotel’s future income stream.
In support of its claim,
the Commonwealth sought to introduce before the circuit court a
discount rate table from a treatise entitled Capitalization
Theory and Techniques.6
The Commonwealth argued that the table
demonstrates that beginning with the year 1994 the Board
mistakenly applied the second-year discount factor to the hotel’s
first year’s income stream, and that this mistake in turn caused
6
Akerman, Charles B., Capitalization Theory and Techniques
(Appraisal Institute).
-4-
all the succeeding years of the term of the leasehold to be
computed with the wrong discount factor.
Similarly, the
Commonwealth argued that the Board miscalculated the fair cash
value for the years 1995, 1996, 1997 and 1998 by using incorrect
discount factors.
These computation errors for 1995 through 1998
occurred when the Board shortened the length of the leasehold
term by eliminating one year from the leasehold term for each
successive tax year.
Instead of applying the same discount
factor for the first year of each new leasehold term and
decreasing the discount factor each successive year of the
leasehold term, the Board took the highest discount factor off of
the leasehold term for each subsequent tax year.
Instead, the
discount factors should have been the same for each leasehold
term with the exception of the discount factor for the final year
of the previous leasehold term, which would be eliminated.
In
other words, the discount factor used to compute the value of the
leasehold in the second year of the leasehold term for year 1994
was mistakenly used as the discount factor for the first year of
the tax year 1995; the discount factor used in the third year of
the leasehold term for year 1994 was mistakenly used as the
discount factor for the first year of the tax year 1996; the
discount factor used in the fourth year of the leasehold term for
year 1994 was mistakenly used as the discount factor for the
first year of the tax year 1997; and the discount factor used in
the fifth year of the leasehold term for year 1994 was mistakenly
used as the discount factor for the first year of the tax year
-5-
1998.
These alleged errors can best be demonstrated by referring
to the computation table used by the Board:
YEAR
ADJUSTED
NET
INCOME 7
12.5%
DISCOUNT
FACTOR
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2489
2215
3050
3455
3541
3630
3721
3971
4223
4478
4736
4996
5258
5523
5633
5746
5861
5978
6098
6220
6344
6471
6600
6733
6867
7004
7145
7287
7433
7582
7734
7888
8046
8207
0.790123
0.702332
0.624295
0.554929
0.493270
0.438462
0.389744
0.346439
0.307946
0.273730
0.243315
0.216280
0.192249
0.170888
0.151901
0.135023
0.120020
0.106685
0.094831
0.084294
0.074926
0.066603
0.059202
0.052624
0.046777
0.041580
0.036960
0.032853
0.029203
0.025958
0.023074
0.020510
0.018231
0.016205
INDICATED
VALUE
NPV 8
$1,966,616
$1,556,665
$1,904,100
$1,917,280
$1,746,669
$1,591,617
$1,450,237
$1,375,709
$1,300,456
$1,225,763
$1,152,340
$1,080,535
$1,010,845
$ 943,814
$ 855,728
$ 755,860
$ 703,443
$ 637,792
$ 578,264
$ 524,291
$ 475,358
$ 430,993
$ 390,763
$ 354,291
$ 321,225
$ 291,247
$ 264,064
$ 239,416
$ 217,073
$ 196,811
$ 178,444
$ 161,787
$ 146,886
$ 132,993
LESS
GOODWILL
INDICATED
VALUE OF
INCOME
$28,098,175
$26,131,559
$24,575,893
$22,671,794
$20,754,514
$19,007,845
$17,416,228
$15,965,990
$14,590,281
$13,289,825
$12,064,062
$10,911,722
$ 9,831,187
$ 8,820,342
$ 7,876,528
$ 7,020,800
$ 6,244,940
$ 5,541,497
$ 4,903,704
$ 4,325,440
$ 3,801,149
$ 3,325,791
$ 2,894,798
$ 2,504,036
$ 2,149,744
$ 1,828,519
$ 1,537,272
$ 1,273,208
$ 1,033,793
$
816,720
$
619,909
$
441,466
$
279,679
$
132,993
$4,200,000
$4,200,000
$4,200,000
$4,200,000
$4,200,000
$23,898,175
$21,931,559
$20,375,893
$18,471,794
$16,554,514
The Commonwealth’s first claim is that the correct
discount factor for the first year of the leasehold based on a
7
Amounts are in thousands.
