- 16 -
Property), and consequently is not a real property tax, is not
convincing. The first guideline set forth in Rev. Rul. 80-121,
1980-1 C.B. 43, appears to be distilled from Rev. Rul. 73-600,
1973-2 C.B. 47; see also Rev. Rul. 75-558, 1975-2 C.B. 67. Rev.
Rul. 73-600, 1973-2 C.B. 47, addressed the deductibility under
section 164(a)(1) of a "rates tax" paid by a renter stemming from
the renter's occupation or use of real property. In a case
reflecting our approval of the ruling, we held that the rates tax
was not a deductible real property tax under section 164(a)(1).
Waxenberg v. Commissioner, 62 T.C. 594 (1974). In so holding, we
found it decisive that the rates tax was measured by the rental
value of the property, which "appears to value the privilege of
occupying the property rather than the underlying value of the
property itself." Id. at 604.
In sharp contrast, in the instant case, while the taxes were
triggered because of a change in use of the Property, they were
not imposed on the use or occupation of the Property per se.
Unlike the rates tax at issue in Waxenberg v. Commissioner,
supra, and contrary to petitioner's assertion that the taxes were
"imposed upon an act", the rollback taxes were specifically
"imposed on the land". Sec. 23.55, Tex. Tax Code Ann. (West
1992).
An ad valorem tax is one which is imposed on the basis of
the value of the article or thing taxed. Waxenberg v.
Commissioner, supra at 604. The rollback tax, like the tax on
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011