A Comprehensive Model of Determinants of Property Tax Assessment Quality: Evidence in New York State

Abstract

TAE HO EOMThis study proposes and examines a comprehensive model for the determinants of property tax assessment quality. In addition to providing evidence in support of reform of property tax administration by institutionalizing the full market value standard, a specific revaluation cycle, and county or statewide assessment functions, this study examines the impact of the monitoring pressure of residents on the quality of assessment. The empirical results reveal that the median tax share, the median property value as a share of median income, the ratio of state aid to total expenditures, and the share of adults with college or higher education have significant impacts on the quality of property tax assessment.

A Socioeconomic Analysis of Property Assessment Uniformity: Empirical Evidence on the Role of Policy

“…Neither of these measures, however, reveals the general equity problem of nonuniformity that arises from assessment error . The literature on assessment error employs some measure of the variance in the distribution of sales ratios within an area (e.g., Bowman and Mikesell ; Mikesell ; Lowery ; Bowman and Butcher ; Chicoine and Giertz , ; Bowman and Mikesell ; Eom ; Carroll and Goodman ). To represent the level of appraisal uniformity, the median sales ratio ( R m ) for the jurisdiction is used as the reference point to the sales ratio of individual parcels ( R i ) in calculating the coefficient of dispersion (COD): …”

“…Smith et al () studied 39 Indiana counties in 1999 for determinants of a progressivity assessment bias and included controls for unemployment, poverty, income, and educational attainment alongside numerous housing heterogeneity variables . The effort most similar to this paper is found in Eom (), which included controls for education and income among the other assessment resources and housing market determinants of uniformity among assessing units in New York in a 1992 cross‐section.…”

“…This is particularly relevant to policy discussion, because the assessment process is undertaken for the purpose of maintaining equity, and this analysis can reveal how uniformity changes among these groups for the years between assessments. Most of the literature, like the already discussed works of Smith et al () and Eom (), rely upon cross‐sectional data where uniformity was estimated in periods where jurisdictions did not necessarily undertake a reassessment . In addition to introducing measurement error, the parameters from cross‐sectional data are estimated with the implicit assumption that the heterogeneity between areas was not correlated with the variables of interest.…”

Understanding the Impact of the Property Tax Appeal Process on Assessment Uniformity: Procedures, Structures, and Outcomes

“…Based on previous research concerning property tax review and appeals systems and property tax assessment uniformity, two models have been developed for this study (Paglin & Fogarty, 1972;Geraci & Plourde, 1976;Kochin & Parks, 1984;Giertz & Chicoine, 1990;Eom, 2008;Weber & McMillen, 2006;Plummer, 2010;Doerner, 2012).…”

“…Many researchers (Paglin & Fogarty, 1972;Geraci & Plourde, 1976;Kochin & Parks, 1984;Giertz & Chicoine, 1990;Eom, 2008) have examined the determinants of uniformity in property tax administration. However, the research has largely focused on the administrative and organizational factors that influence property tax uniformity in terms of the specific activities of the assessor's office.…”