8
Net present value.
-6-
12.5% discount rate should be 0.88889 and not 0.790123.
The
Commonwealth’s second claim is that the discount rate of 0.88889
must be used for the first year of each succeeding tax year.
The
Jefferson Circuit Court rejected the Commonwealth’s arguments.
The circuit court stated that it could not take judicial notice
of the discount rate table, and affirmed the order of the Board.
This appeal followed.
When a reviewing court examines the decision of an
administrative agency, the court must determine whether the
agency’s decision is arbitrary.9
“In determining whether an agency’s action
was arbitrary, the reviewing court should
look at three primary factors. The court
should first determine whether the agency
acted within the constraints of its statutory
powers or whether it exceeded them. Second,
the court should examine the agency’s
procedures to see if a party to be affected
by an administrative order was afforded [her]
procedural due process. The individual must
have been given an opportunity to be heard.
Finally, the reviewing court must determine
whether the agency’s action is supported by
substantial evidence. If any of these three
tests are failed, the reviewing court may
find that the agency’s action was arbitrary”
[citations omitted].10
The Commonwealth does not claim that the Board either
exceeded its statutory authority or denied it procedural due
process, but the Commonwealth does claim that the Board’s
9
Commonwealth, Transportation Cabinet v. Cornell, Ky.App.,
796 S.W.2d 591, 594 (1990).
10
Bowling v. Natural Resources & Environmental Protection
Cabinet, Ky.App., 891 S.W.2d 406, 409 (1994)(quoting Cornell,
supra).
-7-
assessments were arbitrary and capricious because they were not
supported by substantial evidence.
The Commonwealth states in
its brief that the Board’s mathematical computations are
“empirically wrong.”
The Commonwealth points out that “there is
absolutely no evidence in the record for the proper mathematical
conversion for a 12.5% discount factor” [emphasis original].
The
Commonwealth also argues that “the failure of the Board to
acknowledge that each successive tax year should be treated as
its own year, . . . is clearly erroneous.”
The Commonwealth
observes that if the year 1995 is viewed separate and apart from
the other years, then it becomes clear that the 1995 year would
be valued by taking “the value of the income stream beginning
January 1, 1995, through 2027.
relevance to this computation.”
The year 1994 would be of no
We agree with the Commonwealth
on both issues.
Substantial evidence has been defined as evidence
“which, when taken alone or in light of all the evidence, has
sufficient probative value to induce conviction in the mind of a
reasonable person.”11
When analyzing whether an administrative
agency decision is supported by substantial evidence, it should
also be noted that the agency is afforded great latitude in
evaluating evidence and in determining the credibility of
witnesses, and although a reviewing court might have come to a
different conclusion had it heard the case de novo, such a
11
Id. (citing Kentucky State Racing Commission v. Fuller,
Ky., 481 S.W.2d 298, 308 (1972); and Blankenship v. Lloyd
Blankenship Coal Co., Inc., Ky., 463 S.W.2d 62 (1970)).
-8-
disagreement does not deprive the agency’s decision of support by
substantial evidence.12
“[T]he possibility of drawing two
inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not prevent an
administrative agency’s finding from being supported by
substantial evidence.”13
Indeed, an administrative agency’s
trier of facts may hear all the evidence and choose the evidence
that he believes.14
However, when an administrative agency’s finding
involves a mathematical error in calculating the discount factor
and an error in applying the discount factor to the term of the
leasehold, that finding is not supported by substantial evidence
and is arbitrary and capricious.
While we decline to take
judicial notice of the specific present value table sought to be
introduced by the Commonwealth, we will take notice of common
mathematical formulas,15 and we will correct obvious mathematical
errors when they are evident.16
The Board applied a discount
factor of 0.790123 in calculating the present value of the
hotel’s projected income stream for the first year of the
12
Id. at 410.
13
Fuller, supra at 307.
14
Bowling, supra at 410 (citing Cornell, supra at 594).
15
See Pattie A. Clay Infirmary Association v. First
Presbyterian Church of Richmond, Ky., 551 S.W.2d 572, 574
(1977)(holding that courts may take judicial notice of facts
which are susceptible to immediate and accurate determination by
resort to readily accessible and indisputable sources).
16
See Penrod v. Penrod, Ky., 489 S.W.2d 524 (1972)(holding
that reviewing court will correct obvious mathematical errors
committed by a trial court).
-9-
leasehold based on a 12.5% discount rate.
Given the 12.5%
discount rate as found by the Board in its ruling, the correct
discount factor for the first year is 0.888889.
Such a fact is
easily verified by consulting any standard present value chart or
by mathematical calculation.17
The discount factor of 0.790123,
17
Assuming a discount factor of 12.5%, the mathematical
calculation for the first year is as follows:
Discount factor =
1
(1 + R)n
R = The discount rate
n = The number of years
DF =
1
(1 + R)n
DF =
1
(1 + 12.5%)1
DF =
1
(1 + .125)1
DF =
1
1.1251
DF =
1
1.125
DF = 0. 888889
SECOND YEAR:
DF = 1
(1 + 1.25)2
DF =
1
1.1252
DF =
1
1.265625
DF = 0.790123
-10-
which was erroneously used by the Board for the first year, is
actually the discount factor to be applied to the income stream
in the second year.
The Board’s error becomes even more obvious
when one considers that LHR’s suggested discount factor for year
one, which employed a more generous 14% discount rate, was
0.877193.
Obviously, since the Board chose a discount rate of
12.5%, a rate less favorable to LHR than the 14% discount rate it
suggested, the discount factor for the first year would have to
be greater than 0.877193, not less.
Furthermore, the same
discount factor for year one of the leasehold term that is used
for tax year 1994, must be used for year one of the remaining
leasehold terms of each additional tax year.
The tax year of
1994 will include the leasehold discounted values for a 34-year
period; 1995, a 33-year period; 1996, a 32-year period; 1997, a
31-year period; and 1998, a 30-year period, respectively.
While
each succeeding year will have one less year included in the term
of the leasehold, the decrease in the length of the term of the
leasehold does not change the starting point of the computation
for each tax year.
The discount rate of 12.5% is the same for
each tax year, and accordingly, the discount factor of 0.88889
must be the same for the first year of each leasehold term for
each tax year.
The one year decrease in the term of the
leasehold is taken off at the end of the present value factor
column, not at the beginning.
The correct computations for the five tax years are as
follows:
-11-
Year
Adjusted
Net
Income
12.5%
Discount
Factor
Indicated
Value
NPV
1994 $2,489,000
0.888889
$2,212,445
1995 $2,215,000
0.790123
0.702332
0.624295
0.554929
$1,965,004
1999 $3,630,000
0.493270
$1,790,570
2000 $3,721,000
0.438462
$1,631,517
2001 $3,971,000
0.389744
$1,547,673
2002 $4,223,000
0.346439
$1,463,012
2003 $4,478,000
0.307946
$1,378,982
2004 $4,736,000
0.273730
$1,296,385
2005 $4,996,000
0.243315
$1,215,602
2006 $5,258,000
0.216280
$1,137,200
2007 $5,523,000
0.192249
$1,061,791
2008 $5,633,000
0.170888
$962,612
2009 $5,746,000
0.151901
$872,823
2010 $5,861,000
0.135023
$791,370
2011 $5,978,000
0.120020
$717,480
2012 $6,098,000
0.106685
$650,565
2013 $6,220,000
0.094831
$589,849
2014 $6,344,000
0.084294
$534,761
2015 $6,471,000
0.074926
$484,846
2016 $6,600,000
0.066603
$439,580
2017 $6,733,000
0.059202
$398,607
2018 $6,867,000
0.052624
$361,369
2019 $7,004,000
0.046777
$327,626
2020 $7,145,000
0.041580
$297,089
2021 $7,287,000
0.036960
$269,328
2022 $7,433,000
0.032853
$244,196
2023 $7,582,000
0.029203
$221,417
2024 $7,734,000
0.025958
$200,759
2025 $7,888,000
0.023074
$182,008
2026 $8,046,000
0.020510
$165,023
2027 $8,207,000
0.018231
$27,410,286
$2,156,939
1998 $3,541,000
$4,200,000
$2,142,113
1997 $3,455,000
Indicated
Value of
Income
$1,750,122
1996 $3,050,000
$149,622
Year
Adjusted
Net
Income
12.5%
Discount
Factor
NPV
$31,610,286
Less
Goodwill
Indicated
Value
-12-
Less
Goodwill
Indicated
Value of
Income
1995
$2,215,000
0.888889
$1,968,889
1996
$3,050,000
0.790123
$2,409,875
1997
$3,455,000
0.702332
$2,426,557
1998
$3,541,000
0.624295
$2,210,629
1999
$3,630,000
0.554929
$1,965,004
2000
$3,721,000
0.493270
$1,835,458
2001
$3,971,000
0.438462
$1,741,133
2002
$4,223,000
0.389744
$1,645,889
2003
$4,478,000
0.346439
$1,551,354
2004
$4,736,000
0.307946
$1,458,432
2005
$4,996,000
0.273730
$1,367,555
2006
$5,258,000
0.243315
$1,279,350
2007
$5,523,000
0.216280
$1,194,514
2008
$5,633,000
0.192249
$1,082,939
2009
$5,746,000
0.170888
$981,922
2010
$5,861,000
0.151901
$890,292
2011
$5,978,000
0.135023
$807,167
2012
$6,098,000
0.120020
$731,882
2013
$6,220,000
0.106685
$663,581
2014
$6,344,000
0.094831
$601,608
2015
$6,471,000
0.084294
$545,466
2016
$6,600,000
0.074926
$494,512
2017
$6,733,000
0.066603
$448,438
2018
$6,867,000
0.059202
$406,540
2019
$7,004,000
0.052624
$368,578
2020
$7,145,000
0.046777
$334,222
2021
$7,287,000
0.041580
$302,993
2022
$7,433,000
0.036960
$274,724
2023
$7,582,000
0.032853
$249,091
2024
$7,734,000
0.029203
$225,856
2025
$7,888,000
0.025958
$204,757
2026
$8,046,000
0.023074
$185,653
2027
$8,207,000
0.020510
$168,326
Year
Adjusted
Net
Income
12.5%
Discount
Factor
$33,023,186
Indicated
Value
NPV
1996
$3,050,000
0.888889
$2,711,111
1997
$3,455,000
0.790123
$2,729,875
1998
$3,541,000
0.702332
$2,486,958
1999
$3,630,000
0.624295
$34,941,151
$2,266,191
-13-
$4,200,000
$28,823,186
Less
Goodwill
Indicated
Value of
Income
$4,200,000
$30,741,151
2000
$3,721,000
0.554929
$2,014,392
2001
$3,971,000
0.493270
$1,958,775
2002
$4,223,000
0.438462
$1,851,625
2003
$4,478,000
0.389744
$1,745,274
2004
$4,736,000
0.346439
$1,640,735
2005
$4,996,000
0.307946
$1,538,498
2006
$5,258,000
0.273730
$1,439,272
2007
$5,523,000
0.243315
$1,343,829
2008
$5,633,000
0.216280
$1,218,305
2009
$5,746,000
0.192249
$1,104,663
2010
$5,861,000
0.170888
$1,001,575
2011
$5,978,000
0.151901
$908,064
2012
$6,098,000
0.135023
$823,370
2013
$6,220,000
0.120020
$746,524
2014
$6,344,000
0.106685
$676,810
2015
$6,471,000
0.094831
$613,651
2016
$6,600,000
0.084294
$556,340
2017
$6,733,000
0.074926
$504,477
2018
$6,867,000
0.066603
$457,363
2019
$7,004,000
0.059202
$414,651
2020
$7,145,000
0.052624
$375,998
2021
$7,287,000
0.046777
$340,864
2022
$7,433,000
0.041580
$309,064
2023
$7,582,000
0.036960
$280,231
2024
$7,734,000
0.032853
$254,085
2025
$7,888,000
0.029203
$230,353
2026
$8,046,000
0.025958
$208,858
2027
$8,207,000
0.023074
$189,368
Year
Adjusted
Net
Income
12.5%
Discount
Factor
1997
$3,455,000
0.888889
$3,071,111
1998
$3,541,000
0.790123
$2,797,826
1999
$3,630,000
0.702332
$2,549,465
2000
$3,721,000
0.624295
$2,323,002
2001
$3,971,000
0.554929
$2,203,623
2002
$4,223,000
0.493270
$2,083,079
2003
$4,478,000
0.438462
$1,963,433
2004
$4,736,000
0.389744
$1,845,828
2005
$4,996,000
0.346439
$1,730,809
2006
$5,258,000
0.307946
$1,619,180
Indicated
Value
NPV
$36,315,606
-14-
Less
Goodwill
$4,200,000
Indicated
Value of
Income
$32,115,606
2007
$5,523,000
0.273730
$1,511,811
2008
$5,633,000
0.243315
$1,370,593
2009
$5,746,000
0.216280
$1,242,745
2010
$5,861,000
0.192249
$1,126,771
2011
$5,978,000
0.170888
$1,021,568
2012
$6,098,000
0.151901
$926,292
2013
$6,220,000
0.135023
$839,843
2014
$6,344,000
0.120020
$761,407
2015
$6,471,000
0.106685
$690,359
2016
$6,600,000
0.094831
$625,885
2017
$6,733,000
0.084294
$567,552
2018
$6,867,000
0.074926
$514,517
2019
$7,004,000
0.066603
$466,487
2020
$7,145,000
0.059202
$422,998
2021
$7,287,000
0.052624
$383,471
2022
$7,433,000
0.046777
$347,693
2023
$7,582,000
0.041580
$315,260
2024
$7,734,000
0.036960
$285,849
2025
$7,888,000
0.032853
$259,144
2026
$8,046,000
0.029203
$234,967
2027
$8,207,000
0.025958
$213,037
Year
Adjusted
Net
Income
12.5%
Discount
Factor
Indicated
Value
NPV
1998
$3,541,000
0.888889
$3,147,556
1999
$3,630,000
0.790123
$2,868,146
2000
$3,721,000
0.702332
$2,613,377
2001
$3,971,000
0.624295
$2,479,075
2002
$4,223,000
0.554929
$2,343,465
2003
$4,478,000
0.493270
$2,208,863
2004
$4,736,000
0.438462
$2,076,556
2005
$4,996,000
0.389744
$1,947,161
2006
$5,258,000
0.346439
$1,821,576
2007
$5,523,000
0.307946
$1,700,786
2008
$5,633,000
0.273730
$1,541,921
2009
$5,746,000
0.243315
$1,398,088
2010
$5,861,000
0.216280
$1,267,617
2011
$5,978,000
0.192249
$37,400,060
$1,149,265
-15-
Less
Goodwill
$4,200,000
Indicated
Value of
Income
$33,200,060
2012
$6,098,000
0.170888
$1,042,075
2013
$6,220,000
0.151901
$944,824
2014
$6,344,000
0.135023
$856,586
2015
$6,471,000
0.120020
$776,649
2016
$6,600,000
0.106685
$704,121
2017
$6,733,000
0.094831
$638,497
2018
$6,867,000
0.084294
$578,847
2019
$7,004,000
0.074926
$524,782
2020
$7,145,000
0.066603
$475,878
2021
$7,287,000
0.059202
$431,405
2022
$7,433,000
0.052624
$391,154
2023
$7,582,000
0.046777
$354,663
2024
$7,734,000
0.041580
$321,580
2025
$7,888,000
0.036960
$291,540
2026
$8,046,000
0.032853
$264,335
2027
$8,207,000
0.029203
$239,669
For the foregoing reasons, the opinion and order of the
Jefferson Circuit Court, which affirmed the order of the Kentucky
Board of Tax Appeals, is reversed.
ALL CONCUR.
BRIEF AND ORAL ARGUMENT FOR
APPELLANT:
BRIEF AND ORAL ARGUMENT FOR
APPELLEE:
Lawrence E. Osterhage
Louisville, Kentucky
Robert L. Ackerson
Louisville, Kentucky
-16-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.